Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

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.

 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.

To be fair, he has a point about the length of voyage vs distance to resupply/repair/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.

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?

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 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:

WS Bs S T W I A Ld Sv

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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 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.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 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?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

You guys need to youtube more:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 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.

 Kojiro wrote:

 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.

And then the Shadows or Vorlons come in and lay waste to both sides for not following their respective dogmatic beliefs.