A close friend of mine and I were discussing some of our favorite sci-fi shows the other day when we got onto the topic of how ships from various franchises would stack up against eachother. In this case we were comparing the (2003) version Battlestar Galactica vs an Omega Class Destroyer from Babylon 5.
Between the two of us we have backgrounds in mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering, historical data, and a WIDE arrange of series DVD's, designers notes, cannon books, and even some non-cannon books (we used these with VERY heavy grains of salt).
The rules for this face-off. Both crews are to be of the same race, without any genetic drift. The ships are to be armed and equipped as they would have been around the height of their existence. In any case where any physics need to be used to determine something we would use REAL WORLD physics (we all know that sci-fi writers don't always double check their science). When it comes to the fighter support of these ships we are assuming: For the Omega, a 50-50 split between Starfuries and Thunderbolts. For Galactica: 50-50 Viper mkII and Viper mkVII, with additional Raptor support.
We will be breaking the ships' combat abilities down into different groups and subgroups determining who is the better combant in each area (Deadliest Warrior Style) In the end we will look at all the data as a whole.
Here is how we are thinking of breaking down the combat abilities:
1. Offensive Firepower (Directly from the ships. Fighter abilities are covered sperately)
2. Defensive Armor
3. Fighter protection
4. Fighter launch/recovery
5. Speed/ agility
6. Areas of operation
7 Fighters ability/ quantity.
As a Note here I would like to discuss the topic of Nuclear weapons in space. Despite how things are shown in Science fiction, nuclear weapons in space are not that good. In fact, unless you go for major overkill factor a medium sized nuke wouldn't do much to an interstellar space craft. Nuclear weapons rely on three factors (in an atmosphere) to do damage: Primarily concussive force, with good amounts of heat transfer, and Radiation.
As there is no atmosphere in space the ability to use concussive force is extremely limited. In fact it would only be useful in two situations: you either have the nuke INSIDE your target, or it must be substantially larger and have a direct impact where the pulse waves can push the target apart at the impact point. The vacuum of space also detracts from the ability to do heat transfer damage unless there is physical contact as well. The only thing that is relatively unaffected is radiological transfer. This however is interesting as any interstellar vehicle is all ready heavily shielded against radiation. Not saying that it can't be overdone, but the effective blast radius for radiation would be quite small.
I hope you aren't actually going to apply that "nukes in space are weak" rule to your analysis. It doesn't make any sense to single out this one particular thing to be realistic about and then ignore the countless other thing that are just as unrealistic. If the source material shows a nuke doing X amount of damage then it is clearly capable of doing X amount of damage, even if you think that the weapon as-shown isn't realistic enough.
As a Note here I would like to discuss the topic of Nuclear weapons in space. Despite how things are shown in Science fiction, nuclear weapons in space are not that good. In fact, unless you go for major overkill factor a medium sized nuke wouldn't do much to an interstellar space craft. Nuclear weapons rely on three factors (in an atmosphere) to do damage: Primarily concussive force, with good amounts of heat transfer, and Radiation.
Wait.... you mean to tell me that when that Earth Destroying Asteroid starts hurtling towards us, we won't be able to drill a nuke into it and save the earth??
A destroyer would win. Destroyer: Point defense/attack ion cannons Thunderbolt II fighters Heavy cannon Also (not shown) all those hatches on the sides hold the same nuke missiles that the defense sattellites launched at the combined alliance fleet when it went to Earth.
Galactica Gobs of point defense artillery Cool fighters 6 nukes
Although the Galactica is built to withstand 20 meg nukes it can’t stand up to the Destroyer’s concentrated missile fire and those heavy cannon which can burn major portions of its hull.
Codicil: If Adama is commanding its Galactica autowin. Adama is the human equivalent of TBone the Magnificent, Lord of Dogs. If push comes to shove Adama just launches himself at the Destroyer and bites it to death. He’s that badass.
Adama once let himself get shot just so he could get some sleep...Adama's stare kept the Cylons from attacking for forty years, just..his..stare...
Each ship is MASSIVE. Galactica is listed as 1440 meters long and an Omega (depending on which one exactly, depending are load-out) is approximately 1720 meters long. The Omega is slightly taller, but Galactica is wider, and has more "bulk" and overall internal volume. The Omega is more than likely more technologically advanced, but the Galactica is purposely kept "antiquated". Both have served similar rolls in the militaries of their perspective universes. Long range patrol and engagement vehicles.
Both ships seem to be a combination of a battleship and an aircraft carrier, however, the Omega seems to be tilted more towards being a battleship that can carry some fighters, while the Galactica seems to be an aircraft carrier that also has some big guns. As you will see later in our analysis this distinction comes into play.
Before going any further I would like to point one thing out. There are in-universe references to both these ships being fast/slow, ponderous/ maneuverable, etc. compared to other ships in their universe. These comparisons might not translate well between series. ( You might be the tallest person in your town, but stand next to some NBA players an you might seem short). We have tried to ignore this as much as possible and tried to compare their abilities using real world physics.
First topic: Offensive Firepower.
This is not just a topic about the total offensive abilities of these ships. It also covers WHERE they can shoot.
Omega Class ships for example have been shown to have their Primary weapons ONLY fire to the front or rear of the ship.
Here are the listed weapons of each ship:
Omega class:
Two front firing Fusion Missile Launchers (never used in the series)
Twelve heavy cannons firing to the front/back
24 medium cannon on turrets with almost 360 degree rotation
a good anti-fighter defense grid (covered in another section later)
36 port side, and 36 starboard side missile tubes (never used in the series)
Galactica:
600 duel barreled close support anti-fighter turrets. (covered later)
50 duel barreled turrets firing either flak, solid slug anti-ship munitions, or high explosive warheads
unknown number of antiship missile tubes
at least 10 VERY heavy planetary assault nuclear warhead missiles. (Never used, only shown).
We assume that since some of these weapons were never used in either series (despite a need to fire everything they had) that these weapons are more than likely beyond the scope of a ship vs Ship battle. This is more than likely due them being too unwieldy for hitting a moving ship at a range that also would not damage the firing vessel. More than likely these where designed for space stations or planetary bombardment. We will however be including the 72 missile tubes on the Omega destroyer as the creators of this ship (CGI designers that is) intended them for doing broadsides to other ships in a manner similar to 1700's pirate ship broadsides.
We have studied several reals of footage from both series. While several of the battles seem to be extremely short range slug-fests, others, from both series, have been shown to be in the several kilometers of engagement. With no solid proof one way or another one who has the longer range we have to use the real world physics. Galactica uses solid-slug throwing projectiles, while The Omega class uses high-speed beam propelled particle weapons. Regardless of maximum engagement areas, it seems that the Omega class would need less effort to aim at long distances with less need to "lead" a target. In the area of super-long range killing we give this decisively to the Omega.
However, this is only if the Omega is firing within its front or back arch of fire. If firing in the side archs the Omega would have to rely on half of it's secondary weapons, and half of it's missile tubes. The Galactica for on the other hand has been shown to willingly fight in almost any orientation at near full effect. This difference in fighting style like comparing a carpel-tunnel old man shooting a 500 Magnum revolver against a gangsta spraying and praying with a MAC-11 machine gun. In the area of fire archs we give a strong, but not decisive lead to the Galactica.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I will be temporarily be skipping #2. Defensive armor for the time being. This is because this topic requires the most conjecture, real-world physical analysis, and cross-franchise examining. Therefore it is the least likely to be accurate and the most likely to erupt into fanboyism and eyerolling.
3. Fighter Protection.
The Omega class is equipped with a MkII defense grid that was noted as being substantially better than the MkI defense grid. However, this is after all relative. Almost anything was better than the MkI grid in the Babylon 5 universe as it was designed to fight against minimal fighter activity and proved near useless during the Earth-Minbari war. This system is said to be one of the best anti-fighter grids of the "younger" races in the series. While it seems to have an impressive automated tracking ability the largest number of fighters ever seen going after a single Omega in a Babylon 5 battle is 16, and some of those penetrated the defense grid long enough to at least get some shots in, if not come around for a second pass.
Galactica has 600! duel mounted anti-fighter turrets. Even if there were four rows of turrets (150 per row down the length of the hull) that only leaves about 30 feet center-point to center-point between turrets. If there were 8 rows, that's still only 60 feet. To say this ship is bristling with anti-fighter weaponry is an understatement. In addition to this the Galactica also has 50 anti-ship duel mounted anti-ship turrets that can fire flak rounds. While not computer-linked like in an Omega the sheer amount of firepower is amazing. The Galactica once went up against three basestars. One Basestar was said to have launched 72 fighters by itself. The other Basestars launched their fighters as well, likely a similar number. With anti-fighter cover alone, facing over 200 fighters (drones with no fear of death), not a single fighter initially penetrated Galatica's airspace.
We give this category as an undeniable decisive advantage to the Galactica.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 4. Fighter Launch/ Recovery.
Omega Class Ships actually have several launch ports. The obvious one is on the front, on the "nose" of the ship. This is a general purpose ship access point. Ships coming and going from this area must do so in a single file line. However, not known to most people is that the Omega also has 22 "fighter ejection ports" located along the outer edge of it's rotational section. These ships could either be launched all at once, or launched sequentially as the rotational section turned creating an "fighter cloud" around the ship. However, these fighter relied on the centrifugal forces of the rotating section to eject them from these hatches. If the rotation section was not spinning launching fighters would be significantly harder and more ponderous.
Although Fighters could be launched at the same time they needed to be recovered one-at-time though the frontal nose hatch. The fastest this has ever been seen on screen was with a 4.8 second interval between fighters. To recover all 36 fighters would therefore require almost three minutes under ideal circumstances. It also seems a little odd
Galactica was equipped with 80 launch tubes that could fire fighters simultaneously. In addition it could have several other fighters leave manually though the hanger doors. As for recovery, under COMBAT it was shown to land 16 fighters in 6 seconds using only one hanger. If it only used the 80 fighters in its launch tubes it could retrieve all 80 fighters in as little as 15 seconds, although that seems like almost perfect conditions. Galactica's largest downside is that is can't launch any fighters at all if it can't open it's hanger pods. Of course they only close those for faster-that-lite travel. However, it takes about 45 seconds to fully close/open those hangar pods under optimum conditions.
cuda1179 wrote: In the area of super-long range killing we give this decisively to the Omega.
In the area of fire archs we give a strong, but not decisive lead to the Galactica.
Ok, but which one does more damage? Can both sides hurt each other equally, or is this the equivalent of a 1700s sailing ship with flawless accuracy going up against a WWII battleship that might miss with a few shots before obliterating its target? You seem to be making the mistake of assuming that both sides have the same level of firepower per gun and it's actually a fair battle. And that makes it a pretty disappointing "analysis".
