Posted by: GreyStar
« on: May 07, 2017, 08:46:57 PM »And it does not matter.
Posted by: HobbesHurlbut
« on: May 07, 2017, 06:33:58 PM »Sorry dude, that isn't official canon. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon#2014_reboot
::trollface::
::trollface::
Posted by: GreyStar
« on: May 07, 2017, 01:42:41 PM »Sorry but Praetor is Legends while Resurgent is OFFICIAL, "real" canon. I mean wow such "strong" logic you have there.
Skip to 3:53 since the forum won't let me un link the video.
Replace feelings with canon.
And ignore everything after Kota shows up.
Posted by: tlmiller
« on: May 07, 2017, 11:37:59 AM »The Praetor would easily win, because the Resurgent doesn't exist in real canon. So if a real ship fights an imaginary fanon ship the real ship would obviously win.
I support this supposition.
Posted by: HobbesHurlbut
« on: May 07, 2017, 11:25:28 AM »The Praetor would easily win, because the Resurgent doesn't exist in real canon. So if a real ship fights an imaginary fanon ship the real ship would obviously win.Sorry but Praetor is Legends while Resurgent is OFFICIAL, "real" canon. I mean wow such "strong" logic you have there.
Posted by: kucsidave
« on: May 07, 2017, 10:39:00 AM »OMG! YOU ARE RIGHT!
HOW COULD I HAVE MISSED THIS?Ű
Edit: Sorry, didn't notice caps lock was on...
HOW COULD I HAVE MISSED THIS?Ű
Edit: Sorry, didn't notice caps lock was on...
Posted by: Revanchist
« on: May 07, 2017, 10:37:57 AM »The Praetor would easily win, because the Resurgent doesn't exist in real canon. So if a real ship fights an imaginary fanon ship the real ship would obviously win.
Posted by: Pali
« on: May 07, 2017, 09:48:17 AM »Okay bad example well lets look at the Zumwalt class destroyer it displaces 14k tons, it could easily take out a battleship. My point is size doesn't really matter in terms of combat power
Go through the trouble of equipping a WWII-era battleship with modern engines, reactors, radar, and weapons (or go the cheaper route and just build a modern BB) and I would happily place money on it defeating a Zumwalt. It'll have far more space to maintain anti-missile weaponry for self-defense, and could overwhelm a Zumwalt's defenses with its own missile barrages. Now, could one take on, say, four Zumwalts acting in concert - effectively its mass in Zumwalts? I doubt it.
What a modern battleship would not be is cost-effective for nearly all modern missions, which is the actual reason we don't build them - if we're going to sink that much money and resources into a ship, we may as well just crank out another super-carrier. We don't even build proper cruisers anymore, because destroyers and smaller ships serve just fine as missile platforms to support and defend carriers. Edit: and Star Wars tech has definitively NOT followed this development pattern, instead remaining WWII-inspired.
Star Wars tech may have advanced between VI and VII, but it doesn't seem to have gone through anything close to the multiple generation changes in technology we have in the last seventy years - they may be using better turbolasers and shields, but then again, they may not given how static technology is in the Star Wars universe. I say this remains an unfair comparison.
Posted by: kucsidave
« on: May 07, 2017, 08:28:49 AM »Between Praetor and Resurgent I would say Resurgent for sure.
Even if they would have the exact same size, weapon number and fighter number the resurgent would still win.
Reason?
IT IS NEWER!
Technology advances, meaning that even if they have the same number of weapons, the Resurgent which is newer, must have either a reload time, or damage advantage. Or maybe it has better cooling therefore it's salvos can last longer.
In fighters too. We know that the FO used TIEs with shields, so that is also a win for the FO. Even if the numbers are smaller, but they are still as manuverable if not even more so than the imperial counterparts, and even if an imperial gets lucky and hits it, the shield will protect the craft
no matter how we look at it, FO wins.
Even if they would have the exact same size, weapon number and fighter number the resurgent would still win.
Reason?
IT IS NEWER!
Technology advances, meaning that even if they have the same number of weapons, the Resurgent which is newer, must have either a reload time, or damage advantage. Or maybe it has better cooling therefore it's salvos can last longer.
In fighters too. We know that the FO used TIEs with shields, so that is also a win for the FO. Even if the numbers are smaller, but they are still as manuverable if not even more so than the imperial counterparts, and even if an imperial gets lucky and hits it, the shield will protect the craft
no matter how we look at it, FO wins.
