Subject:
|
Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:16:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
943 times
|
| |
|
|
"Bob Parker" <cg47@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:H1M6Dy.4y8@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.space, Jude Beaudin writes:
> > For the sake of this discusion, all LEGO ships refered too should be • minifig
> > scale.
>
> IMHO:
>
> > What is the minimum length (studs) of a 'capital ship'?
>
> 150
>
> > Can a 'capital ship' land on a planet?
>
> No
I think you may be wrong on this one. Of the definitions I've read, none
have said anything that they can't land. They may need an on-planet dock,
but I am pretty sure a Star Destroyer can make a landing, from what I've
read in Star Wars books.
> Imperial Star Destroyer/Super Star Destroyer; Death Star; USS Enterprise
> NC-1701A-E; Romulian Warbird; Klingon Battlecruiser/D-7 Cruiser
I think the Deathstars were classified as 'battle stations' anyway. :p
--
Markham Carroll
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship"
|
| (...) IMHO: (...) 150 (...) No (...) Not applicable (...) No (...) Aerial bombardment of a planet, troop carrier, fleet defence, solar system defense, fighter/bomber carrier, hospital ship, ground assault ship carrier, deep space exploration (...) (...) (22 years ago, 29-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