We give this category as an undeniable decisive advantage to the Galactica.
But why are you assuming that the Galactica's guns can even damage an enemy fighter from a different universe? For example, a Culture fighter (if a Mind created one for amusement value) would laugh off those 600 anti-fighter guns just as easily as it would laugh off 600 billion anti-fighter guns. Meanwhile a Culture warship's equivalent of anti-fighter weapons would be capable of destroying entire planets.
This section goes strongly to Galactica.
But does it even matter? Both ships can launch all of their fighters simultaneously, and are likely to do so at long range, before anything interesting happens that would make launch time relevant. Likewise for recovery time, how often does it really matter how fast a ship can recover fighters when it's likely to be doing so while out of combat? Plus, there's the much more important question of which ship has better fighters. If the Omega's 22 fighters are the equivalent of a thousand of the Galactica's fighters then the 80:20 advantage in launch rate is irrelevant, the Omega can deploy and recover an equivalent "worth" of fighters much faster.
Where did you get the omega could only fire forward and backwards? did you miss all those turrets on the sides, top and bottom? We've even seen them traverse while firing.
And since you ignored the disparity in firepower per weapon, I don't see much point to this.
Star Trek powns much because its ships generally have an FTL combat capability. Thats like having a Winchester repeater and a motorcycle vs. a phalanx. As long as you keep moving they can't even track you, much less hit you.
Again, the main cannon on Destroyers are shown burning major portions of enemy ships with one hit. Its a different universe thing. In B5, ships with these "type of cannons" can typically destroy or heavily damage an equivalent enemy ship in one or two hits.
As noted the Galactica is more of a heavily armored carrier. In the series it appeared to use its fighters/bombers (if you consider a missile loaded raptor a bomber) on offensive operations. Now the more advanced battlestars appeared better designed for direct ship to ship action (Pegasus was a regular ship killer).
One note, the Galactica could theoretically, jump in, unload its fighters, and jump back out before the Destoryer could burn it with the main guns.
Did vipers have nukes like their cylon opponents? That might be a serious game changer. Per Wiki they could carry nukes. That makes them a much bigger threat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Viper
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Where did you get the omega could only fire forward and backwards? did you miss all those turrets on the sides, top and bottom? We've even seen them traverse while firing.
And since you ignored the disparity in firepower per weapon, I don't see much point to this.
Omegas can only fire their MAIN weapons to the front or back. When it comes to shooting to the sides they rely on their mid-sized turret weapons and missile tubes. This has been stated by the designers themselves.
cuda1179 wrote: A close friend of mine and I were discussing some of our favorite sci-fi shows the other day when we got onto the topic of how ships from various franchises would stack up against eachother.
This sort of thing never ends well. Nerds won't let it end well.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Where did you get the omega could only fire forward and backwards? did you miss all those turrets on the sides, top and bottom? We've even seen them traverse while firing.
And since you ignored the disparity in firepower per weapon, I don't see much point to this.
Omegas can only fire their MAIN weapons to the front or back. When it comes to shooting to the sides they rely on their mid-sized turret weapons and missile tubes. This has been stated by the designers themselves.
Destroyers can turn though. They can shoot head on and then broadside you with missiles...kind of like Imperial ships in BFG...
Star Trek powns much because its ships generally have an FTL combat capability. Thats like having a Winchester repeater and a motorcycle vs. a phalanx. As long as you keep moving they can't even track you, much less hit you.
The main problem is that Trek ships tend to be much smaller than ships from other franchises and seriously undergunned: the Galaxy class is one of the largest ships the Federation has and is only equipped with 10 phaser banks(scattered about the ship so it has a 360 fire capability) and a fore and aft Torpedo launcher in total. And while they have FTL combat capability, they don't train in it, hence why the Picard maneuver(jumping behind someone so you register in two places at once) was so effective.
Star Trek powns much because its ships generally have an FTL combat capability. Thats like having a Winchester repeater and a motorcycle vs. a phalanx. As long as you keep moving they can't even track you, much less hit you.
The main problem is that Trek ships tend to be much smaller than ships from other franchises and seriously undergunned: the Galaxy class is one of the largest ships the Federation has and is only equipped with 10 phaser banks(scattered about the ship so it has a 360 fire capability) and a fore and aft Torpedo launcher in total. And while they have FTL combat capability, they don't train in it, hence why the Picard maneuver(jumping behind someone so you register in two places at once) was so effective.
Who needs weapons when you have Kirk/Picard at the helm?
Star Trek powns much because its ships generally have an FTL combat capability. Thats like having a Winchester repeater and a motorcycle vs. a phalanx. As long as you keep moving they can't even track you, much less hit you.
The main problem is that Trek ships tend to be much smaller than ships from other franchises and seriously undergunned: the Galaxy class is one of the largest ships the Federation has and is only equipped with 10 phaser banks(scattered about the ship so it has a 360 fire capability) and a fore and aft Torpedo launcher in total. And while they have FTL combat capability, they don't train in it, hence why the Picard maneuver(jumping behind someone so you register in two places at once) was so effective.
Who needs weapons when you have Kirk/Picard at the helm?
This one was rather hard to come to a conclusion to. Little reference was ever made to Galactica's ability to maneuver, while the Omega was listed as being one of the more ponderous capital ships of her universe. Of course, the most ponderous of one universe might look like a fighter in another universe. The only things we had to go on here were real-world physics, video of turning, possible fly-bys of stationary objects to determine speed. The fastest speed we could account for the Galactica was when flying though a nebula near the Ragnar Anchorage. We used frames per second and known ship length to determine a speed. We did the same for Omegas during "A Call to Arms". Honestly, there doesn't seem to be much difference. (My best guess is that the FX guys just went with what looked cool for a ship of this size). Overall speed I'd put at a draw, or inconclusive.
Hyperspace vs FTL jump drive. Both ways of travel have their advantages. The FTL jump drive is instantaneous, yet limited in range. The Hyperspace is literally crossing dimensions. For the long-haul missions it would be better as there is no "cool-off" period needed. (note: a Galactica FTL drive does note necessarily NEED a cool-off period, it's just easier on the engines). Both of these devices have been shown to cause damage to objects. Galactica would cause damage to anything in the surrounding area, while the Omega to anything directly in front of it (as shown in "A Call to Arms). An Omega could technically retreat into hyperspace if needed, and the Galactica would not be able to follow. However, in the Babylon 5 universe there is also some reliance on hyperspace becons.
In the end, I give this a draw as well.
Now is for maneuverability. I think I might upset some people with my conclusions here. This section is not just limited to what the ships themselves would actually pull off, but also what their crew can withstand. The fastest Galactica has ever rolled over (belly up) has been slightly faster than the Omega. Turning around 180 degrees also goes to Galactica , who can do that about 15% faster. As for lateral G's, this one gets tricky. The fastest turn able to be calculated by the Galactica was during the battle of the Resurrection ship. Using the rate at which the ship was circling the enemy base star, combined with an approximate radius of that circle, (using Glacticas known size as a scale reference), shows that the ship is capable of doing at least a .21 lateral G turn. It appears that Galactica's artificial gravity accounts for this for the crew.
If the Omega were to take the same turn the crew in the non-spinning section would be thrown up against the outside edge of the ship at 1/5 gravity. The Crew in the spinning section would randomly get tossed back and forth as gravity shifts between 1.21 g's and .79 g's while sometimes having a relative horizontal pull of .21 g's. More than likely a little disorienting.
In addition, the spinning section itself causes some issues. The ship should never have been designed symmetrically. As it stands, with the rotating section turning the ship would more easily be able to take right turns than left. In addition, how it turns depends on if the rotating section is turning or not. The rotating section acts like a boomerang. While spinning, in order to turn right the ship would need thrusters one the back to shoot thrust upwards in order to turn right. While not turning it would need to revert back to something easier to understand.
In this area, I get a slight edge to Galactica for initial maneuverability, and it would increase this lead as battle damage mounted.
Actually, this might not be totally true. The Galaxy class was actually designed with a large amount of it's saucer section "empty" on purpose. Those empty areas where there so that they ships could quickly be modified to carry out specific duties as they arose. They could be cargo haulers, science vessels, extra weapons pods, or even hangars.
As has been noted, the factor not discussed in detail is the effectiveness of said weaponry and the armor of each ship.
B5 points. The main batteries on Destroyers are highly effective at bringing down ships. Concentrated cobra fire (and fire from B5) took out a primus level battlecruiser very quickly (Centauri heavy cruiser).
Galactica points: 1) If its fighters carry nukes, thats potentially a lot of nukes if they get in the screen. 2) Further Galactica of BSG has already been through a grinding ten year war, and then manages to survive multiple attacks FOR YEARS by heavily outclassed forces, even dropping through an atmosphere (just because Adama missed his roller coaster). Even without shields thats a tough ship. 3) The ships appears much more configured (when on the attack) for long range stand off operations with its fighters. I don't remember instances of Destroyers doing this, but I could be mistaken.
Also it was noted in other locations that the max cobras is not 36 in a Destroyer, thats just how many they saw fly out of the front at one time.
This is possibly the easiest of the areas to agree on. Both of these ships were designed for pure space combat. Both were designed for extended operations deep into space. However, the Galactica was designed to go for YEARS of operation while the Omega was designed for 18 month trips. While it is unlikely that any battle would last long enough for this to come into play there is one point to mention: Gravity. Artificial gravity was the main reason for Omega class ships to have so much higher range than previous human ships, however it only has gravity in part of the ship. Although the gravity areas of the ship include crew quarters and most habitable areas the crew still have been shown to go to the non-gravity areas our of necessity (reaching fighter bays, engineering sections, ect). Over extended period this can actually have an accumulated effect on the human body. All things being equal, the humans on an Omega class might have reduced physical strength, endurance, and resilience.
Although not designed to enter an atmosphere the Galactica has actually done it, although more than likely sustained some damage from dropping into an atmosphere. This could mean that the Galactica could enter an area that neither ship could travel into with any hope to get out of under normal means. It also shows that Galactica still retains some semblance to aerodynamics, and can also still launch fighters in such areas. This is however highly unlikely that any such situation would appear outside of a black hole, gas giant, or a VERY thick nebula gas.
In this regard I give the slimmest of advantages to the Galactica.
So I guess you're going to ignore the questions about firepower levels and continue with this superficial "analysis" that doesn't really answer any of the relevant questions involved in picking a winner?
Gitzbitah wrote: Wait- 18 months vs years of deployment is the 'slimmest of advantages'?
That seems like it would have tremendous strategic value.
