|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: SC myths... (Read 12973 times)
|
|
|
pendell
Zebranky food
 Offline
Posts: 17
|
3 thoughts:
1) Why would the Precursors build weapons?
Why not for the same reason humans build weapons -- to fight brutal civil wars over resources, over religion, over revenge, or even just for fun.
There's no reason why a galaxy-spanning race shouldn't fragment into factions and then spend their time gleefully blowing each other up for the Greater Glory of [your cause here]. Even if they were all-in-all a peaceful species, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be pirates or outlaw factions which would require warships to put down, and weapons on civilian craft to defend against.
Another possibility is that the Precursors had trans-dimensional capability -- witness the fate of the Androsynth experimenting with Precursor relics on Alpha Lalande. They may have had to cope with extra-dimensional threats such as the Orz, if they went exploring other dimensions with any frequency.
2. Where is it stated that the Mark II is a battlecruiser?
3. This is a petty peeve of mine -- WHY is it called a battlecruiser and not a battleship?
Small history lesson here -- during the late 19th century Battlecruisers were the brain child of Admiral Fisher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Sir_John_Fisher). The problem he faced was that cruisers (the primary weapon of the French, who were preparing for a commerce raiding war vs. England) could outrun the powerful British battleships that could stop them, but could put up an even fight against fellow cruisers.
The solution was the battlecruiser -- a battleship stripped of most of it's armor to give it speed comparable to a cruiser, while still retaining the armament that would allow it to outmatch those ships. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlecruiser)
The only problem was that people kept trying to use them in line-of-battle against real battleships -- where they subsequently were destroyed because "speed" isn't actually that useful against supersonic shells, and their lack of armor resulted in some true catastrophes, such as that experienced by HMS Hood when fighting the Bismarck. It was literally blown to bits. The same thing happened to battlecruisers at the Battle of Jutland -- HMS Invincible, Queen Mary and Indefatigable were also all blown to bits. Not a single battleship on either side was sunk at all.
So ... the battlecruiser was a bad idea, an unworkable hybrid of two opposing concepts. I have a hard time believing the Precursors would still be using such an idea.
Therefore "battlecruiser" is probably a mis-used term for the Mark II.
If it is a capital ship whose purpose in life is destroying other large capital ships, it is a "battleship".
If it is a fast raiding vessel designed to scout and explore in peacetime, and in wartime to use speed to hit merchant traffic than run away before the BigShips show up, it is a "cruiser".
Yeah, yeah. I know Star Trek started it by using the word "Battlecruiser" for Klingon warships, and everyone follows their lead. Still a pet peeve of mine. Sorry. Rant over.
Respectfully,
Brian P.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Holocat
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 84
|
Yes, in our world it's FF(frigate) DD(destroyer) CA(cruiser) and BB(battleship), with BB being the front line... supposedly.
It could be argued that there were not a whole lot of BB losses because during both wars they were conserved, horded for some enormous and decisive campaign where they would be needed. It never occured, perhaps because everyone continually held them back.
I can't agree that a battlecruiser is a failed idea, they just aren't battleships. The Hood was blown to bits not because it lacked all armour, it just lacked the armour it needed. If it was belt armour that was deficient rather than deck armour, perhaps it would have fared better. This is, of course, just naval gazing. By this time the era of the long gun ship was well on its way to obsolescence, the aircraft carrier becoming the decisive tool. They were nice to see but were no longer the decisive tools of war they may have been.
The world Battlecruiser I would say has become the popular and interchangable replacement for battleship, which is generally now thought as the end all of naval armament, similar to the dreadnought/pre-dreadnought thinking of one era previous to battleships. It describes both a main-stay ship ( a crusier ) and a fighting ship ( a battleship ) and with a certain irony, makes some historical sense, in a loopy way.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Holocat
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 84
|
I don't think the sun device produces a lot of harmful radiation, personally. There's no evidence for (or against, I admit) such radiation being generated, but it... feels(?) like it was a replacement sun, a terraforming tool, rather than a very slow and inefficent way of killing someone, given that they have toroids and things.
To put an opposing spin on things, we can't be entirely sure the sa-matra was designed as a weapon; Perhaps another tool, or construction/demolitions platform. Though I put this idea forward, my own instinct points me in the direction that it is indeed a battleship, though if there is direct evidence of this I can't recall.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3873
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Maybe that's the enhanced version?
Also, it's not clear what he meant it would be lethal to at that range. An unprotected person? Okay, that's... sizable, but not an absurd amount of damage.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Holocat
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 84
|
My assumption was it was lethal to the starbase out to that range. Of course, it's probably lethal range plus buffer, but we can't get any idea of what that buffer might be.
Given that they won't experiment or even move the thing, it might be significantly off in either direction too. That aside, it's one of the only numbers we have to judge by.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3873
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Also, if you're making a planeteering tool, chances are good that you won't make the blast sperically symmetric. Hayes could have been factoring in the chance of getting a concentrated dose.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
|
|
|
|
|
