Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 181
06-08-2012, 03:52 AM
the most dangerous thing on the ship are those consoles, most of the crew dies because of them blowing up. One wonders, why after 300 years of exploding computers, they did not manage to come up with a non exploding computer...you like the ones we have now.

but thats a question that should be asked by alexin, not myself...i really just don't care enough
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 182
06-08-2012, 05:07 AM
A random thought on the "battleship" classification.

I seem to remember that in some TOS episodes, the Enterprise was referred to as "Starship", as if this was some kind of class or classification. Maybe Gene (or the writer in question, if not Gene) actually intended to allude to the idea of "Battleship" there, and not just "space ship"?

Could be an interesting twist in ship classification. All the ships we name "Cruisers" should/could be Battleships (Starships in Starfleet parlance since it's not all about war).

It's not as if Gene wasn'T aware of the importance of Aircraft Carriers, but he seemed to decidedly not make the Enterprise some kind of space carrier, but more a ship of the line.

The classification of Battleships with their heavy weapons and heavy armor seems to fit to the Enterprise(s).

[/random thought]
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 183
06-08-2012, 05:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raudl View Post
the most dangerous thing on the ship are those consoles, most of the crew dies because of them blowing up. One wonders, why after 300 years of exploding computers, they did not manage to come up with a non exploding computer...you like the ones we have now.

but thats a question that should be asked by alexin, not myself...i really just don't care enough
On the other hand, they have eliminated the need for toilets as starship bathrooms do not have them.

I'm not sure if being able to hold your poop for years at a time is an ability that makes since, but it is useful... :p
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 184
06-08-2012, 05:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MustrumRidcully View Post
A random thought on the "battleship" classification.

Could be an interesting twist in ship classification. All the ships we name "Cruisers" should/could be Battleships (Starships in Starfleet parlance since it's not all about war).

It's not as if Gene wasn'T aware of the importance of Aircraft Carriers, but he seemed to decidedly not make the Enterprise some kind of space carrier, but more a ship of the line.

The classification of Battleships with their heavy weapons and heavy armor seems to fit to the Enterprise(s).
The classification of "battleship", derived from "line of battle-ship"(to describe the ship's role of sitting in a long line with other similarly armed ships to unleash their broadsides all at once on designated targets), is obsolete. In the final days of sail, "line of battle-ships" were composed of large ships with many guns whose only purpose was to be hauled out to fight in a sea battle. Much of the time they were kept in port due to the monumental cost of maintaining them at sea. Steam and oil powered warships of the largest size leading to WW2 were still called battleships due to tradition, and due to the fact that they still operated in the then-obsolete line of battle with one ship following another to combine firepower. Also battleships of the 20th century were never intended to go out on long duration operations independently of fleet escorts. Nuclear submarines do that now, to the point where they're the cruisers of the modern age.

The term "cruiser" or "cruizer" was first commonly used in the 17th century to refer to an independent ship. "Cruiser" meant the purpose or mission of a ship, rather than a category of vessel - just as "battleship" means the purpose of the ship(to sit in a line of battle and fight), not category. This makes much more sense in trek, no matter how heavily armed the ship is. Cruisers are built to go out and cruise around space for long durations. They also project military power to where it is needed. They don't stand in a line of battle, hence there is no longer a need for the term "battleship". You might as well call them warships and be done with it. And the Federation doesn't build warships.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 185
06-08-2012, 06:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElChup47
More importantly, why are you sitting inside dressed like you are about to rob a bank?
guess some people like to dress as ninja's
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 186
06-08-2012, 06:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forgotten-Nemesis View Post
The classification of "battleship", derived from "line of battle-ship"(to describe the ship's role of sitting in a long line with other similarly armed ships to unleash their broadsides all at once on designated targets), is obsolete. In the final days of sail, "line of battle-ships" were composed of large ships with many guns whose only purpose was to be hauled out to fight in a sea battle. Much of the time they were kept in port due to the monumental cost of maintaining them at sea. Steam and oil powered warships of the largest size leading to WW2 were still called battleships due to tradition, and due to the fact that they still operated in the then-obsolete line of battle with one ship following another to combine firepower. Also battleships of the 20th century were never intended to go out on long duration operations independently of fleet escorts. Nuclear submarines do that now, to the point where they're the cruisers of the modern age.

The term "cruiser" or "cruizer" was first commonly used in the 17th century to refer to an independent ship. "Cruiser" meant the purpose or mission of a ship, rather than a category of vessel - just as "battleship" means the purpose of the ship(to sit in a line of battle and fight), not category. This makes much more sense in trek, no matter how heavily armed the ship is. Cruisers are built to go out and cruise around space for long durations. They also project military power to where it is needed. They don't stand in a line of battle, hence there is no longer a need for the term "battleship". You might as well call them warships and be done with it. And the Federation doesn't build warships.
Well, of course, that's why they call them starships.

But if you say that a fleet would send its Cruisers around the world to do whatever needs to be done for "non-violent power projection" and only sends battleship for direct engagements, then I can see that battleship is not the right term and Cruiser is more fitting.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 187
06-08-2012, 08:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimmera
When first introduced, 'dreadnought' was indeed the top battleship designation and super-dreadnought after that, but the term seemed to be abandoned again by the WWII era. You hear of the 'battleship Yamato' or 'Iowa-class battleships', not the dreadnight Yamato. The famous game is 'battleship,' not 'dreadnought'

And those are still warship designations. Tonnage doesn't make a supertanker a battleship (not even in science fiction)
You are absolutely correct. I was not clear enough, the tonnage determining classification is usually applied ONLY to warships. Of course many of the writers have used that to cause confusion among the characters of the books, an enterprising enemy would use several large merchant cruisers to make their low number of warships look more impressive.