It depends greatly on the universe. Galactica's endurance is great in its own universe, where it has to last for a years-long mission and has no guarantee of ever finding a resupply opportunity. It would be a complete waste in a universe where friendly bases are everywhere and/or FTL speeds are high enough to reach any point in the setting within a short time. For example, years-long endurance in Star Wars isn't a very relevant attribute thanks to FTL that can cross the whole galaxy in hours/days, meaning that a ship will never be more than a day or two away from a friendly base full of fuel/ammunition/etc. In fact, designing for ridiculously long endurance would be a bad thing, as it would waste hull space that could otherwise be used on better guns/shields/etc.
Frazzled wrote: Wo wo Peregrine we're having fun now. Turn the Chillometer up dude.
In this instance I think the BSG and B5 human ships are pretty comparable. It makes it a good match vs. the usual comparisons.
I'm not very familiar with BSG or B5, but Peregrine's most recent post in this thread makes a ton of sense.
To put it into "real" terms, the USS Missouri was designed as a Battleship. It wouldn't make much sense to add extra living quarters, and extra equipment and extra Tonnage to this boat in order to be able to launch aircraft off of it, since that was not it's mission. Conversely, the USS Enterprise (the current, water based boat) is a carrier, that doesn't make much sense to add more guns to as there are other boats that perform that duty for them. Additionally, in the US Navy, we have "supply ships" that go along with the carriers, destroyers, etc.
While it would appear that both of the ships in the OP are similar in nature, they perform much the same task, and are designed in such a way to best complete that mission. As the one ship MUST go long periods without re-supply it is going to take on a different form from the ship that gets regular supplies
7 Fighters:
It has been pointed out that the number of "36" listed for the Omega Destroyer's fighter wing is the most seen launched at once, not the number it can hold. However, we do know how large the area needed to store 11 of them is (the hatches on the sides of the rotating sections) So, with those two areas we get a total of 22 fighters. In order to even reach the number 36 (plus the addition of 4 standard non-armed shuttles and 6 boarding pods, which are described as standard) a good bulk of the "head", "neck" and a shaft through the rotational sections needs to be hollow. The head itself would only have enough room to store at most 12 fighters and the shuttles. That only brings us up to 34. Even assuming there are 40 fighters is generous.
The Galactica on the other hand has been listed as having 80 launch tubes that can launch simultaneously. Therefore they obviously hold at least 80 vipers, plus any in reserve, plus weaponised Raptors (most seen at once is 26). Galactica also has repare bays the Omega lacks, giving a higher probability that it would be at full or near full strength. When in comes to quantity, Galactica has this hands-down with a decisive win.
I will discuss Galactica's Raptors separately, but for now I am going to only compare the Vipers to the Omega's Starfuries/Thunderbolts in terms of quality. Since I own 1/48 scale models of each it makes comparing them a little easier. A Viper is DRASTICALLY smaller than a Starfury, both in volume and compactness. A Starfury is much wider and taller, although a bit shorter.
The Starfuries have been noted as one of the best Fighters in the Babylon 5 universe. They were designed specifically to be space-only fighters, sacrificing atmospherical flight for better space performance. This is most obvious when looking at the pilot's position. He is standing up. This gives the pilot (this is actual real physics) the ability to withstand higher G turns without blacking out, and since aerodynamics are of no concern it's not a problem. Thunderbolts on the other hand HAVE been shown to enter atmospheres, although they seem to be loose a significant amount of their maneuverability.
Galactica's Vipers were designed to work in both space and atmosphere, showing little lack in maneuverability in atmosphere. Starfuries in this regard get a moderate advantage in space, but Vipers get a HUGE advantage while in atmosphere.
Both ships have been shown to be able to keep forward momentum while turning (in other words they look like they can fly sideways, or even backwards) in this regard they are almost equal. I have however noticed that a Viper has been able to change orientation about 15% quicker than the fastest recorded time of a Starfury. Slight advantage her for the Vipers.
Ability to track and target is a bit harder to compare. Starfuries have been shown to have excellent tracking and targeting computers, but a Viper MkII is still good enough to target anti-fighter missiles with their guns. Mkvii Vipers were noted to be better than this. When it comes to physical eyesight, the Viper is substancially better. The Starfury has too many blind spots and in essence can only see directly to the front. While the Viper is still somewhat limited they can see to the sides, and a little to the rear. In this regard I give a slight advantage to the Starfury.
If you compare damage to fighters in the series it is drastically different. In Babylon 5 almost all hits are either one-shot kills or disablements. While there are still one-shot kills in Galactica's universe there are many instances of the fighter needing to be hit several times. Of course, this is only with guns. Rocket hits almost always result in on-shot kills. This leads me to give the advantage in firepower to the Starfuries by a slim margin.
Being shot to pieces brings up another topic. The ability to absorb damage and stay in the fight. There were several instance in Babylon 5 where a starfury had an engine pod blown off. This ALWAYS resulted in either a kill or totally taking them out of the fight. Vipers on the other hand have been shown to loose a wing, weapon, engine, and sections of the hull while still maintaining some ( although limited) movement and fighting ability, at least for a limited time. I'm giving the ability to absorb damage category with a slim advantage to the Viper.
The game changer is the Raptors from Galactica. Although not normally front-line combat vessels they can be configured to do anti-ship duty. They are no where near as maneuverable as a fighter, but they also bring with them FTL drives. They could quite literally pop in beside a ship and launch weapons before being countered.
In the end, I give a slight quality edge while in space to the Starfuries/ thunderbolts, but a Massive lead to the Vipers in an atmosphere when it comes to quality.
The overall quality X quantity value however goes strongly to Galactica.
cuda1179 wrote: Being shot to pieces brings up another topic. The ability to absorb damage and stay in the fight. There were several instance in Babylon 5 where a starfury had an engine pod blown off. This ALWAYS resulted in either a kill or totally taking them out of the fight. Vipers on the other hand have been shown to loose a wing, weapon, engine, and sections of the hull while still maintaining some ( although limited) movement and fighting ability, at least for a limited time. I'm giving the ability to absorb damage category with a slim advantage to the Viper.
...
Just when I think your "analysis" can't get any worse you prove me wrong. By the standards of this quote the following is a good analysis of a real-world situation:
In 1700s sailing ship combat most ships require many hits to go down. In a fight with a Soviet missile cruiser armed with nuclear anti-ship missiles a single hit can kill a whole fleet. Therefore I give the advantage in durability to the 1700s sailing ship, since it can survive so many more hits than the tissue-paper aircraft carriers.
To give any answer to the firepower or durability questions you need to determine how much energy each shot delivers, how much damage each ship's armor can take, and then compare those numbers. You can't just look at combat within one universe and assume that a weapon that is a one-hit kill in one universe will be a one-hit kill in another.
whitedragon wrote: So is this thread a "discussion/question/answer" thread, or is it just the OP's "stream of consciousness" blog about why he likes BSG better than B5?
Seems to be a "stream of consciousness" thing, as the OP hasn't discussed the substance of any comments here. I really don't understand what their goal in posting this is.
Peregrine wrote: So I guess you're going to ignore the questions about firepower levels and continue with this superficial "analysis" that doesn't really answer any of the relevant questions involved in picking a winner?
Gitzbitah wrote: Wait- 18 months vs years of deployment is the 'slimmest of advantages'?
That seems like it would have tremendous strategic value.
It depends greatly on the universe. Galactica's endurance is great in its own universe, where it has to last for a years-long mission and has no guarantee of ever finding a resupply opportunity. It would be a complete waste in a universe where friendly bases are everywhere and/or FTL speeds are high enough to reach any point in the setting within a short time. For example, years-long endurance in Star Wars isn't a very relevant attribute thanks to FTL that can cross the whole galaxy in hours/days, meaning that a ship will never be more than a day or two away from a friendly base full of fuel/ammunition/etc. In fact, designing for ridiculously long endurance would be a bad thing, as it would waste hull space that could otherwise be used on better guns/shields/etc.
That makes a great deal of sense. I was assuming that the OP was presenting the ships in isolation from their respective Empires and logistics- after all, there were only ever what, 9 Battlestars? Any other universe wins just on quantity of ships. In a ship vs ship battle, without considering bases, I thought endurance capabilities would be very important in a one on one engagement. I do absolutely see the logic in not building for this if you don't need it. I don't think TIE fighters even included life support because they were never meant to be used away from a mother ship.
We used to play Mongoose Publishing Babylon 5ACTA alot[u] and had rules for BSG ships both 12 Colonies and Cylon.
In these games - the Battlestar was much more powerful than a Omega - in fact it was in terms of firepower and sheer durability easily a match for major captial ships classes such as the Warlock Advanced Destroyer or the Centauri Octurion, major powers of the universe.... however they do fight in very differrent ways to the ships of B5 universe. On the other hand a Minbari, Shadow or Vorlon captial warship would slaughter them.......
Whilst in B5 your battle lines are pounding the enemy directly with both conventional weapons (which can be defended against) and massively powerful beam weapons (which except for the older races, can't)- the BSG battle are often attrition based as the defensive guns and fighetrs of both sides are worn down by the offensive wepaons and attack craft of the other...
Battlestars are designed to take huge amounts of damage - whereas direct hits on B5 ships, even really big ones, tend to cause massive damage, and beam weapons often bisect the ship in one hit....... it depends if the armour of the BSG Colonial warships can repel firepower of that magnitude (or not).
As others have said you need to decide if the conventional weapons batteries used by BSG warships are similar to the ones used by B5 Earth Alliance and if they can be intercepted by the point defense of each others universe. The narn use power Energy mines in B5 which might be seen as similar to the nuclear weapon strikes of BSG.
Basestars are more fragile once their screen of raiders is penetrated.being more pure carriers than front line warships that also act as fleet carriers that the Colonials operate.......On the other hand they have vast amounts of Raiders and Heavy Raiders
BSG warships have a far more flexibile FTL system than B5 (excepting the Shadows of course, god bless them)
Even though the OP is not interested in Discussions, i believe that The omega class would win, the Galactica is a decommissioned ship, that fought only the Cylons that hat similar weapons while the Omega class battleship had to deal with several battleships from different races. And if sheridan was the captain who has experience defeating an enemy that was way stronger, i don't think the BG stands a change.
Peregrine wrote: So I guess you're going to ignore the questions about firepower levels and continue with this superficial "analysis" that doesn't really answer any of the relevant questions involved in picking a winner?
Gitzbitah wrote: Wait- 18 months vs years of deployment is the 'slimmest of advantages'?
That seems like it would have tremendous strategic value.
It depends greatly on the universe. Galactica's endurance is great in its own universe, where it has to last for a years-long mission and has no guarantee of ever finding a resupply opportunity. It would be a complete waste in a universe where friendly bases are everywhere and/or FTL speeds are high enough to reach any point in the setting within a short time. For example, years-long endurance in Star Wars isn't a very relevant attribute thanks to FTL that can cross the whole galaxy in hours/days, meaning that a ship will never be more than a day or two away from a friendly base full of fuel/ammunition/etc. In fact, designing for ridiculously long endurance would be a bad thing, as it would waste hull space that could otherwise be used on better guns/shields/etc.
