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.

 MarcoSkoll wrote:

HexHammer wrote:
Imo it's a moot comparison

You can't have it both ways.

Says who? Grabbed out of thin air.

 Crimson wrote:
I think that passage shows exactly how the writers do not grasp the implications of the scale. Tens of thousands of crew and troops! Really? 330 metres long Nimitz class aircraft carrier has over 6000 personnel. Ten kilometres long ship would have roughly 27 000 times the volume of Nimitz! So if we scale the crew accordingly, we would get something like 160 million!

A Nimitz class carrier is extremely crowded, you can take it from someone who has been on one (but not served on one).

Imperial battleships are probably way less crowded, and possibly have much larger proportions of internal space dedicated to weapons and engines.

w1zard wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I think that passage shows exactly how the writers do not grasp the implications of the scale. Tens of thousands of crew and troops! Really? 330 metres long Nimitz class aircraft carrier has over 6000 personnel. Ten kilometres long ship would have roughly 27 000 times the volume of Nimitz! So if we scale the crew accordingly, we would get something like 160 million!

A Nimitz class carrier is extremely crowded, you can take it from someone who has been on one (but not served on one).

Imperial battleships are probably way less crowded, and possibly have much larger proportions of internal space dedicated to weapons and engines.

I've not been aboard a Nimitz class but I've been aboard plenty of ships and I'll agree with w1zard here as a general rule. Ships are generally pretty compact, with small corridors (only wide eneugh to go through 1 at a time) lowish ceilings. etc. they're very compact. Compare this with what's been told about Imperial ships, they have sections with high ceilings, long wide passage ways etc. Imperium ships, put bluntly WASTE a lot of space

w1zard wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I think that passage shows exactly how the writers do not grasp the implications of the scale. Tens of thousands of crew and troops! Really? 330 metres long Nimitz class aircraft carrier has over 6000 personnel. Ten kilometres long ship would have roughly 27 000 times the volume of Nimitz! So if we scale the crew accordingly, we would get something like 160 million!

A Nimitz class carrier is extremely crowded, you can take it from someone who has been on one (but not served on one).

Imperial battleships are probably way less crowded, and possibly have much larger proportions of internal space dedicated to weapons and engines.

You fail to grasp the magnitude of the problem. Even if there was hundred times as much space per person in 10 km long imperial battleship, it would still mean crew of 1,6 million. There is no way around that 'tens of thousands' makes no sense.

Super rough numbers here, but lets take as estimate for the volume of a Nimitz (numbers from wikipedia). 333*77*20 is roughly 512,820 cubic meters. With a crew of 6,000 this is 85.47 cubic meters per crewman.

Compare this to the rough volume of a 40k battleship which is say... 10KM long and using proportional height and width to the aircraft carrier. 10,000*2,312*600 is roughly 13,872,000,000 cubic meters. The crew is "tens of thousands of crewmen and soldiers" I am going to assume 90,000. This means that there is 154,133 cubic meters per crewman.

An Imperial battleship is roughly 1,800 times less crowded than a Nimitz aircraft carrier. For perspective, there would be 4 crewmen on the entirety of the Nimitz if that were to transfer over. However, assume that the Imperial battleship dedicates ten times as much internal space to armor, weapons, and engines. It would mean that the battleship is instead 180 times less crowded than the Nimitz, which would translate to about 33 crewmen on the Nimitz, which still sounds a little low, but a lot better.

Sorry, these numbers are extremely rough, but I am just spitballing.

w1zard wrote:
Super rough numbers here, but lets take as estimate for the volume of a Nimitz (numbers from wikipedia). 333*77*20 is roughly 512,820 cubic meters. With a crew of 6,000 this is 85.47 cubic meters per crewman.

Compare this to the rough volume of a 40k battleship which is say... 10KM long and using proportional height and width to the aircraft carrier. 10,000*2,312*600 is roughly 13,872,000,000 cubic meters. The crew is "tens of thousands of crewmen and soldiers" I am going to assume 90,000. This means that there is 154,133 cubic meters per crewman.

An Imperial battleship is roughly 1,800 times less crowded than a Nimitz aircraft carrier. For perspective, there would be 4 crewmen on the entirety of the Nimitz if that were to transfer over. However, assume that the Imperial battleship dedicates ten times as much internal space to armor, weapons, and engines. It would mean that the battleship is instead 180 times less crowded than the Nimitz, which would translate to about 33 crewmen on the Nimitz, which still sounds a little low, but a lot better.

Sorry, these numbers are extremely rough, but I am just spitballing.

Consider the 1 Kilometre + "highways" and large cathedral rooms in the Imperial vessels when discussing this, that'll proably adjust things a little.

