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

----- Original Message -----
From: Robin Paul <Robin.Paul@tesco.net>
To: GZG List <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [FT] a "true Fisher Battlecruiser" for the NAC, was
Battlecruisers vs. battleships

> 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 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

One problem I have with this design is the fact the BCs were designed to
have the range, but slightly less firepower, than a BB. And the BB/BCs
were
Dreadnoughts. Try the same design using DN/SDs. The above design I
wouldn`t
use as is, due to the lack of being able to do enought dammage in the
time
before it`s death. Although I would use it for hunting FSE CHs and the
like.
For a more wet style design, try using K guns in turrets, and PH layered
armour. You can make a suprisingly good hood design using K-5 guns, at a
mass of 440-450, but it would be good armour over a week hull, prety
much
like the wet design.

BIF