If you'd actually read one of the first posts in this thread I stated that I was specifically saving that topic for last, as it was the most likely to start a flame war/rampant fanboyism/nerd rage.
cuda1179 wrote: Being shot to pieces brings up another topic. The ability to absorb damage and stay in the fight. There were several instance in Babylon 5 where a starfury had an engine pod blown off. This ALWAYS resulted in either a kill or totally taking them out of the fight. Vipers on the other hand have been shown to loose a wing, weapon, engine, and sections of the hull while still maintaining some ( although limited) movement and fighting ability, at least for a limited time. I'm giving the ability to absorb damage category with a slim advantage to the Viper.
...
Just when I think your "analysis" can't get any worse you prove me wrong. By the standards of this quote the following is a good analysis of a real-world situation:
In 1700s sailing ship combat most ships require many hits to go down. In a fight with a Soviet missile cruiser armed with nuclear anti-ship missiles a single hit can kill a whole fleet. Therefore I give the advantage in durability to the 1700s sailing ship, since it can survive so many more hits than the tissue-paper aircraft carriers.
To give any answer to the firepower or durability questions you need to determine how much energy each shot delivers, how much damage each ship's armor can take, and then compare those numbers. You can't just look at combat within one universe and assume that a weapon that is a one-hit kill in one universe will be a one-hit kill in another.
whitedragon wrote: So is this thread a "discussion/question/answer" thread, or is it just the OP's "stream of consciousness" blog about why he likes BSG better than B5?
Seems to be a "stream of consciousness" thing, as the OP hasn't discussed the substance of any comments here. I really don't understand what their goal in posting this is.
As I stated earlier, I'm saving the Defensive armor vs. weapons debate for last in order to reduce raging. The point about the fighters operating with different levels of damage is valid. It's not a "what energy would destroy them" kind of argument, it is discussion of what kind of material loss is needed to take them out of action.
Pretend for a moment we are playing Warhammer 40k. There are two models we are comparing with these two statlines:
WSBs S T W I A LdSv
3 3 3 3 3 3 1 8 5+
3 3 3 4 1 3 1 8 3+
You are wanting to compare strength vs toughness/save when I am trying to compare wounds.
I would however like to apologize for not contributing further to the discussions. I'm just trying to type out these rather massive posts using limited notes from a discussion I had with a friend many days ago while holding a toddler in my lap before I forget more of the finer points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: We used to play Mongoose Publishing Babylon 5ACTA alot[u] and had rules for BSG ships both 12 Colonies and Cylon.
In these games - the Battlestar was much more powerful than a Omega - in fact it was in terms of firepower and sheer durability easily a match for major captial ships classes such as the Warlock Advanced Destroyer or the Centauri Octurion, major powers of the universe.... however they do fight in very differrent ways to the ships of B5 universe. On the other hand a Minbari, Shadow or Vorlon captial warship would slaughter them.......
Whilst in B5 your battle lines are pounding the enemy directly with both conventional weapons (which can be defended against) and massively powerful beam weapons (which except for the older races, can't)- the BSG battle are often attrition based as the defensive guns and fighetrs of both sides are worn down by the offensive wepaons and attack craft of the other...
Battlestars are designed to take huge amounts of damage - whereas direct hits on B5 ships, even really big ones, tend to cause massive damage, and beam weapons often bisect the ship in one hit....... it depends if the armour of the BSG Colonial warships can repel firepower of that magnitude (or not).
As others have said you need to decide if the conventional weapons batteries used by BSG warships are similar to the ones used by B5 Earth Alliance and if they can be intercepted by the point defense of each others universe. The narn use power Energy mines in B5 which might be seen as similar to the nuclear weapon strikes of BSG.
Basestars are more fragile once their screen of raiders is penetrated.being more pure carriers than front line warships that also act as fleet carriers that the Colonials operate.......On the other hand they have vast amounts of Raiders and Heavy Raiders
BSG warships have a far more flexibile FTL system than B5 (excepting the Shadows of course, god bless them)
Now these are all interesting points that I was going to touch upon as well in later posts. While I too enjoyed the Mongoose starship games I am trying to not use what a few game designers thought was cannon fluff as definitive proof.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jehan-reznor wrote: Even though the OP is not interested in Discussions, i believe that The omega class would win, the Galactica is a decommissioned ship, that fought only the Cylons that hat similar weapons while the Omega class battleship had to deal with several battleships from different races. And if sheridan was the captain who has experience defeating an enemy that was way stronger, i don't think the BG stands a change.
The original concept of this was to show a fight between the ships as they would have been around the height of their service. As this is supposed to be about what the ships can do, not the crew, I am assuming these vessels are crewed by "Joe Average" crewmen with similar levels of experience. Also, this fight is thought to either occur within a vacuum (no outside help) or occur quickly enough that outside help is a non-issue as it is too far away to reach/arrive within the battle time allotted.
Therefore the condition of the Galactia and Omega as we knew them don't matter. Assume they are mid-career ships that each had just pulled away from being repared and refit and are halfway into a mission.
whitedragon wrote: So is this thread a "discussion/question/answer" thread, or is it just the OP's "stream of consciousness" blog about why he likes BSG better than B5?
You forgot the word dishonest.
This guy isn't even trying to do a fair comparison. And it's not like this topic hasn't already been covered exhaustively on forums like Spacebattles, Stardestroyer.net, etc. People with a lot more time and mathematics on their side have already put all the numbers out there on sites like B5tech, ba-tech, etc. If this guy has a new interpretation, he doesn't need to star his debate from the ground floor when he already has the metaphorical shoulders of giants to stand upon. By ignoring the firepower issue--possibly the most debated issue in any sci-fi versus--he displays his ignorance or unwillingness to confront the vast body of research and analysis that already covers his silly thread.
whitedragon wrote: So is this thread a "discussion/question/answer" thread, or is it just the OP's "stream of consciousness" blog about why he likes BSG better than B5?
You forgot the word dishonest.
This guy isn't even trying to do a fair comparison. And it's not like this topic hasn't already been covered exhaustively on forums like Spacebattles, Stardestroyer.net, etc. People with a lot more time and mathematics on their side have already put all the numbers out there on sites like B5tech, ba-tech, etc. If this guy has a new interpretation, he doesn't need to star his debate from the ground floor when he already has the metaphorical shoulders of giants to stand upon. By ignoring the firepower issue--possibly the most debated issue in any sci-fi versus--he displays his ignorance or unwillingness to confront the vast body of research and analysis that already covers his silly thread.
You're right, up until this point it IS unwillingness to discuss firepower vs. armor. I even stated as much in one of my first posts, and reiterated it later. I guess you just chose not to read that part.
I'm saving that part for last as it required the most math, the longest explanation, the most conjecture, and was the most obvious fan-rage issue.
I'm surprised you all brushed past that explanation.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Where did you get the omega could only fire forward and backwards? did you miss all those turrets on the sides, top and bottom? We've even seen them traverse while firing.
And since you ignored the disparity in firepower per weapon, I don't see much point to this.
Omegas can only fire their MAIN weapons to the front or back. When it comes to shooting to the sides they rely on their mid-sized turret weapons and missile tubes. This has been stated by the designers themselves.
What designers? The same morons who said the White Star was 400+ meters long?
Have you LOOKED at the ship? The forward "main guns" are exactly the same as the side turrets without the little pylons, but titled sideways to attach directly to the cowling. Visually, you can see where the barrels are designed to elevate. In operation, all guns on an Omega can fire the interceptor pulses or the read beams of death, and we have seen no visual evidence to differentiate them. Only the rear-guns are fixed.
This design is intuitive and makes complete sense in a universe where EA ships, limited in acceleration by the crew's biology, must be prepared to fight against much faster or more maneuverable ships with artificial gravity to compensate for greater acceleration. The Omega is designed to be a brick bristling with guns. Who would make the most powerful guns on the slowest ship around fire in a fixed-direction?
whitedragon wrote: So is this thread a "discussion/question/answer" thread, or is it just the OP's "stream of consciousness" blog about why he likes BSG better than B5?
You forgot the word dishonest.
This guy isn't even trying to do a fair comparison. And it's not like this topic hasn't already been covered exhaustively on forums like Spacebattles, Stardestroyer.net, etc. People with a lot more time and mathematics on their side have already put all the numbers out there on sites like B5tech, ba-tech, etc. If this guy has a new interpretation, he doesn't need to star his debate from the ground floor when he already has the metaphorical shoulders of giants to stand upon. By ignoring the firepower issue--possibly the most debated issue in any sci-fi versus--he displays his ignorance or unwillingness to confront the vast body of research and analysis that already covers his silly thread.
You're right, up until this point it IS unwillingness to discuss firepower vs. armor. I even stated as much in one of my first posts, and reiterated it later. I guess you just chose not to read that part.
I'm saving that part for last as it required the most math, the longest explanation, the most conjecture, and was the most obvious fan-rage issue.
I'm surprised you all brushed past that explanation.
I tried reading all of your posts, but when it became clear there was no meat to them, I just couldn't force myself. Then it becae clear you weren't going to answer criticism. And the Conclusions you drew were so highly questionable that it simply became a waste of time to continue to try to read your textual diarrhea.
Besides, most of the points you have already discussed have massivley different outcomes if there is a fire power disparity. So you were really wasting your own time.
What designers? The same morons who said the White Star was 400+ meters long?
Have you LOOKED at the ship? The forward "main guns" are exactly the same as the side turrets without the little pylons, but titled sideways to attach directly to the cowling. Visually, you can see where the barrels are designed to elevate. In operation, all guns on an Omega can fire the interceptor pulses or the read beams of death, and we have seen no visual evidence to differentiate them. Only the rear-guns are fixed.
This design is intuitive and makes complete sense in a universe where EA ships, limited in acceleration by the crew's biology, must be prepared to fight against much faster or more maneuverable ships with artificial gravity to compensate for greater acceleration. The Omega is designed to be a brick bristling with guns. Who would make the most powerful guns on the slowest ship around fire in a fixed-direction?
I tried reading all of your posts, but when it became clear there was no meat to them, I just couldn't force myself. Then it becae clear you weren't going to answer criticism. And the Conclusions you drew were so highly questionable that it simply became a waste of time to continue to try to read your textual diarrhea.
Besides, most of the points you have already discussed have massivley different outcomes if there is a fire power disparity. So you were really wasting your own time.
Yes, the Omega CAN have some rotation of it's forward facing weapons (much like a hull mounted weapon on a tank destroyer can slightly turn) however they do not have an ability to turn 90 degrees to the side, or anywhere close to it. I'll take the words of the guys who designed the ships and created the 3D computer models for them.