BrianDavion wrote:
Consider the 1 Kilometre + "highways" and large cathedral rooms in the Imperial vessels when discussing this, that'll proably adjust things a little.

It already factors that in. Whether the internal space is a maze of corridors or a wide cathedral, usable internal space is usable internal space.

Andy Chambers gave the crew size scale at 1500-2000 people per damage point for capital ships and at 200-500 for escorts:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160630040043/http://www.wolfedengames.com/battlefleetgothic/crew.htm

This scale is adhered to in BL publications published years apart by different authors:

Now, six years later, he was one of the most senior non-commissioned officers amongst a crew of almost thirteen thousand...
p. 62, Shadow Point , by Gordon Rennie

That was for a Dictator class cruiser with 6 damage points so that fits with the scale given by Andy Chambers.

"I cannot be everywhere, Warrant. There are ten thousand men aboard the Relentless."

http://www.richard-williams.com/relentless-notes.php

Exact page number not available as my paper copy of that book not at hand but that author's notes gives the quote. The Relentless was a Lunar class cruiser, so 6 damage points. Again that crew size falls within Andy Chambers' range.

Over 25,000 crew called the warship home, even though a sizable chunk of those were slave labourers and servitor wretches...
p. 95-96, Soul Hunter

That was for an Avenger class grand cruiser with 10 damage points. By Andy Chambers, that gives a crew of about 20,000 but an additional 5,000 might be those servitors referenced. An extra 25% crew inflation perhaps but still far less than the massive inflation by people claiming millions.

As shown by these quotes, the scale has been remarkably consistent over many years of BL publications. It wasn't until FFG came along that then people started trying to inflate the size for no apparent reason. It smacks of "It's 40K so things have to be stupidly big...just because". Just because there is volume does not mean it has to have crew. The inflation is no different really from those that insist Warlord Titans are as tall as mountain ranges based on exaggerated artwork. If an outlier BL author should write bolters shooting laser beams, we don't then go and say there is inconsistency about whether bolters shoot bolts or laser beams. We say the BL author didn't do their research and got it wrong.

A lot of the issues comes from many people not understanding the square-cube law. Writers think that ship twice as long has twice the space and twice the crew of the smaller ship, although actually it has eight times the space.

BrianDavion wrote:
I've not been aboard a Nimitz class but I've been aboard plenty of ships and I'll agree with w1zard here as a general rule. Ships are generally pretty compact, with small corridors (only wide eneugh to go through 1 at a time) lowish ceilings. etc. they're very compact. Compare this with what's been told about Imperial ships, they have sections with high ceilings, long wide passage ways etc. Imperium ships, put bluntly WASTE a lot of space

Sorry to be a party pooper, but Nimitz class ships are only carriers, without cannons, no engines for void shields, no area for cooling systems, no area tanks, etc that has to be dropped, etc etc.

So far as I've understood it, you have to have huge areas for engines dedicated for void shields, backup systems and cooling systems all things that contemporary carries doesn't have.

Iracundus wrote:
A quote about Great Crusade era ships is not really relevant to the 40k era because we know the Imperium has gone downhill technologically since then. Nor is citing examples of civilian cargo ships larger than 6km since the discussion was about warships, specifically battleships. Warships would be more heavily armored, have more durable redundant systems, larger power requirements, and have more crew than a comparable civilian freighter, which can be a nearly uninhabited flying box. Modern freighters vs modern warships shows this difference between ship and crew sizes. The attempts to handwave about the crew as all servitors also does not fit all the existing background of the ships using manual labor to load weapons, and being Hornblower in Space with the gun decks being flying ghettos.

It's pretty damn clear these are modern 40k ship classes too, which are no different from the "modern" ones, especially when ships can have multi-millennial lifespans. And I actually can't recall the massive press gangs showing up much in modern fluff, with that being more of an old BFG thing.

The citing of the BFG list consensus and also of Andy Chambers’ crew and size scales is relevant as actually the BL novels have been remarkably consistent across years of novels by different writers in adhering generally to that scale. Size inflation is a thing though with more recent writers seemingly creeping the size up and inventing new previously unknown ship classes or individual ships. That does not make it any more reasonable than those previous depictions of a Warlord Titan as big as a mountain. As MarcoSkoll pointed out, it gets into stupid territory. Given the previous surprising consistency in BL with regards to ships it is tantamount to a writer suddenly writing bolters shooting out lasers or daisy flowers. I.e. they didn’t do their background research.

No, consensus means nothing and all opinions regarding it is worthless because said conesnsus is held by people who don't own the IP. I don't care what any mailing list, or even GW writers on that mailing list think, because they have no say in what is or is not true. That people respect what is said is circumstantial until GW slaps that mailing list with the big ol' canon stamp, publishes it, and explicitly repeals prior fluff about ships exceeding the 6 kilometer limit by declaring them heretic tomes. Otherwise you're ultimately just clinging to old sources out of nostalgia that are no longer up-to-date.

