Re: Re: [FT] a "true Fisher Battlecruiser" for the NAC, was Battlecruisers vs. battleships

----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [FT] Battlecruisers vs. battleships

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 6:49 AM
> Subject: RE: Re: [FT] Battlecruisers vs. battleships
>
>
> > From: Eric Foley stiltman@teleport.com
> > >it's kind of silly to build a ship of the wall sized vessel that
doesn't
> dare
> > > fight something its own size.
>
> > <grin> Oh, I want my BCs to fight things their own size--merchants,
> > troop ships, fleet tenders....
Much SNIPPED
In FT, BC means "light battleship". Real-life BCs were almost invariably
bigger than the corresponding battleship.
The WW1 BC HMS Lion was a battlecruiser version of the battleship HMS
Orion-
I was intrigued to see what would happen if the same changes were
applied to
a FT battleship, so:

NAC Lion is to NAC Victoria as HMS Lion is to HMS Orion, i.e.:
Increase of ~16% in displacement,
Lion has 80% of the broadside, and the same secondary armament.
Very poor armour, huge engines take up the increased space in Lion.

NAC Victoria class BB:
Mass 120
Hull integrity 36, Defences Armour-5, Screen  Level-1 (Total 47 mass,
39% of
Hull)
FTL mass 12; Main Drive 4  mass 24 (Total 36 mass, 30% of Hull)
Secondary Armament: 2 B-1, 3 PDS total 5 mass
Main Armament: 2 P-torp, 3 B-3s, 1 B-2 (Total 29 mass, 24% of Hull)
3 FCS

406 points

NAC Lion class BC:
Mass 140
Hull integrity 36, Defences Armour-2, Screen  Level-1 (Total 45 mass,
32% of
Hull)
FTL mass 14; Main Drive mass 49 (Main Drive 35% of Hull so Thrust-7!)
Secondary Armament: 2 B-1, 3 PDS total 5 mass
Main Armament: 2 P-torp, 2 B-3s, 1 B-2 (Total 23 mass, 16% of Hull)
3 FCS

459 points I think. It does look a bit useless other than as a very
expensive cruiser-killer

Rob Paul