I'd be happy to answer any of your questions or debate the topic to further extent. That is actually part of the reason I posted this thread. It's not a statement of fact so much as the conclusions I came up with, which so far have had more backing than anything you have provided.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Although I will type this out in a fuller explanation later, I will give you a bit of a taste of what is to come. The main batteries of the Galactica have a bore (using the shown crewman as a reference) about 1.6 times that of a WWII Iowa class battleship. Using the tracer-fire and known length of Galactica we can also calculate velocity.
That increase in size would give a realistic bullet size of 4-times the mass of the Iowa-class Battleship at 2.6 time the velocity resulting in an impact energy 25 times that of the Battleships guns. Or about 8.8 billion joules of energy per hit.
Getting hit by all 100 guns of Galactica's main battery is equivalent of getting a Broadside from 227 Iowa class battleships. These can fire at a rate of 20 rounds per minute.
Also, that means that one broadside is equal to 880 billion Joules of energy (about 13 Hiroshima bombs) . A one-megaton bomb contains 4,184,000 billion total Joules of energy.
Now, if there are any calculations given in any cannon material from the B5 Universe, please, let me know.
cuda1179 wrote: If you'd actually read one of the first posts in this thread I stated that I was specifically saving that topic for last, as it was the most likely to start a flame war/rampant fanboyism/nerd rage.
And it's also the most important attribute. None of your long essays about fighter launch rate matter if one ship has orders of magnitude better firepower and defense than the other.
You are wanting to compare strength vs toughness/save when I am trying to compare wounds.
Except you're trying to make that comparison without having access to any information about how many wounds a model just suffered. You're trying to do the equivalent of seeing that model A survived and model B died, therefore A can survive more wounds. You have no idea how hard each was hit, whether survival was due to luck or inherent durability, etc.
Plus, you're also ignoring the fact that you're talking about a meaningless attribute. "How many pieces can I break before this ship stops working" is completely irrelevant when you're trying to figure out which ship wins in a fight. What matters is how hard each ship can hit the other, and how much incoming firepower they can absorb before being destroyed. Until you answer those questions you're just wasting your time.
cuda1179 wrote: If you'd actually read one of the first posts in this thread I stated that I was specifically saving that topic for last, as it was the most likely to start a flame war/rampant fanboyism/nerd rage.
And it's also the most important attribute. None of your long essays about fighter launch rate matter if one ship has orders of magnitude better firepower and defense than the other.
You are wanting to compare strength vs toughness/save when I am trying to compare wounds.
Except you're trying to make that comparison without having access to any information about how many wounds a model just suffered. You're trying to do the equivalent of seeing that model A survived and model B died, therefore A can survive more wounds. You have no idea how hard each was hit, whether survival was due to luck or inherent durability, etc.
Plus, you're also ignoring the fact that you're talking about a meaningless attribute. "How many pieces can I break before this ship stops working" is completely irrelevant when you're trying to figure out which ship wins in a fight. What matters is how hard each ship can hit the other, and how much incoming firepower they can absorb before being destroyed. Until you answer those questions you're just wasting your time.
It's not even remotely irrelevant. How much you need to break a ship to take it out is directly relevant. The total damage output weighs heavily into that sure, and I AM getting there.
cuda1179 wrote: How much you need to break a ship to take it out is directly relevant.
Except that's not what you've discussed. What matters is how hard you have to hit something before it breaks, what you've told us is that if you break specific pieces you'll probably destroy the ship. But you haven't told us anything about how hard it is to break those pieces, so we don't know which ship is actually harder to kill. Is one ship's ability to survive with pieces blown off due to lots of redundant backups, or is it because its enemies aren't hitting it very hard and so it survives with damage instead of just exploding? Is the other ship's habit of exploding when hit due to having lots of critical systems that will kill the ship if they are damaged, or is it because it's typically hit with such overwhelming firepower that it doesn't matter how many redundant backups you have?
And, worse, you haven't actually told us how much damage it takes or which systems are broken in which ways before the ship is or isn't destroyed, you've just given some rough feelings about how the CGI looks. So not only are you "analyzing" a meaningless attribute instead of answering the relevant "big picture" question, you're doing it based on garbage data.
cuda1179 wrote: How much you need to break a ship to take it out is directly relevant.
Except that's not what you've discussed. What matters is how hard you have to hit something before it breaks, what you've told us is that if you break specific pieces you'll probably destroy the ship. But you haven't told us anything about how hard it is to break those pieces, so we don't know which ship is actually harder to kill. Is one ship's ability to survive with pieces blown off due to lots of redundant backups, or is it because its enemies aren't hitting it very hard and so it survives with damage instead of just exploding? Is the other ship's habit of exploding when hit due to having lots of critical systems that will kill the ship if they are damaged, or is it because it's typically hit with such overwhelming firepower that it doesn't matter how many redundant backups you have?
And, worse, you haven't actually told us how much damage it takes or which systems are broken in which ways before the ship is or isn't destroyed, you've just given some rough feelings about how the CGI looks. So not only are you "analyzing" a meaningless attribute instead of answering the relevant "big picture" question, you're doing it based on garbage data.
I'm not exactly writing a comprehensive factual text for a Government report here. All I have to go on is a hundred or so hours of video from two unrelated TV shows, some comments from creators, and a couple technical books. If you have any better ideas or a way to calculate potential power/ resilience/ speed/ etc. please let me know. I can only work with what I have.
So far I think I've done a fairly okay job in defining maxium turn rates, ranges, Lateral G forces, and archs of fire. Any complaints about those?
cuda1179 wrote: I'm not exactly writing a comprehensive factual text for a Government report here. All I have to go on is a hundred or so hours of video from two unrelated TV shows, some comments from creators, and a couple technical books. If you have any better ideas or a way to calculate potential power/ resilience/ speed/ etc. please let me know. I can only work with what I have.
You said that you have something to say about firepower and defense, you're just saving that analysis for last. So how about skipping to the part that actually matters instead of writing a comprehensive factual text for a Government report on all the things that don't matter until you've dealt with the big questions? Or by "I have it and I'm saving it for the end" do you really mean that you don't have anything at all but want to write long essays about the subject anyway?
So far I think I've done a fairly okay job in defining maxium turn rates, ranges, Lateral G forces, and archs of fire. Any complaints about those?
My complaint is that none of those numbers matter until you deal with the firepower and defense numbers. It doesn't matter at all if the Galactica has better endurance or fire arcs than a Culture warship, the Culture warship is going to smash the Galactica effortlessly because it has orders of magnitude better firepower (a barely-armed Culture civilian ship carries planet-killing firepower) and nothing the Galactica can fire back at it can even scratch the Culture ship's paint.
Maybe I should have approached this whole topic a little more light heartedly.
I do think I may have thought of something that could directly compare resilience between these two vessels. Not so much in armor, but in the strengths of their superstructures.
Both series have shown ramming. Galactica rammed the Cylon Colony, a vast space station.
In Babylon 5 in the episode "Shattered Dreams" One Omega Destroyer rams another.
As far as I can tell, Galactica's ram was faster on initial impact. It also stopped, and then pushed farther into the station with the engines still pushing forwards. Although this caused rather serious damage to Galactica it was still able to pull out, and jump out.
As for the Omega ramming, it cause immediate structural collapse in both vessels, even shattering off the entire front section of the rammed vessel before any secondary explosions happened.
cuda1179 wrote: Maybe I should have approached this whole topic a little more light heartedly.
Maybe. If you just want a silly discussion then feel free to stick to "the Galactica looks cooler, but then Kirk comes in, seduces both captains, and wins". But if you're going to write long essays that claim to be supported by science and engineering then expect criticism when those essays fail to provide any real analysis.
One of the few instances in Babylon 5 where we can see a ship being one-hit killed by something with a well-defined amount of energy is when the movie "In the Beginning" when the Minbari warhip was killed by a 2 megaton warhead when it detonated about 4.5 kilometers away from the ship. Now, in normal atmospheric conditions that size of bomb would have a nominal blast radius of 9.1 kilometers causing widespread destruction to civilian buildings.
However, this is the vacuum of space, and the effective blast radius would be substantially lower, exponentially lower in fact. (although I do admit that it could have simply shot a couple asteroids out an that is what caused the damage).
A Sharlin Class warcruiser is made up of harder, more advanced armor (although less of it) than an Omega class. In all it has been said to have ever-so-slightly less resilience than an Omega.
Now that know a force that can at least cripple an Omega, how does that force compare to the 880 billion Joules of energy release from one Galactica Broadside.
cuda1179 wrote: Maybe I should have approached this whole topic a little more light heartedly.
Maybe. If you just want a silly discussion then feel free to stick to "the Galactica looks cooler, but then Kirk comes in, seduces both captains, and wins". But if you're going to write long essays that claim to be supported by science and engineering then expect criticism when those essays fail to provide any real analysis.
I see to have the image of a Kirk-Sharadin-Adama threeway stuck in my head now...... Thanks for that.
cuda1179 wrote: Maybe I should have approached this whole topic a little more light heartedly.
Maybe. If you just want a silly discussion then feel free to stick to "the Galactica looks cooler, but then Kirk comes in, seduces both captains, and wins". But if you're going to write long essays that claim to be supported by science and engineering then expect criticism when those essays fail to provide any real analysis.
Sorry, if we go war of the Captains then...
*Kirk appears, looks at Membari chicks and goes...yer..no not touching that, and timewarps back to where he belongs.
*Picard appears, and bores the entire Vorlon race to death. Then he does some cool Picard maneuever on the Shadow planet killer. Worf drinks prune juice, the drink of warriors.
*Sheridan and Tigh get into an epic brawl, but are later seen drunk under a bar. Later they and Captain Sinclair have some extended psych sessions with Troi to deal with their .
*Sisco and Adama glare at each other with such icy intensity that they collapse time and space, creating a black hole between them. Neither notices.
*Across a crowded room, a mythic romance begins as a particular Vulcan catches Starbuck's eye. Ivanova, who was getting ready to make her own moves on her, leaves in a huff and, being an admiral and all, launches a major fleet at the Cylons...but that is another story.
cuda1179 wrote: Maybe I should have approached this whole topic a little more light heartedly.
I do think I may have thought of something that could directly compare resilience between these two vessels. Not so much in armor, but in the strengths of their superstructures.
Both series have shown ramming. Galactica rammed the Cylon Colony, a vast space station.
In Babylon 5 in the episode "Shattered Dreams" One Omega Destroyer rams another.
As far as I can tell, Galactica's ram was faster on initial impact. It also stopped, and then pushed farther into the station with the engines still pushing forwards. Although this caused rather serious damage to Galactica it was still able to pull out, and jump out.
