www.ditl.org

It's interesting, Because I had always thought the Constitution more of a heavy cruiser. It didnt seem to have the specifics of a Battleship. The Federation (fanon i know) seems like a decent battleship, and If i count non-canon completely then the Proxima is quite effective as one.

Canon wise, the Connie is biggest and best, but it always seemed to me more of a cruiser than a moving gun platform battleship.

It has heavy weapons and armour, its a battleship.

Depends on the standards; a modern Zumwalt-class destroyer would be more than a match for a battleship from WW2, but not because of heavy armor. if you brought one back in time to, say 1942, would it be classed as a battleship? It can obliterate any other vessel (in the time period) within minutes of sighting them...

Comparing it to other ships of its time it is heavily armed and armoured.

Teaos wrote:Comparing it to other ships of its time it is heavily armed and armoured.

True. I'm saying that heavy armor and weapons do not a battleship make. I agree with Graham that the intended role is what defines a vessel; if I traveled back to the 19th century with a modern corvette (Like this), it would be the most powerful vessel in the world, but it would still be an auxillary craft, as that's what it was designed as.

The Connie has the heaviest weapons and armour in SF of that time. Ergo, it is a battleship by definition.

Meh, fair enough. Its sort of semantic anyway.

I like how everyone keeps ignoring my points. Very funny.

Sorry -bows in forgiveness-

so by that, the Connie isnt a battleship because she's defined as an exploratory cruiser?

No need to bow.

I think it is an exploratory vessel, albeit heavily armed. If I put a bunch of armor and Browning M2's on the front of my car, would it then become an IFV? No, it's still just my car. With guns and armor.

True, but the Constitution was designed With that level of armament, was it not? Your car was post modified with it.

Reliant121 wrote:True, but the Constitution was designed With that level of armament, was it not? Your car was post modified with it.

Okay, a better analogy would be a Stryker combat vehicle vs a bunch of African warlords. Just because it can waltz through the crap they call fighting vehicles doesn't make it a tank. It's an IFV. Period. That's what it was built as, so that's what it is. My point was: you can use something for a different role, but that never changes it's designed role.

Tsukiyumi wrote:No need to bow.

I think it is an exploratory vessel, albeit heavily armed. If I put a bunch of armor and Browning M2's on the front of my car, would it then become an IFV? No, it's still just my car. With guns and armor.

No, it would be a typical mode of travel for downtown Houston.

Actually, in one way of thinking it WOULD be an IFV if it was intended to be used as a troop transport and support vehicle. It just wouldn't be a very good one.

And remember; in TOS, the UFP was smaller, and still bound by the restrictions of a common-sense economy. 12 or 13 flagship-types - whether you call them heavy cruisers or battleships - may be on the low side, but certainly within the realm of reasonability. Especially if you consider the existence of other ship classes, like the Miranda light cruiser, Hermes/Saladin destroyers, etc. (non-canon, I know, but hey.)

Mikey wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:No need to bow.

I think it is an exploratory vessel, albeit heavily armed. If I put a bunch of armor and Browning M2's on the front of my car, would it then become an IFV? No, it's still just my car. With guns and armor.

No, it would be a typical mode of travel for downtown Houston.

QFT.

Seriously, though: you can use something for another role, but that never changes it's primary designed role.

That's what I'm saying: if you up-armored your Saturn with the intent of transporting a/o supporting troops, then yes - it's an IFV.