nBSG Season opening roundup(Spoilers, Damnit)

[GePap]

Here is some video of the earlier battle between the Pegasus and three base stars:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHDiCymWUYw

[Whoha]

I see it hitting the side of the ship there. I also saw it hitting the ship in the higher quality torrent I had for a while

[GePap]

Originally posted by Whoha
I see it hitting the side of the ship there. I also saw it hitting the ship in the higher quality torrent I had for a while

That is the Pegasus, season 2. Not Galactica, season 1.

[Whoha]

I know, what kind of quantum breakthrough in material construction happened between the Galactica and the Pegasus though?

This raises another question, Just how did the cylons kill the other 100 battlestars?

[Jon Miller]

by taking off their computer systems and nuking them when they were just sitting

JM

[GePap]

Originally posted by Whoha
I know, what kind of quantum breakthrough in material construction happened between the Galactica and the Pegasus though?

This raises another question, Just how did the cylons kill the other 100 battlestars?

You wouldn;t need some "quantum" change in material construction. First, the newer Battletars could have heavier armor, and better damage control systems. Armor redesigned to minimize the possibility of hull breaches is also very possible, base don the lessons of the previous war, as well as the introduction of some sort of new composites to add to the armor. All those things, none ofwhich are "quantum" changes would make a newer Battletar tougher.

As JM said, the Cylons destreoyed the fleet by disabling the command and control abilities of the fleet, so their ships just sat there and could not shoot back. They then destroyed the fleet at leisure.

[Whoha]

I am arguing that both have roughly the same resistance to nukes(those that aren't rated at important plot point yield at any rate).

I'm also wondering just how long it took to kill all those sitting ducks.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Whoha
I am arguing that both have roughly the same resistance to nukes(those that aren't rated at important plot point yield at any rate).

I'm also wondering just how long it took to kill all those sitting ducks.

We are told that the Galactica is one of the oldest of the Battlestars, one of the original group. It was about to be decommisioned and turned into a museum.

I find it highly doubful that the Galactica would have the same abilities as a warship build with better tech, based on the lessons of the previous war. I don;t think the WW2 carrier Intrepid (now a museum on the Hudson River) could be said to have the same survivability as the original Nimitz class carriers, certainly not as survivanble as the latest CVN's.

As for how long it took to kill the fleet, why does it matter?

[Adrian Hon]

Originally posted by Whoha
I am arguing that both have roughly the same resistance to nukes(those that aren't rated at important plot point yield at any rate).

I'm also wondering just how long it took to kill all those sitting ducks.

Not long at all, if they don't have any interceptors or fighters working. Throw a few nukes at each at point blank range, and that'd do the job - it's clearly what the Cylons intended to do with Galactica.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by GePap
We are told that the Galactica is one of the oldest of the Battlestars, one of the original group. It was about to be decommisioned and turned into a museum.

I find it highly doubful that the Galactica would have the same abilities as a warship build with better tech, based on the lessons of the previous war. I don;t think the WW2 carrier Intrepid (now a museum on the Hudson River) could be said to have the same survivability as the original Nimitz class carriers, certainly not as survivanble as the latest CVN's.

both WW2 carriers and modern carriers are made of steel. Obviously Galactica is going to lose out on tech, but basic materials? probably not.

As for how long it took to kill the fleet, why does it matter?

not really, but I'm interested.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Whoha

both WW2 carriers and modern carriers are made of steel. Obviously Galactica is going to lose out on tech, but basic materials? probably not.

Modern Carrier probably use far more composite materials than WW2 Carriers. They are also bigger and the deck certainly far more heavily armored.

A WW1 Dreadnaught and the USS Missouri were both made of steel. I doubt you would argue that the WW1 battleship would have nearly the same survivability as a Missouri class battleship.

As for materials, what does that matter? A thicker better designed armor made of material X will survive a blast, any blast, far better than a thinner, linferiorly designed armor also made of material X.

[Whoha]

A WW1 Dreadnaught and the USS Missouri were both made of steel. I doubt you would argue that the WW1 battleship would have nearly the same survivability as a Missouri class battleship.

Against their main battery fire on each other, Missouri class is going to win no contest.

Against a nuke hitting the ship directly, the dreadnaught would have the same survivability as the modern battleship.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Whoha
Against a nuke hitting the ship directly, the dreadnaught would have the same survivability as the modern battleship.

No, not really.

Accepting that we are talking about a small nuke and not a weapon powerful enough to simply vaporize either vessel or blow it literally to pieces, the superior armor of the Missiouri class warship will allow it to weather the blast and heat effects of the explosion better than the ship with lighter armor and with design features that make it more vulnerable to attack.

From the show the nukes they use against ships are certainly not of huge yields, especially given how close the ships seem to be when they fight, since very large nukes would probably inflict damage on each self.

[Whoha]

It would have to be a tiny nuke to not vaporize them.

as for in close combat, the attacker will take a few percentage points of the blast at most, while the target will take 40-50% of the blast. it would have certainly been preferable to vaporize the pegasus and have to send a base ship back home for a while then lose two of them. Though then we wouldn't have gotten to see the Pegasus name plate slam into a base ship.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Whoha
It would have to be a tiny nuke to not vaporize them.

A hiroshima sized bomb would not vaporize a battleship. Its would cause immense blast damage and set off fires, but vaporize? NO.

Obviously something like a Battlestar, which is much large than a battleship and made of far stronger materials can stand hits from smaller nukes than anything we know today. That does not change the point that something like the Pegasus is obviouysly stronger and able to take more damage than the Galactica.