As for the Omega ramming, it cause immediate structural collapse in both vessels, even shattering off the entire front section of the rammed vessel before any secondary explosions happened.
So the Galactica is great at smashing marshmallow, but the Omega can't handle space titanium? That comparison is legit.
cuda1179 wrote: Maybe I should have approached this whole topic a little more light heartedly.
I do think I may have thought of something that could directly compare resilience between these two vessels. Not so much in armor, but in the strengths of their superstructures.
Both series have shown ramming. Galactica rammed the Cylon Colony, a vast space station.
In Babylon 5 in the episode "Shattered Dreams" One Omega Destroyer rams another.
As far as I can tell, Galactica's ram was faster on initial impact. It also stopped, and then pushed farther into the station with the engines still pushing forwards. Although this caused rather serious damage to Galactica it was still able to pull out, and jump out.
As for the Omega ramming, it cause immediate structural collapse in both vessels, even shattering off the entire front section of the rammed vessel before any secondary explosions happened.
So the Galactica is great at smashing marshmallow, but the Omega can't handle space titanium? That comparison is legit.
Actually, that comparison is legit. It doesn't matter what stops you, it only matters how fast you stop. The Galactica which was traveling faster, with arguably more mass behind it, was stopped, dead in it's tracks, in less distance than when the Omega rammed. Impact damage aside, the collision caused little if any structural damage anywhere on Galatica other than the impact point. The Omega however showed significant signs of hull buckling, and breaking.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Who would make the most powerful guns on the slowest ship around fire in a fixed-direction?
Not that I disagree with you on the Omega but I'd point out the Narn G'Quan heavy cruiser- their version of the Omega, also without artificial gravity- does indeed have its two heavy laser cannons rather firmly fixed forward.
But on topic I'd like to add that the Galactica seems to have character shields. It's a ship that is, in the series, some 50 years old and in the process of being decommissioned. It doesn't even have all of its armour. And yet it is shown to be incredibly durable, almost to the point of breaking SoD. It sits there for a good while taking punishment from three basestars only to have the pristine Pegasus save it. The Pegasus is a modern, heavier armoured and larger battlestar yet it can't last half as long against two basestars as Galactica does against three. Re watch Razer/The Plan, particularly the bits where they show the attack on the Colonies and the destruction of the Colonial forces.
It's not the best video (from YouTube) but you can go watch yourself. Several battlestars are show to be destroyed with 2-3 hits, the one pictured is literally blown in half by 2 impacts. Conversely Galactica just seems to be able to take insane amounts of punishment far in excess of what any other battlestar does.
I guess what I'm saying is that on top of everything else, this debate also seems to be pitting a 'character' against a mook.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Who would make the most powerful guns on the slowest ship around fire in a fixed-direction?
Not that I disagree with you on the Omega but I'd point out the Narn G'Quan heavy cruiser- their version of the Omega, also without artificial gravity- does indeed have its two heavy laser cannons rather firmly fixed forward.
But on topic I'd like to add that the Galactica seems to have character shields. It's a ship that is, in the series, some 50 years old and in the process of being decommissioned. It doesn't even have all of its armour. And yet it is shown to be incredibly durable, almost to the point of breaking SoD. It sits there for a good while taking punishment from three basestars only to have the pristine Pegasus save it. The Pegasus is a modern, heavier armoured and larger battlestar yet it can't last half as long against two basestars as Galactica does against three. Re watch Razer/The Plan, particularly the bits where they show the attack on the Colonies and the destruction of the Colonial forces.
It's not the best video (from YouTube) but you can go watch yourself. Several battlestars are show to be destroyed with 2-3 hits, the one pictured is literally blown in half by 2 impacts. Conversely Galactica just seems to be able to take insane amounts of punishment far in excess of what any other battlestar does.
I guess what I'm saying is that on top of everything else, this debate also seems to be pitting a 'character' against a mook.
You do have a pretty good point about the "character shields" issue for Galactica. However, when showing the attack on the Colonial shipyards, it has been noted that not all those ships were front-line vessels. Notes and commentary on this issue have stated that there were many classes of vessels of various sizes and classes. For all we know the ones that were two-shotted were cargo ships, fuel tenders, troop transports, escort vessels, or unfinished.
I'm going to have to re-study the damage the Pegasus suffered though. You probably have a point there.
Blackhoof wrote: I'm quite enjoying this analysis. With or without peregrine gaking over everything.
What are you enjoying about it?
I’m enjoying this thread as well.
The thought and reasoning that goes into these kinds of arguments is almost as interesting as the conclusions. Obviously there is bias, and the source material is sketchy. Even in a single universe, thing like plot armor and cinematic/story factors will influence how well things perform. We can compare real world things because they all play by the same rules. Not the case in sci-fi settings. But the “What if?” apples to oranges comparisons is one of the quintessential aspects of geek culture. Even if they are by nature doomed to fail.
Nevelon wrote: Even in a single universe, thing like plot armor and cinematic/story factors will influence how well things perform.
I don't really think this is good, because good writing provides that plot armor... What I mean is, if there's a story of the USS Enterprise and crew and theyre meeting some hostile people who are at a disadvantage compared to the E (the enemy ship is older, or the race just doesnt have better tech, etc) then the camera will cut to Engineering, where Scotty, Data, or LaForge will exclaim loudly, that something has gone wrong, which leaves the ship in a vulnerable place.
To me, this is completely different from say... "A small one man fighter will fly down this single trench, and launch a torpedo at a 2m exhaust port, which is the only weakness of this thing"
Nevelon wrote: Even in a single universe, thing like plot armor and cinematic/story factors will influence how well things perform.
I don't really think this is good, because good writing provides that plot armor... What I mean is, if there's a story of the USS Enterprise and crew and theyre meeting some hostile people who are at a disadvantage compared to the E (the enemy ship is older, or the race just doesnt have better tech, etc) then the camera will cut to Engineering, where Scotty, Data, or LaForge will exclaim loudly, that something has gone wrong, which leaves the ship in a vulnerable place.
To me, this is completely different from say... "A small one man fighter will fly down this single trench, and launch a torpedo at a 2m exhaust port, which is the only weakness of this thing"
I was looking at the other side of the coin. Where the Big Bad is blowing galaxy class cruisers/battlestars/omegas casually out of space, yet the one with all the main characters somehow only takes a glancing hit, or manages to reconfigure the tech whatzit, or whatever deus ex excuse for them not to be cashed in the same roll as their peers. The ship with the main characters cannot be used as the benchmark for comparisons.
In this instance we have evidence of non Character ships for both though.
1. Omegas are all over the place in Season 3-4, so we're good there. They even do well against the hyper advanced ships piloted by serious Plot Armor Characters (Ivanova). However they do get destroyed by similarly powerful vessels, and ran like mamma's boys from Membari ships.
2. BSG is more difficult, but we can see action in Razor, and Blood and Chrome with nonCharacter BSs in combat. They are tough but eminently defeatable by cyclon fighter/bombers, at least with nukes. Even in the pilot a 20 Meg nuke does serious damage to BSG.
I took someone else's advice and looked at another website that did calculations to determine the power output of an Omega's frontal beam weapons. They cam to the conclusion that it's frontal weapon has a power output (each of them) in the magnitude of 2.8 megatons.
However, these calculations took A LOT of assumptions. The assumption include the distance a beam weapon sliced a hull (argued, in length, by many fans for years) how wide the beam was, how deep the beam penetrated (this website assumes 3 meters, for whatever reason), and the shape of the cut itself.
As I touched upon before, one of the few times in the Babylon 5 universe where a weapon with a known energy yield one-shots a ship is when a 2-megaton bomb, detonated at range, totally obliterated a Minbari Sharlin class ship. The best way to do engery transference in this instance would have been if the asteroid the nuke was placed on split in two, shooting one piece in each direction (one into the Sharlin). Due to Newton's third law of physics, that means that the overall force of the "killer" half of the asteroid would have been, at most, 1 megaton of force. Although, realistically it would have been considerably lower than that, probably somewhere around the .3 megaton yield at most.
Now, why is that important? It is meantioned that Sharlin Class ships have been able to one-shot human ships, but NO human ship has ever one-shotted a Sharlin, and that they do not have the ability to do so. Cannon referances state that it would take roughly three Omega Destroyers to take out a Sharlin. Therefore the power output of the main weapons battery would be considerably less than the impact that obliterated a Sharlin.
Energy weapons in the Babylon 5 universe, contrary to popular belief, CAN be intercepted, and have several times. Although realistically these would be harder to intercept than a missle or even a solid-slug type weapon.
Speeking of missiles though, during the Galactica mini-series it was show that the Galactica could quite effectively shoot down 7 anti-ship missiles simultaneously while at closer-than-normal range, while not using its fighters, not having seasoned crew, having some of it's weapons deactivated (was being turned into a museum), and being at below optimal crew levels. The hypothetical face-off assumes optimal conditions for both ships.
While on the topic of intercepting, in it's own universe an Omega class is usually NOT assigned to missions on its own. It relies heavily on escort ships to provide cover fire for intercepting fighters and incoming ordnance. The hypothetical assumes a one-on-one fight.
An issue I'd like to readdress is the ship endurance. The Galactica can be active for years and its only real issue is resupply. The Omega's listed endurance is 18 months, but its issue is not resupply, it is the physical limits of the crew themselves. The Omegas only have gravity in some areas of the ship, not all of the areas where crew are stationed. The areas that do have gravity helped increase this range over previous ships, but not as well as having ship-wide gravity like in later Warlock class vessels. The only reason I bring this up is the hypothetical fight never addressed when the fight takes place. Is it immediately after the Omega leaves dock, near the end of it mission, or somewhere in the middle.
Where are you getting the 2 meg bomb? Sheridan just said they seeded the asteroid field with gravity mines. He didn't say anything with how strong they were.
There were lots of one shot kills in the B5 universe. Vorlons and Shadows did it all the time.
In Crusade, the Excalibur had no problem with ships up with one shot hits.
The Churchill, when retreating under fire, used one shot to destroy the pursuing Hyperion class cruiser.
Also to note, in another thread, that the B5 Omegas could actually target enemy ships and weapons coming in, whereas BSG did more of a area effect flak dump.
While on the topic of intercepting, in it's own universe an Omega class is usually NOT assigned to missions on its own. It relies heavily on escort ships to provide cover fire for intercepting fighters and incoming ordnance. The hypothetical assumes a one-on-one fight
Also please cite one episode where an Omega had escort ships with it. You did watch the show correct? Omegas in the series operated in battle groups with other Omegas and cruiser strength ships.
I will note Blood and Chrome showed BSGs working in groups as well.
