Subject:
|
Re: free-for-all in space
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Jan 2000 19:26:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1162 times
|
| |
|
|
Z wrote:
> In lugnet.space, Patrick Leahy writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > Z wrote:
> > >
> > > > In lugnet.space, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark Nelson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > In lugnet.space, Patrick Leahy writes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I bet the enemy wouldn't expect a turbolaser-caked freighter, • especially
> > if
> > > > > > > half its cargo is fighters. The look on the enemys' faces, heheheh...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hahahaha! I agree... :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Then again, of course, it's not a freighter anymore...:)
> > > > >
> > > > > best
> > > > >
> > > > > LFB
> > > >
> > > > What's the difference between transports and freighters? Is one armed, and • the
> > > > other not? I haven't been able to figure that one out..
> > >
> > > Freighters carry generic cargo, stored as compactly as possible for shipping.
> > > "Transports" generally carry people or machines designed for immediate • deployment
> > > or comfort. "Tenders" also fall into this category. Now, what does one call • a
> > > ship carrying cryo pods? A sleeper ship, if they're full (or intended for • filling
> > > in situ)--if they're being shipped somewhere, they're "Freighters." • Transports can
> > > carry freight as well as passengers, however; it's just not their primary • purpose.
> > >
> > > As to whether they're armed, that has to do with whether they're
> > > military-affiliated or not in peacetime; in times of war, even fully civilian
> > > transports and freighters might get defensive armament.
> > >
> > > The above are usually true in modern surface ships, which form the basis for
> > > starship analogues; however, YMMV when you get them into your own universe.
> > >
> > > best,
> > >
> > > Lindsay
> >
> > That makes sense. Then, I suppose, a freighter bristling with turbolasers and
> > with a cargo bay 2/5 full with fighters can still be used as a freighter, as
> > long as the remaining 3/5 of cargo space is used for freight.
Sure! But then it may not be a "freighter" anymore (even if it started out that
way).
It becomes more like the amphibious assault ships the US Navy uses today--they
can
carry cargo, and a lot of it, but they also carry a lot of craft and weapons.
> A freighter that also serves as a heavy warship doesn't need escorts.
> What a cool idea. Maybe I should build one.
Well, then it's not really a freighter anymore--it becomes more of a transport or a
supply ship. One of the controlling ideas of freighterdom is that you make some
kind of profit on your journey--rather difficult when 40% of your precious cargo
space is taken up by carried craft and weaponry. The British, in both world wars,
stocked some merchant vessels with heavier weapons than the "average" merchant was
given; these were referred to as (logically) armed merchantmen or auxiliary
cruisers (A/CA, a ludicrous designation for these largely worthless little ships.
However, one named Rawalpindi did a magnificent job of holding a German capital
ship at bay (!) while its convoy scattered, paying with its existence to do so).
The sticky part is when you've taken a freighter pattern (or a pattern normally
identified as "freighter" or "merchantman"--the latter being the generic term for
most civilian ships that carry cargo, but not necessarily just freighters) and
stocked it with weapons. That's where the "surprise" would come into play, and it
would be needed too, because most freighter patterns aren't designed for warship
use. Granted, fighters don't generally mind what the pattern is as long as they
can get in and out, and historically they haven't been aboard sea freighters
because of the whole runway issue that may be irrelevant to small spacecraft. The
"OooooOOoooO!!" (as in surprise or alarm) factor however also rests on the fact
that the overwhelming number of freighters *aren't* fitted out like this. To see
what happens when more than a few are, just look at the Q-ships and German
unrestricted submarine warfare in WWI.
best,
Lindsay
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: free-for-all in space
|
| Granted, fighters don't generally mind what the pattern is as long as they can get in and out, and historically they haven't been aboard sea freighters because of the whole runway issue that may be irrelevant to small spacecraft. A fair number of (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jan-00, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: free-for-all in space
|
| (...) especially (...) that also serves as a heavy warship doesn't need escorts. What a cool idea. Maybe I should build one. Z (25 years ago, 22-Jan-00, to lugnet.space)
|
45 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