Posted by: HobbesHurlbut
« on: May 07, 2017, 08:22:31 AM »Okay bad example well lets look at the Zumwalt class destroyer it displaces 14k tons, it could easily take out a battleship. My point is size doesn't really matter in terms of combat powerAnd the Treaty cruisers used to be capped at 10k tonnage.
Posted by: Mr.Puerto
« on: May 06, 2017, 09:23:37 PM »Um....Iowa was one of the biggest battleships in the 40s. And the London Naval Conference and Washington Naval Treaties in the InterWar peroid limited new battleships to 35k tonnages... your amphibious carriers happen to rival or outweigh almost all of the Treaty Battleships....Okay bad example well lets look at the Zumwalt class destroyer it displaces 14k tons, it could easily take out a battleship. My point is size doesn't really matter in terms of combat power
Posted by: HobbesHurlbut
« on: May 06, 2017, 06:10:53 PM »I didn't expand on the battleship thing, but yeah some carriers can be smaller than battleships. But have much more power than a battleship because like you said the range, and Airplanes can be designed to have way more uses than a couple huge turrets.Um....Iowa was one of the biggest battleships in the 40s. And the London Naval Conference and Washington Naval Treaties in the InterWar peroid limited new battleships to 35k tonnages... your amphibious carriers happen to rival or outweigh almost all of the Treaty Battleships....
The newest amphibious assault ships which are technically classified as carriers displace around 46K tons so smaller than those battleships. The French Carrier called the Charles de Gaulle displaces a similar amount.
Posted by: Mr.Puerto
« on: May 06, 2017, 05:43:43 PM »Looks at USS Iowa's Displacement (57k tonnage) and then looks at Nimitz's Displacement (+100k tonnages)*.
Er the battleship "disappeared" because
1. At the time (40s-50s), it was very manpower intensive and well....very capital investment-intensive (why only major nations ever built them, though a few minor powers purchased them in the Age of Steel Warships (1890s-1940s)
2. the Carrier eclipsed it....and the battleship could not damage it in return (thank airplanes for your long reach!) is the major reason
I didn't expand on the battleship thing, but yeah some carriers can be smaller than battleships. But have much more power than a battleship because like you said the range, and Airplanes can be designed to have way more uses than a couple huge turrets.
The newest amphibious assault ships which are technically classified as carriers displace around 46K tons so smaller than those battleships. The French Carrier called the Charles de Gaulle displaces a similar amount.
Posted by: HobbesHurlbut
« on: May 06, 2017, 04:43:21 PM »See there was a great project called the Death Star that used get this kyber crystals! Anyway sarcasm aside size doesn't really mean power, if you look at modern Navies that's why no one uses battleships anymore. They're way too big and not needed since they wouldn't be useful in modern naval warfare.Looks at USS Iowa's Displacement (57k tonnage) and then looks at Nimitz's Displacement (+100k tonnages)*.
Even going back to the interwar period you had the Washington Naval Treaty between the US, UK, and Japan limiting the size of ships to prevent a "Naval Arms Race." This had the opposite affect and made it so smaller ships had a lot more firepower than before.
So its completely in the realm of possibilities that a smaller ship could have the power of a SSD given the proper upgrades
Er the battleship "disappeared" because
1. At the time (40s-50s), it was very manpower intensive and well....very capital investment-intensive (why only major nations ever built them, though a few minor powers purchased them in the Age of Steel Warships (1890s-1940s)
2. the Carrier eclipsed it....and the battleship could not damage it in return (thank airplanes for your long reach!) is the major reason
Posted by: Mr.Puerto
« on: May 06, 2017, 03:36:13 PM »It's not a question of whether or not a fictional character would approve, it's a question of scale. I have a hard time believing that a kyver crystal reactor upgrade could take a ship that's 1/6th of the Executor's size and give equivlant firepower.
See there was a great project called the Death Star that used get this kyber crystals! Anyway sarcasm aside size doesn't really mean power, if you look at modern Navies that's why no one uses battleships anymore. They're way too big and not needed since they wouldn't be useful in modern naval warfare.
Even going back to the interwar period you had the Washington Naval Treaty between the US, UK, and Japan limiting the size of ships to prevent a "Naval Arms Race." This had the opposite affect and made it so smaller ships had a lot more firepower than before.
So its completely in the realm of possibilities that a smaller ship could have the power of a SSD given the proper upgrades