Now, why is that important? It is meantioned that Sharlin Class ships have been able to one-shot human ships, but NO human ship has ever one-shotted a Sharlin, and that they do not have the ability to do so. Cannon referances state that it would take roughly three Omega Destroyers to take out a Sharlin. Therefore the power output of the main weapons battery would be considerably less than the impact that obliterated a Sharlin.
Energy weapons in the Babylon 5 universe, contrary to popular belief, CAN be intercepted, and have several times. Although realistically these would be harder to intercept than a missle or even a solid-slug type weapon.
Couple of things about Minbari vs Earth ships... the EA doesn't need 3 Omegas to destroy one Sharlin because the Sharlin is so heavily armored. They need three ships to destroy it because the Sharlin uses sensor and targetting-disrupting technology to prevent lock-ons and accurate fire being directed at it. Three Omegas can spit out enough beam spam that one of them is bound to get lucky and hit the Sharlin, at which point those main guns would feth it up proper. Conversely, the Sharlin doesn't have the targetting issues when facing an EA ship, so it hits with most or all of its shots, which naturally ruins the Omega's day. Firepower-wise, most major race ships (Narn, Centauri, Human, etc) are roughly on par with each other in regards to beam weapon damage output. Some races have more guns on their ships, some races have more maneuverable ships, but everybody's big beam cannons are on generally equal footing.
As for energy weapon intercepting in the B5 universe, it is important to bear in mind that continuous-beam shots are never intercepted or disrupted. They either miss or they hit and anything that gets in their way gets shredded. Pulse weapon fire can be intercepted, but as far as I know, only Earth ships have the capacity to do so (at least, that was Earth's claim to fame in one of the tabletop warship games for B5).
The show states that the standard Model 501/6 Mk XI Thermonuclear Charge has a yield of 2 Megatons.
The episode DID NOT state how many went off (watched it Sunday for grins).
I know, I'm on your side. Just showing where he may have gotten the number from.
Coolio and I accept your statement on the nuke size.
The B5 wiki even states that the Drala Fi took at least two blasts, citing the movie In The Beginning as the evidence. So it took near 4 megatons to completely obliterate a single Minbari Sharlin.
Cuda, I think you've got a lot more homework to do before you can really nail this one.
It’s been a while since I watched B5, but my recollection is that is one of those constant beams hit you, no mater who shot it or who you were, you basically got part of you sliced clean off. Missiles, blasts, whatever else, you had a chance of living. But if someone put a beam on you, it was time to head for the lifeboats, or enjoy life as a dispersing cloud of gas.
s for energy weapon intercepting in the B5 universe, it is important to bear in mind that continuous-beam shots are never intercepted or disrupted. They either miss or they hit and anything that gets in their way gets shredded. Pulse weapon fire can be intercepted, but as far as I know, only Earth ships have the capacity to do so (at least, that was Earth's claim to fame in one of the tabletop warship games for B5).
Much as I hate to admit it - a Vorlon Cruiser seems to "parry" a Shadow beam with its own weapon in Interludes and Examinations...............
Various ships are one shot killed by beam weapons - Shadows are very good at it especially against the Minbari
Much as I hate to admit it - a Vorlon Cruiser seems to "parry" a Shadow beam with its own weapon in Interludes and Examinations...............
I don't remember that, but I will accept your word for it. However, Vorlons and Shadows were many, many tech levels above the other races, so I don't think they should be held up as an example of what everyone in B5 is capable of.
True, but they're also smaller than the ships we're talking about, more destroyers or light cruisers than battleships. The Excalibur would have been more of an equivalent ship to an Omega class.
Didn't A Narn heavy take out one in the same engagement when it jumped in and let go?
Frazzled wrote: True, but they're also smaller than the ships we're talking about, more destroyers or light cruisers than battleships. The Excalibur would have been more of an equivalent ship to an Omega class.
Didn't A Narn heavy take out one in the same engagement when it jumped in and let go?
I believe so. IIRC, Shadow Cruisers weren't hardy like their Vorlon equivalents, they were powerful, fast, and could cloak.
yep Shadow ships hit hard but equally can be hurt by powerful weapons or pinned by telepaths - which is what allowed the Narn and the White Star to kill them.
They are truely "hit and fade" ships...... they are not intended for stand up fights really.
They don't cloak but shift between space and hyperspace almost at will and can destroy the jump points younger races use.
Frazzled wrote: Where are you getting the 2 meg bomb? Sheridan just said they seeded the asteroid field with gravity mines. He didn't say anything with how strong they were.
There were lots of one shot kills in the B5 universe. Vorlons and Shadows did it all the time.
In Crusade, the Excalibur had no problem with ships up with one shot hits.
The Churchill, when retreating under fire, used one shot to destroy the pursuing Hyperion class cruiser.
Also to note, in another thread, that the B5 Omegas could actually target enemy ships and weapons coming in, whereas BSG did more of a area effect flak dump.
While on the topic of intercepting, in it's own universe an Omega class is usually NOT assigned to missions on its own. It relies heavily on escort ships to provide cover fire for intercepting fighters and incoming ordnance. The hypothetical assumes a one-on-one fight
Also please cite one episode where an Omega had escort ships with it. You did watch the show correct? Omegas in the series operated in battle groups with other Omegas and cruiser strength ships.
I will note Blood and Chrome showed BSGs working in groups as well.
In the movie "In the Begging" Sheirdan asked if they have any tactical nukes left. The reply over the radio is there there are, and that they are 2 megaton yield.
There were plenty of times ships in B5 got one-shotted, but rarely with any kind of measurement of power, let alone this precise.
As for the Escorts, the ships most commonly used for this were the older Hyperion class. I know they are basically smaller warships in their own right, but they did have regular escort duties to Omegas. I have access to a B5 technical manual that states this also.
Now, why is that important? It is meantioned that Sharlin Class ships have been able to one-shot human ships, but NO human ship has ever one-shotted a Sharlin, and that they do not have the ability to do so. Cannon referances state that it would take roughly three Omega Destroyers to take out a Sharlin. Therefore the power output of the main weapons battery would be considerably less than the impact that obliterated a Sharlin.
Energy weapons in the Babylon 5 universe, contrary to popular belief, CAN be intercepted, and have several times. Although realistically these would be harder to intercept than a missle or even a solid-slug type weapon.
Couple of things about Minbari vs Earth ships... the EA doesn't need 3 Omegas to destroy one Sharlin because the Sharlin is so heavily armored. They need three ships to destroy it because the Sharlin uses sensor and targetting-disrupting technology to prevent lock-ons and accurate fire being directed at it. Three Omegas can spit out enough beam spam that one of them is bound to get lucky and hit the Sharlin, at which point those main guns would feth it up proper. Conversely, the Sharlin doesn't have the targetting issues when facing an EA ship, so it hits with most or all of its shots, which naturally ruins the Omega's day. Firepower-wise, most major race ships (Narn, Centauri, Human, etc) are roughly on par with each other in regards to beam weapon damage output. Some races have more guns on their ships, some races have more maneuverable ships, but everybody's big beam cannons are on generally equal footing.
As for energy weapon intercepting in the B5 universe, it is important to bear in mind that continuous-beam shots are never intercepted or disrupted. They either miss or they hit and anything that gets in their way gets shredded. Pulse weapon fire can be intercepted, but as far as I know, only Earth ships have the capacity to do so (at least, that was Earth's claim to fame in one of the tabletop warship games for B5).
Older vessels (especially the older Hyperion class, and even the Nova class) couldn't lock onto Minbari vessels. The Omegas were specifically redesigned to counter this. They have been noted as the first human made vessels able to track and target lock a Minbari vessel.
The show states that the standard Model 501/6 Mk XI Thermonuclear Charge has a yield of 2 Megatons.
The episode DID NOT state how many went off (watched it Sunday for grins).
I know, I'm on your side. Just showing where he may have gotten the number from.
Coolio and I accept your statement on the nuke size.
The B5 wiki even states that the Drala Fi took at least two blasts, citing the movie In The Beginning as the evidence. So it took near 4 megatons to completely obliterate a single Minbari Sharlin.
Cuda, I think you've got a lot more homework to do before you can really nail this one.
Looks like you are partially right on this one. I re-watched the video of this fight There were only 3 nukes total, one was listed as not being in range. It looks like the first nuke that went off caused some damage, but not nearly as much as the 2nd. Even if it caused as much as possible we are still only looking at a maximum of 1-megaton hits per nuke though, due to Newton's laws. Even then that would only happen if the bomb was incased in a giant pipe, shooting an asteroid out of each end. A majority of that energy actually spilled out in directions that never touched the ship at all.
If a nuclear weapon is exploded in a vacuum-i. e., in space-the complexion of weapon effects changes drastically:
First, in the absence of an atmosphere, blast disappears completely.
Second, thermal radiation, as usually defined, also disappears. There is no longer any air for the blast wave to heat and much higher frequency radiation is emitted from the weapon itself.
Third, in the absence of the atmosphere, nuclear radiation will suffer no physical attenuation and the only degradation in intensity will arise from reduction with distance. As a result the range of significant dosages will be many times greater than is the case at sea level.
Figure 2 shows the dosage-distance relationship for a 20-kiloton explosion when the burst takes place at sea level and when the burst takes place in space. We see that in the range 500 to 5,000 roentgens the space radii are of the order of 8 to 17 times as large as the sea-level radii. At lower dosages the difference between the two cases becomes even larger.
A yield of 20 kilotons has been used here as an example to show the dominance of nuclear radiation effects in space; however, it may well be that multimegaton warheads, rather than 20-kiloton warheads, will be far more representative of space defense applications. With such weapons the lethal radii (from nuclear radiation) in space may be of the order of hundreds of miles. The meaning of such huge lethal radii in possible future space warfare cannot now be assessed. It does seem clear, however, that manned space combat vehicles, unless heavy shielding is feasible, will be considerably more vulnerable to nuclear defense weapons than their unmanned counterparts.
Bolded the most important part.
Basically, NASA states that Nuclear weapons in space are really only useful in so far as killing crews with radiation, ships themselves are pretty much safe. However, the range of that radiation is magnified exponentially due to lack of atmosphere.
So, calculating anything based off of what we see on screen is destined to fail anyway.
If a nuclear weapon is exploded in a vacuum-i. e., in space-the complexion of weapon effects changes drastically:
First, in the absence of an atmosphere, blast disappears completely.
Second, thermal radiation, as usually defined, also disappears. There is no longer any air for the blast wave to heat and much higher frequency radiation is emitted from the weapon itself.
Third, in the absence of the atmosphere, nuclear radiation will suffer no physical attenuation and the only degradation in intensity will arise from reduction with distance. As a result the range of significant dosages will be many times greater than is the case at sea level.