 Crimson wrote:
A lot of the issues comes from many people not understanding the square-cube law. Writers think that ship twice as long has twice the space and twice the crew of the smaller ship, although actually it has eight times the space.

I think I understand the "square law" Isambard Kingdom Brunel proved it when sailing a steamship across the Alantic from Teadrinker Land to Gunslinger Land. People said it couldn't be done since a ship that size would use up too much coal, but they didn't understand the carrying capacity increased much greater than the "square law"

HexHammer wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I've not been aboard a Nimitz class but I've been aboard plenty of ships and I'll agree with w1zard here as a general rule. Ships are generally pretty compact, with small corridors (only wide eneugh to go through 1 at a time) lowish ceilings. etc. they're very compact. Compare this with what's been told about Imperial ships, they have sections with high ceilings, long wide passage ways etc. Imperium ships, put bluntly WASTE a lot of space

Sorry to be a party pooper, but Nimitz class ships are only carriers, without cannons, no engines for void shields, no area for cooling systems, no area tanks, etc that has to be dropped, etc etc. So far as I've understood it, you have to have huge areas for engines dedicated for void shields, backup systems and cooling systems all things that contemporary carries doesn't have.

I don't quite see what you're trying to say? A carrier has to have space for it's fighters, some fuel and munitions for them (the carrier group will also have a supply ship), spare parts and workshops, and it does have large engines to keep it moving at a good clip. The ship itself needs 3200 crew to work but the air wing assigned to it is a further 2500 or so. And it's not expected to fight directly so there's only some light armament and not that much armor taking space - but it's still incredibly cramped!

An Imperial vessel does use a lot of volume on reactors, drives, armor and guns, but still seems to have space for cathedrals and stuff.

Spetulhu wrote:

HexHammer wrote:
Sorry to be a party pooper, but Nimitz class ships are only carriers, without cannons, no engines for void shields, no area for cooling systems, no area tanks, etc that has to be dropped, etc etc. So far as I've understood it, you have to have huge areas for engines dedicated for void shields, backup systems and cooling systems all things that contemporary carries doesn't have.

I don't quite see what you're trying to say? A carrier has to have space for it's fighters, some fuel and munitions for them (the carrier group will also have a supply ship), spare parts and workshops, and it does have large engines to keep it moving at a good clip. The ship itself needs 3200 crew to work but the air wing assigned to it is a further 2500 or so. And it's not expected to fight directly so there's only some light armament and not that much armor taking space - but it's still incredibly cramped!

An Imperial vessel does use a lot of volume on reactors, drives, armor and guns, but still seems to have space for cathedrals and stuff.

Isn't it so that the biggest ships in the Imperial Navy also doubles as carriers thus does exactly what Nimitz carrier does? So on top of those things you mentioned they also have to have cannons and void shields?

BrianDavion wrote:
Consider the 1 Kilometre + "highways" and large cathedral rooms in the Imperial vessels when discussing this, that'll proably adjust things a little.

I think this is the important point about 'useable internal space' - Imperial scale and tech requires a lot of that space for either logistics or scale of machinery, and a battleship might do the job of a gun platform, carrier and troop transport.

So, a single Imperial ship-to-ship gun requires, say, 100 pressed crew (from Legacy?) just to pull out the spent shells on ropes. Those are guns massively larger than a battleship gun, not just 10x. Warp drives are colossal. Battleships regularly transport Titan detachments and entire Imperial Armies, and then have highways big enough (in height as well as width) to march them down from their billet area to their loading bay area. Plus all the processionals, gothic stuff, etc.

The battleship in theory has a ton of extra 'unused space', but it needs to use that space for it's operations.

I don't see why having tons of enormous equipment is a reason for less crew. It's the opposite: that equipment is the reason the crew is there. You don't stuff crew onto a ship for no reason. If the engines are a kilometer long by themselves, that's a long stretch of machinery that needs constant maintenance to keep it operational, if it's like anything else in 40K.

I would imagine, if the writers went through every piece of equipment and duty on a battleship and listed the number of people it required, you'd get a crew of a million or more.

this thread reminds me that some one already did one of those giant size comparison thing.

a lot of the 40k stuff is massive. but its not always the biggest one.

but overall they are pretty dang big.
full sized spoiled

 Desubot wrote:


this thread reminds me that some one already did one of those giant size comparison thing.

a lot of the 40k stuff is massive. but its not always the biggest one.

but overall they are pretty dang big.
full sized spoiled

Spoiler:

Love that site - so much coolness.

Big is often beautiful

That pic has no craftworld . . . . ?