And I was not really speaking to real world designations. While I am positive that real world naval terminology is the primary source for sci-fi naval terminology, I was attempting to offer my thoughts only on the sci-fi aspect.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 188
06-08-2012, 10:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forgotten-Nemesis View Post
The classification of "battleship", derived from "line of battle-ship"(to describe the ship's role of sitting in a long line with other similarly armed ships to unleash their broadsides all at once on designated targets), is obsolete. In the final days of sail, "line of battle-ships" were composed of large ships with many guns whose only purpose was to be hauled out to fight in a sea battle. Much of the time they were kept in port due to the monumental cost of maintaining them at sea. Steam and oil powered warships of the largest size leading to WW2 were still called battleships due to tradition, and due to the fact that they still operated in the then-obsolete line of battle with one ship following another to combine firepower. Also battleships of the 20th century were never intended to go out on long duration operations independently of fleet escorts. Nuclear submarines do that now, to the point where they're the cruisers of the modern age.

The term "cruiser" or "cruizer" was first commonly used in the 17th century to refer to an independent ship. "Cruiser" meant the purpose or mission of a ship, rather than a category of vessel - just as "battleship" means the purpose of the ship(to sit in a line of battle and fight), not category. This makes much more sense in trek, no matter how heavily armed the ship is. Cruisers are built to go out and cruise around space for long durations. They also project military power to where it is needed. They don't stand in a line of battle, hence there is no longer a need for the term "battleship". You might as well call them warships and be done with it. And the Federation doesn't build warships.
Many words and their definitions change over time, sometimes radically. Cruiser is one of those worlds. While it is true that cruisers were originally intended to operate independantly, that became less of a priority as aircraft took over most of the recon duties and later satellites took over most of those duties from aircraft.

Thus Cruiser has ended up more of a size class than specifically its original role.

The Federation didn't officially build warships in Kirk's era, but there are numerous examples of fist contact consisting of 'You are heavily armed, we don't trust you!" "But we have peaceful intent, check our databases", often followed by "Databases can be faked!" and some sort of integrity test.

The Klingons refer to the Enterprise as a Battlecruiser, and it is routinely considered superior 1 on 1 to a D7 (hence there normally being at least 3 whenever anyone managed a standoff.

During Picard's time, the Enterprise was considerably up-gunned. Wars do that. Even on the Galaxy, you don't have a 'battle bridge' on a peacetime vessel. The equivalent on Kirk's ship was the 'auxiliary bridge.' The Sovereign was up-ton'd and up-gunned from the Galaxy.

This kind of arms reduction/escallation has RL historical precident. Between WWI and WWII, there were several treaties put into place limiting tonnage and numbers. Needless to say, that went out the window with WWII....
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 189
06-08-2012, 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tickdoff
You are absolutely correct. I was not clear enough, the tonnage determining classification is usually applied ONLY to warships. Of course many of the writers have used that to cause confusion among the characters of the books, an enterprising enemy would use several large merchant cruisers to make their low number of warships look more impressive.

And I was not really speaking to real world designations. While I am positive that real world naval terminology is the primary source for sci-fi naval terminology, I was attempting to offer my thoughts only on the sci-fi aspect.
Fair enough... it is still the Space 'Battleship' Yamato though, not Space Dreadnought
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 190
06-08-2012, 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimmera
Didn't 'battlecruiser' eventually get applied to pocket battleships such as the Scharnhorst? Are you perhaps thinking of armored cruisers instead?

The Battlecruiser is traditionally a ship in between a battleship and a cruiser, either a faster, ligher battleship or a slower, heavier cruiser depending on your perspective.

I wouldn't say 'most heavy warships' since I am pretty sure the first ironclads were not referred to as battlecruisers.
One of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, was that the German navy could not have any battleships ("Battleship" here meaning heavily armored and armed warship over a certain tonnage as classified by England, France, and the U.S.) So Hitler built Scharhorst, Prince Eugene, and Graf Spee on cruiser tonnage hulls, but armed, and armored them as battleships. Their weight came in just under the provisions the Allies specified. They were in effect, smaller Battleships, so the English coined the term "Pocket Battleship". Once the jig was up, and Hitler no longer cared for the treaty, they produced Bismarck, and her sister Tirpitz. Though they were all technically battleships, Hitler, fearing the English navy, never used them as such, prefering instead to use them as commerce raiders, even though Bismarck and Tirpitz were the most advanced ships of their time. Also, the age of the "big gun" battleship was coming to a close, as generals realized the advantages of air superiority.

Not really, you've been misinformed. As I stated "Battlecruisers" were the largest class of capital ship before the evolution of the Dreadnaught. (Battlecruiser, Cruiser, Destroyer, Corvette/Escort, Frigate) The term may have hung around in the Royal navy and have been used interchangeably with Heavy Cruiser (a warship whose main battery is comparable to a battleship, but does not possess the armored "belt", and deck, of a true battleship) through the end of WWII, but the U.S. navy hasn't had battlecruisers since Teddy Roosevelt's "Great White Fleet". Although, curiously, they still retain the CC designation for Battlecruiser.

You're correct. the first 'ironclads" were called just that, "ironclads". The capital ships of their time were called "Ships of the Line", and rated first rate (largest) through fifth rate (least) according to number of cannon. HMS Victory was a first rate, Ship of the Line, having 5 gundecks.

C.S.S. Merrimac was constructed on a wooden cruiser hull, while U.S.S Monitor, a true "ironclad", built from the ground up, with a revolving turret, could be considered the "Dreadnaught" of it's time, as long as you didn't take it out to open sea, due to it's low freeboard. It actually became the progenitor of it's own class of coastal warship, and later "Coastal Battleship".
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:21 PM.