A yield of 20 kilotons has been used here as an example to show the dominance of nuclear radiation effects in space; however, it may well be that multimegaton warheads, rather than 20-kiloton warheads, will be far more representative of space defense applications. With such weapons the lethal radii (from nuclear radiation) in space may be of the order of hundreds of miles. The meaning of such huge lethal radii in possible future space warfare cannot now be assessed. It does seem clear, however, that manned space combat vehicles, unless heavy shielding is feasible, will be considerably more vulnerable to nuclear defense weapons than their unmanned counterparts.
Point-blank explosions however actually CAN cause damage from concussion as it uses the target itself as the media to which the force is transferred. In other words it rips the target in two. The same is true of heat transfer. However, these two would be at significantly lower levels than in an actual atmosphere.
I even brought this very topic up in a previous post, in which I explained that the best way to transfer that shockwave would have been to shoot half of the asteroid the nuke was sitting on in one direction, while the other half went directly into the ship.
I realize that using real-world physics in space-opera analysis is a bit silly. However it is all I really have to go on when comparing two different shows.
cuda1179 wrote: The Omegas were specifically redesigned to counter this. They have been noted as the first human made vessels able to track and target lock a Minbari vessel.
Point-blank explosions however actually CAN cause damage from concussion as it uses the target itself as the media to which the force is transferred. In other words it rips the target in two. The same is true of heat transfer. However, these two would be at significantly lower levels than in an actual atmosphere.
At that point, you may as well strap engines to the asteroid and launch it that way. It'd probably be more accurate.
cuda1179 wrote: The Omegas were specifically redesigned to counter this. They have been noted as the first human made vessels able to track and target lock a Minbari vessel.
That's news to me.
There is some semi-cannon fluff on this. Although noted as being able to preform a target lock, as I stated, there is a B5 tech manual that states that basically it's hit or miss. It's definitely better than shooting in the dark, but still not 100% as good as when shooting at other race's vessels.
Mr Morden wrote: Much as I hate to admit it - a Vorlon Cruiser seems to "parry" a Shadow beam with its own weapon in Interludes and Examinations...............
Vorlons are actually several steps above the Shadows in terms of the ships seen on screen. Indeed we see the same Vorlon heavy cruiser fired upon twice by Shadow cruisers- once to no effect at all and the second time, when the shields are penetrated (yes, Vorlons have shields!) to do nothing more than gouge the lower right lightning cannon prong. Mind you that prong keeps functioning where the same kind of weapon literally cuts other capital ships in half. Vorlon ships, which carry actual Vorlons (as opposed to the expendable Shadow ships which don't carry Shadows) are absurdly tough. I'm pretty sure that outside of the planet killer we never actually see a Vorlon capital ship destroyed.
It's also worth noting that the Shadow ships are incredibly durable but due to being able to absorb, store and bleed off energy. When they are 'gripped' by a telepath that ability (along with the ability to do much of anything) is switched off. With the ability functioning as normal they are phenomenally tough. Beam weapons (which are a distinct class from Pulse) cannot be intercepted. Think of pulse weapons like a 40K plasma gun- packets of energy bound together by some means that explode upon impact. That impact could be the hull of a ship or it could be the flak of an interceptor shell.
Lastly Omega's were designed to kick any ass they came up against true- but no Younger Race tech vessel ever defeated the Mimbari jammers. :(
But we're back wondering how well those Omega heavy lasers will penetrate BSG armour and there is just no way to know. I'd hazard a guess that the EA crew would be smart enough to look at the Galactica and target the huge frontal sections bereft of armour, which is another thing to consider.
I know it never comes up in the show but Galactica is missing *massive* amounts of it's hull plating (to say nothing of its armament!) from when we see it in Blood and Chrome first being put into service, when it is a brand new ship. That *should* have been an issue in the series but it wasn't. I doubt the EA would be so kind on them as the writers were. While I'm not sure how well the armoured sections would hold up to heavy EA lasers I'm reasonably certain the unarmoured sections- of which there are many- will not hold up well.
That is another rather interesting point- none of the Battlestars we see in action in BSG are anywhere close to their full potential. Pegasus has suffered serious computer damage, and is not equipped with Galactica's robust computer-less data systems. Galactica begins the series in terrible shape and just gets worse.
An analysis must not just strip away the plot armor, but upscale the Galactica's abilities to its optimal state. Imagine only ever seeing Arnold in The Last Stand, and trying to imagine how he'd do wrestling The Rock in their primes- without seeing Conan the Barbarian.
Mr Morden wrote: Much as I hate to admit it - a Vorlon Cruiser seems to "parry" a Shadow beam with its own weapon in Interludes and Examinations...............
Vorlons are actually several steps above the Shadows in terms of the ships seen on screen. Indeed we see the same Vorlon heavy cruiser fired upon twice by Shadow cruisers- once to no effect at all and the second time, when the shields are penetrated (yes, Vorlons have shields!) to do nothing more than gouge the lower right lightning cannon prong. Mind you that prong keeps functioning where the same kind of weapon literally cuts other capital ships in half. Vorlon ships, which carry actual Vorlons (as opposed to the expendable Shadow ships which don't carry Shadows) are absurdly tough. I'm pretty sure that outside of the planet killer we never actually see a Vorlon capital ship destroyed.
It's also worth noting that the Shadow ships are incredibly durable but due to being able to absorb, store and bleed off energy. When they are 'gripped' by a telepath that ability (along with the ability to do much of anything) is switched off. With the ability functioning as normal they are phenomenally tough. Beam weapons (which are a distinct class from Pulse) cannot be intercepted. Think of pulse weapons like a 40K plasma gun- packets of energy bound together by some means that explode upon impact. That impact could be the hull of a ship or it could be the flak of an interceptor shell.
Lastly Omega's were designed to kick any ass they came up against true- but no Younger Race tech vessel ever defeated the Mimbari jammers. :(
But we're back wondering how well those Omega heavy lasers will penetrate BSG armour and there is just no way to know. I'd hazard a guess that the EA crew would be smart enough to look at the Galactica and target the huge frontal sections bereft of armour, which is another thing to consider.
I know it never comes up in the show but Galactica is missing *massive* amounts of it's hull plating (to say nothing of its armament!) from when we see it in Blood and Chrome first being put into service, when it is a brand new ship. That *should* have been an issue in the series but it wasn't. I doubt the EA would be so kind on them as the writers were. While I'm not sure how well the armoured sections would hold up to heavy EA lasers I'm reasonably certain the unarmoured sections- of which there are many- will not hold up well.
I missed out on a majority of Blood and Chrome. Wow, Galacitca sure looks different, and beautiful.
I do REALLY hate to point this out, but there was an instance in B5 where a beam weapon got intercepted. In "a Call to Arms" a Victory Class Destroyer's main weapon (the most bad-ass weapon on any non-ancient vessel) is even intercepted. I admit this was done by throwing a small ship in front of it suicide-style, but the diameter of the beam was as large as the ship.
On a side note, Conan-esk Arnold would kick the crap out of the Rock. Although, I'd sure love to see the Rock to a Rock Bottom on him.
I do REALLY hate to point this out, but there was an instance in B5 where a beam weapon got intercepted. In "a Call to Arms" a Victory Class Destroyer's main weapon (the most bad-ass weapon on any non-ancient vessel) is even intercepted. I admit this was done by throwing a small ship in front of it suicide-style, but the diameter of the beam was as large as the ship.
When I say intercepted, I mean by an E-Web, more commonly called interceptors. They're the B5 version of flak cannons and attacks with a physical component- like pulses or kinetic weapons- can be destroyed by them. Sorta like the Phallanx system on a carrier. What you're talking about isn't an interception per se but would be the equivalent of stopping a harpoon missile by parking an escort next to your carrier. You can call it missile defence but I don't expect it to catch on
But you're right, Galactica is a very pretty ship in it's heyday. You can clearly see how much weaponry it has lost on top of its hull. :(
Mr Morden wrote: Much as I hate to admit it - a Vorlon Cruiser seems to "parry" a Shadow beam with its own weapon in Interludes and Examinations...............
Vorlons are actually several steps above the Shadows in terms of the ships seen on screen. Indeed we see the same Vorlon heavy cruiser fired upon twice by Shadow cruisers- once to no effect at all and the second time, when the shields are penetrated (yes, Vorlons have shields!) to do nothing more than gouge the lower right lightning cannon prong. Mind you that prong keeps functioning where the same kind of weapon literally cuts other capital ships in half. Vorlon ships, which carry actual Vorlons (as opposed to the expendable Shadow ships which don't carry Shadows) are absurdly tough. I'm pretty sure that outside of the planet killer we never actually see a Vorlon capital ship destroyed.
It's also worth noting that the Shadow ships are incredibly durable but due to being able to absorb, store and bleed off energy. When they are 'gripped' by a telepath that ability (along with the ability to do much of anything) is switched off. With the ability functioning as normal they are phenomenally tough. Beam weapons (which are a distinct class from Pulse) cannot be intercepted. Think of pulse weapons like a 40K plasma gun- packets of energy bound together by some means that explode upon impact. That impact could be the hull of a ship or it could be the flak of an interceptor shell.
Lastly Omega's were designed to kick any ass they came up against true- but no Younger Race tech vessel ever defeated the Mimbari jammers. :(
But we're back wondering how well those Omega heavy lasers will penetrate BSG armour and there is just no way to know. I'd hazard a guess that the EA crew would be smart enough to look at the Galactica and target the huge frontal sections bereft of armour, which is another thing to consider.
I know it never comes up in the show but Galactica is missing *massive* amounts of it's hull plating (to say nothing of its armament!) from when we see it in Blood and Chrome first being put into service, when it is a brand new ship. That *should* have been an issue in the series but it wasn't. I doubt the EA would be so kind on them as the writers were. While I'm not sure how well the armoured sections would hold up to heavy EA lasers I'm reasonably certain the unarmoured sections- of which there are many- will not hold up well.
WOW! I never noticed that. I thought the grill work was just the design of the ship, not that its effectively had major portions scrapped.
Frazzled wrote: WOW! I never noticed that. I thought the grill work was just the design of the ship, not that its effectively had major portions scrapped.
Yeah it is rather a shock but it *was* in the process of being decommissioned turned into a museum. All those missing weapons and armour seem like they really *should* have made an impact. Makes you wonder again how a much a fully operational battlestar would have performed in the show. Unfortunately it also highlights just how seemingly paper thin Pegasus seems to be. :(
Incidentally if anyone's wondering if that is indeed the Galactica, the writing on the launch bay is almost discernible but '75' is clearly visible on the hull. 75 of course is the number designation of Galactica.
on the Shadow planet killer. Worf drinks prune juice, the drink of warriors.
especially against the Minbari
I missed out on a majority of Blood and Chrome. Wow, Galacitca sure looks different, and beautiful.