 Pancake5765 wrote:
That pic has no craftworld . . . . ?

I don't think you could fit a craftworld in that pic. They're the size of a flying continental plate - such as the entire British Isles. There'd just be this mass of golden baubles at the bottom of the image with no beginning or end.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Pancake5765 wrote:
That pic has no craftworld . . . . ?

I don't think you could fit a craftworld in that pic. They're the size of a flying continental plate - such as the entire British Isles. There'd just be this mass of golden baubles at the bottom of the image with no beginning or end.

Yeah its like having the Death Star or large Culture ships

 Pancake5765 wrote:
That pic has no craftworld . . . . ?

Also the ID4 City Destroyer's in there but no Mothership?

In order for a 10KM battleship to feel as crowded as a modern day aircraft carrier you would need roughly 16,230,000 crewmen lol, again, accounting for 10 times larger weapons, engines, and armor.

According to the star wars wiki, a super star destroyer (the Executor, darth vader's flagship from the original movies) was 19KM in length and had a crew of 300,000 which is even more ridiculous.

w1zard wrote:
In order for a 10KM battleship to feel as crowded as a modern day aircraft carrier you would need roughly 16,230,000 crewmen lol, again, accounting for 10 times larger weapons, engines, and armor.

According to the star wars wiki, a super star destroyer (the Executor, darth vader's flagship from the original movies) was 19KM in length and had a crew of 300,000 which is even more ridiculous.

Most space in star wars ships is taken up by the reactors and hyperdrive, so in reality, especially with how thin they are, the Executor Class was functionally akin to a ship that's 9 kilometers long if it's anything like its smaller sisters.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Most space in star wars ships is taken up by the reactors and hyperdrive, so in reality, especially with how thin they are, the Executor Class was functionally akin to a ship that's 9 kilometers long if it's anything like its smaller sisters.

Even accounting for the thin profile and large engines, 300,000 crew is nowhere near enough. We would need to know the exact volume of an SSD (Super Star Destroyer) to get a really accurate comparison... But, even a 10 KM battleship with proportionally 10 times more space devoted to armor, weapons and engines than a modern aircraft carrier can fit millions of people on board, and tens of millions before it starts to feel crowded. 300,000 is nothing for a 19 KM long battleship.

https://imgur.com/gallery/zgIcrsz

That picture is for perspective.

w1zard wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Most space in star wars ships is taken up by the reactors and hyperdrive, so in reality, especially with how thin they are, the Executor Class was functionally akin to a ship that's 9 kilometers long if it's anything like its smaller sisters.

Even accounting for the thin profile and large engines, 300,000 crew is nowhere near enough. We would need to know the exact volume of an SSD (Super Star Destroyer) to get a really accurate comparison... But, even a 10 KM battleship with proportionally 10 times more space devoted to armor, weapons and engines than a modern aircraft carrier can fit millions of people on board, and tens of millions before it starts to feel crowded. 300,000 is nothing for a 19 KM long battleship.

https://imgur.com/gallery/zgIcrsz

That picture is for perspective.

I don't think there would even be 10 kilometers for "free" space (disregarding volume as we don't know it) simply because engines in Star Wars are GIGANTIC. They really take up a lot of space, as do hangars, when compared to RL ships which are fiendishly efficient when it comes to usage of available space. Living sections tend to just be a couple decks of the ship, while the engines and hangar space comprises the majority of a ship's volume. Hell the ships have such massive engines/reactors that those distinctive circular buldges you see in most GE ships? Those are reactors with a thin layer of armor slapped over them because they couldn't actually fit the reactor within the constraints of the hull design.

If anything Star Wars ships are too small, as they don't have enough armor over the important sections which might even be partially exposed to enemy fire when shields fail.

I think people are forgetting how small, geographically speaking, cities are. Dublin is about 100 km square (10x10 km) but has 1.2 million people in it. Quite comfortably and without crowding, including parks, housing estates etc etc.

w1zard wrote:
According to the star wars wiki, a super star destroyer (the Executor, darth vader's flagship from the original movies) was 19KM in length and had a crew of 300,000 which is even more ridiculous.

I think the "rotation" is different on such SSD, where people may have prolonged stay and you have to have civilian entertainers which requires service crew, administration, office workers, civilian shops, super markets, big relaxation halls, big areas for military personnel and vehicles etc.

Somehow it seems plausible to me, but maybe I'm just crazy.

I think SW won the game of stupid, implausible big with Starkiller and noone should even try to approach it.

 Earth127 wrote:
I think SW won the game of stupid, implausible big with Starkiller and noone should even try to approach it.

That's always been Star Wars's style: ships are as big as they need to be, and weapons as powerful as they need to be, to be visually impressive onscreen before any other consideration.