Main The Battlestar Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics
 

TrevMUN
Topic
03:20:14 AM Dec 20th 2011
edited by TrevMUN
Pulled this out:

** In Star Control II, your main ship also counts later in the game. At first it has almost no real weapons to speak of, being barely able to fight off a crippled Ilwrath ship. Its only function is to carry other fighters which serve as it's main defense/offense. After purchasing enough weapons and upgrades, the ship can fight off entire fleets on its own while still carrying powerful fighters.

I also removed the Justifying Edit another troper tacked on to said example:

2nd Oct '10 5:17:05 PM Headrock
Added line(s) 141 (click to see context) :
*** Actually that's incorrect. What you have with your capital ship is a FLEET of other combat vessels, which fight on their own whenever ordered to. Your ship doesn't launch fighters, and when it does go into combat it is completely unescorted (even by the other fleet ships, which are implied to just be waiting around). So your ship isn't a Battlestar, it's just a battleship accompanied by several smaller battleships (or similar-sized battleships, if you have any Chmmr with you).

Rather than removing the example as not fitting the trope, he went into a full blown Accuracy Attack that spent more time rambling about gameplay mechanics and tactics that have nothing to do with this trope than the original example.
TuefelHundenIV
Topic
04:27:57 PM Aug 12th 2010
edited by TuefelHundenIV
While none of these examples really fit the trope they have plenty of useful information.

A better home for these examples would be the useful notes pages.

  • The closest real-life equivalent is Russian "aviation cruiser" concept, namely the Admiral Kuznetsov and the Kiev-class. Both types are carriers armed with anti-shipping missiles and more anti-air missiles than other carriers. Both, however, had failures limitations in their air wings- the Kiev's Yak-38 "Forger" VTOL aircraft was useless and the Su-33 "Flanker-D" aircraft of the Admiral Kuznetsov are limited to air defense only (as well as in numbers), with other aircraft types bar the Su-25 "Frogfoot" carrier trainer version being canceled due to the collapse of the USSR. As was the Yak-141 "Freestyle" VTOL which would have replaced the Yak-38 (and unlike its predecessor, it wouldn't have been useless).
    • Both were also (in part) attempts to lawyer around a ban by Turkey on aircraft carriers going through the Bosporus Straits. As long as they were cruisers that just happen to have planes on them...
  • HMS ''Furious'', one of the first true aircraft carriers, was ordered during World War One as a "large light cruiser" carrying two 18" guns, but was completed with a takeoff ramp at the bow instead of the forward turret, leaving her stern section with turret unaltered. (The 18" gun making HMS Furious not just a battlestar, but a battlestar with a BFG.) Several trials later it was decided to remove the rear turret and add another section of flight deck it its place. Trial and error eventually led to her being given a proper full-length flight deck.
    • When the 18" was test-fired, it actually proved to be too much gun for the hull. Ouch!
  • Between the two World Wars several navies developed designs for hybrid cruiser-carriers or battleship-carriers, none of which were built due to design problems, as well as naval architects pointing out that the proposed hybrids would be less effective than a mixed force of pure carriers and battleships. The closest this type came to construction prewar were the two ''Tone'' class heavy cruisers built by the Japanese, which had all their turrets forward and a hangar for five seaplanes aft of the bridge. The cruiser Mogami of was rebuilt during repairs to carry 4 seaplanes. In both cases the goal was to provide a base for search aircraft independent of the carriers (the IJN wanted the carriers to concentrate on attacking the enemy).
    • In World War II, after the battle of Midway, Japan converted the battleships Ise and Hyuga to hybrid battleship/carriers. Overall, it was more of a stopgap, and they weren't very successful.
    • There was also the Oyodo, a hybrid cruiser-carrier based on the earlier Agano cruisers. It was originally designed to be the flagship of submarine forces (the planes were to provide scouting of the area without the submarines showing themselves) but it proved unsuccessful, and only one was built.
  • The USS Saratoga and USS Lexington were built in the 1920s on incomplete battlecruiser hulls. Both launched with a complement of cruiser-class 8-inch guns in turrets. They also had significantly thicker armor than most other carriers, though the Navy failed to armor their flight decks. Very early in WWII, the guns were removed as impractical, and were replaced by much smaller 5-inch gun turrets that could be used for anti-aircraft purposes.
    • The Japanese Navy was in a similar situation; in both cases a pair of incomplete battlecruisers were chosen to convert into aircraft carriers, to comply with the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty (which temporarily ended battleship and battlecruiser construction, but allowed a pair of carrier conversions). In Japan's case, the Amagi and Akagi were chosen to become carriers with 8-inch guns like the American ships, but in an even less practical configuration as the guns were mounted archaic single-gun casemate turrets. The Amagi was never completed because its hull was destroyed in a massive earthquake, so the battleship Kaga was converted instead to a near-identical configuration with the same armament.
  • The I-400 class submarine not only have eight torpedo tubes, but also four AA-machine guns, one deck gun, and a hangar and catapult system that can launch three dive bombers. Due to the fact that it is unlikely for these pilot to survive, in essence they act more like modern ICBM-launching submarines.
  • At one point there was talk of deleting the aft turret on an Iowa-class battleship and fitting it to launch and retrieve Harrier fighters. The Marine Corps would have loved it.
    • No, they wouldn't. Delete three wonderfully useful, totally irreplaceable and completely unmatched 16" guns - God's gift to long range support fire - in favor of an austere capability to maintain a handful of harriers? When there are ships like the Wasps, Tarawas, and even Iwo Jimas around - ships that were designed for the job, had a considerably larger capacity, and were far greater in number? I don't think so. Any assault that required an Iowa would be big enough to have a proper harrier carrier along.
  • Probably the most practical implementation of this trope, many large ships through the 20th-21st centuries have carried a few light scout aircraft, useful for dedicated over-the-horizon target spotting and such, not so much direct fighting. The Iowas, for example, carried 3 light airplanes in WWII, 3 helicopters in Korea and Vietnam, and 8 UA Vs in the Gulf War.

Edit Removed Folder Notes. Cut and Pasted from the page.
ScrewySqrl
12:50:19 PM Nov 9th 2010
I'd say it should be back on the main page, as even though this is 'wet' navy ships, it still fits the Battlestar's definition as a mix of battleship and carrier
Collapse/Expand Topics
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/remarks.php?trope=Main.TheBattlestar
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/remarks.php?trope=Main.TheBattlestar
tvtropes.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-22
69248
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:FMOTTGS6MM4DKGPSRL75ZZDMVN25BUW6
<urn:uuid:75308916-ce83-4261-8155-49707f565f2b>
2017-05-25T08:37:11Z
209.15.34.67
text/html
sha1:TPFGLSGQ657MEV7XB5EVSZCPV6C3GJ32
<urn:uuid:0f5f81e8-a523-4eb7-a8ef-a0ff5ac2a813>
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/remarks.php?trope=Main.TheBattlestar
length
response
<urn:uuid:d8f57908-cd72-4791-9c99-cc20c9a577b9>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-185-224-210.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-22
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf