Size Comparison of my ships

[Graham Kennedy]

Just thought it might be helpful to post the ships I have posted here, to scale with one another.

Top Row : HMS Amzarg
2nd Row : HMS Iowa
3rd Row : HMS Swiftsure
4th Row : HMS Theramel, HMS Avenger
5th Row : IW Askad Travine, IW Askad-Colisels
6th Row : UES longbow
7th Row : UES Coventry
8th Row : UES Corvallen

[Bryan Moore]

Much better shrunken down! And I love the gradual logical progression

[Captain Seafort]

I didn't see a mention of this in the individual write-ups, but are the forward hulls of the Amzarg, Iowa and Swiftsure designed for separation? Those flanges look very much like a docking mechanism of some kind.

[Teaos]

Is there a reason the early models dont have some form of shell or armor around the fuel pods?

[Captain Seafort]

Is there a reason the early models dont have some form of shell or armor around the fuel pods?

Probably mass considerations.

[Teaos]

Sure you have to worry about mass but protecting a dangerous and vital part of the ship would be worth it. This isnt trek

[Captain Seafort]

It's a trade off. Trek isn't stupid because of (for example) a lack of heavy armour around the warp core and antimatter storage - it's stupid because it has neither heavy armour nor an effective ejection system.

If you can ensure that even if the pods are hit they will be jettisoned and will not cause serious damage, you can strip out the armour, get better acceleration, and reduce the chances of getting hit in the first place. In more powerful vessels, which are less mass-critical, you can armour them without having a serious drop in performance.

[Teaos]

I suppose. It would just seem prudent to at least put something around them.

Also I find it finny that the guns on the new class are as big as the habitable bit on the old ones.

[Monroe]

Also I find it finny that the guns on the new class are as big as the habitable bit on the old ones.

lol yeah they are.

I like it. I take it these ships aren't as manuverable as Trek? Going for max guns to bear instead of manuvering. Makes me wonder if there are any fighters to go with the latter models?

[Graham Kennedy]

Armoured fuel cells are both there and not. All the early Human ships were not designed as warships, so the tanks were not armoured
against anything more than micrometeors; adding armour later would add too much mass. Human ships used spherical tanks and each
sphere was basically just an empty shell with just enough structure to resist the acceleration the ship was capable of.

The Turgran ships use toroidal tanks, segmented, and with a lot of internal structure to give strength. Their walls are also thicker; think
twin walled metal with a ceramic-like material between that can soak up a whole lot of heat (since lasers are one of the main weapons
in this period). They're all much the same colour, but that's just a paint job on top.

Oh, it's worth pointing out... the early ships use fusion drives with water as reaction mass. Puncture most of those tanks and the worst
thing that'll come out is steam. Ones with Repellor engines still mostly use fusion or some other mass conversion power source... so it's
not like those tanks are full of anything explosive.
Punturing a bunch of fuel tanks is a potential mission kill, in that it will leave the enemy out of gas. But in terms of knocking the
ship out right now, it's probably the most useless thing you could aim at.

Yes, the ships do grow over time. And that trend will continue. I looked a little into the history of ships, and basically warships pretty
much just keep growing. Wooden ships only really stopped growing when they started to run up against the strength limits of wood
itself. Metal ships have grown in size more or less since they were invented - a World War 2 destroyer was aruond 1,200 tons
or so. One from the 70s was more like 4,000, while the modern Burkes and Type 45s are in the 8,000 range.

Bigger ships means bigger, more powerful weapons, engines, more fuel, and just a more effective ship. They also mean more cost,
which has been referenced in a few of the ships write ups; that issue has held back developments more than once, but in the end you
just have to bite the bullet. As somebody once said, the most useless waste of money ever is building the second best military.

If you think the size of these cannon is funny, just wait a couple of hundred years. You ain't seen NOTHING yet.

As for fighters; Oh yes. It's not something that has been covered much in what I posted here, but fighters and recon scouts and such
are indeed in service (you think those hangar decks are to provide the crew a place to play football? )
I have a few fighter designs which go with the ships I've already posted... and a whole lot to go with the ones still to come.

[Teaos]

If you think the size of these cannon is funny, just wait a couple of hundred years. You ain't seen NOTHING yet.

Why? Humans seem to have no enemies that can even come close to touching them. There is the species that took them ove that they wiped out and our allies which we almost wiped out. I like the idea bog guns since they are interesting but how do you justifie them in canon?

[Graham Kennedy]

There are many, many other species out there beyond those you've heard about thus far.

Humans are not even remotely close to being the most powerful species around. Hell the Turgrans shade us in numbers (though it's close enough that we might take them with a bit of luck, if it came down to it).

[Graham Kennedy]

And with the new Vanguard class included. I've also put launch dates on.

Top Row : HMS / UCS Vanguard
2nd Row : HMS Amzarg
3rd Row : HMS Iowa
4th Row : HMS Swiftsure
5th Row : HMS Theramel, HMS Avenger
6th Row : IW Askad Travine, IW Askad-Colisels
7th Row : UES longbow
8th Row : UES Coventry
9th Row : UES Corvallen

[DarkOmen]

holy **** thats a huge ship

[Blackstar the Chakat]

I don't know why, but the top one terrifies me to my very soul. Am I the only one scared by it?