View Full Version : Problem with the Galactica from a tactical view
Soulmage
December 17th, 2003, 01:08 PM
Let me start by saying I love the new series and almost everything about it. But something suddenly struck me as I was driving home the other day.
The Galactica doesn't appear to be a very effective offensive weapon system. Its mainly only good for defense. If this is the case, how did the colonies win the war with the cylons?
Let me explain. . .
The reason our modern navy has aircraft carriers as its only real capital ships is because the battleship as a concept was rendered obsolete during WWII.
During WWII it became clear that aircraft carriers were the real future of naval might. Even back then aircraft had a much longer range than the biggest gun one could ever build on a battleship. Furthermore, the destructive potential they could deliver was far greater than that of a big gun. Finally, aircraft and aircraft carriers were a lot more flexible than battleships in terms of the location and kind of targets that could be destroyed, simply by changing the weapons load out on the aircraft.
So, goodbye battleship. Hello carrier battlegroup.
Now if we look at the Galactica though, what we've got is a ship that's part aircraft carrier/part battleship and not very good at either.
The vipers are really only good against other small fighters. We haven't seen any indication that they are able to engage and destroy capital ships. Mostly, they just have small dogfighting weapons. (Cylon fighters do have the anti-ship nukes, as we saw.) This means that the viper is primarily a defensive weapon against cylon ship-killing fighters.
So, logically that means the Galactica herself should be the primary means of destroying other capital ships. Unfortunately, she doesn't seem well suited to this role. According to Galactica2003.net she has four big guns in the nose that are presumably big enough to inflict serious damage on a base star or something comparable. However, the Galactica is a big, ponderous ship.
If you're going to rely on guns from your own capital ship to kill the enemy's capital ships, then they need to be mounted in turrets. Otherwise the Galactica will always be struggling to get base stars into its front firing arc. Possibly not a very easy thing to do, and a huge tactical disadvantage vs. a ship that can fire ship-killing weapons at you from a variety of angles.
Really, the Galactica ought to have some big-a$$ Missouri-style turrets mounted on its back, I think.
Anyway, just a thought I have. Like the whole ranks in the wrong order thing, its just something that I guess you'll have to suspend disbelief over.
After all, if a human spacegoing civilization in another part of the galaxy doesn't break the "reality envelope" for me, I guess I can live with Commanders outranking Colonels, and battleships without turrets.
SAR Pilot
December 17th, 2003, 01:29 PM
I agree with the tactical problems of the Galactica. It is the same problem with the original.
As a carrier guy, I can say that it is a great strike platform, however it requires escort vessels for defense against missiles and torpedoes.
This universe has always had a lack of offensive capability, however I hope to see the humans developing Viper-borne anti-ship weapons to attack the base stars. The Galactica has a great defensive capability, but there has been no evidence of anything more than AAA guns.
Oenone
December 17th, 2003, 02:01 PM
I would have liked to see more energy weapons. In particular directed energy beams.
Maybe these more advanced are being held back for a series like with Babylon 5 we don't see the big guns in season 1.
Soulmage
December 17th, 2003, 02:18 PM
I doubt we'll be seeing any energy weapons in the new show. Rail guns are a much more efficient weapon system than a directed energy weapon. Since the show is trying to be realistic, it seems like they'll stick with the realistic option.
Interestingly enough, contrary to what we saw in the series, rail guns wouldn't have any tracers. They're just heavy metal slugs, probably tungsten or something similar, accellerated in incredible speed. But I still like the fact that we have tracers in the series b/c they look so cool. :)
beeker
December 17th, 2003, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by Soulmage
Let me start by saying I love the new series and almost everything about it. But something suddenly struck me as I was driving home the other day.
The Galactica doesn't appear to be a very effective offensive weapon system. Its mainly only good for defense. If this is the case, how did the colonies win the war with the cylons?
I understand your points (snipped for length), but I think that you are overlooking some things. The most obivious question is how do you know that the vipers don't have any weapons that can take on Basestars? The tactial situation in the final battle is not a good judge of those capabilities. That battle was entirely defensive in nature. Just hold off the cylons off long enough for everyone to get away.
The Galactica may well have held back her main guns for much the same reason. Suppose that the Galactica could have won that battle. Doing so probably would have resulted in enough damage to keep the Galactica from jumping, and it would have cost irreplacable munitions.
Until the fleet can get some factory ships built to replace the lost equipment (vipers and munitions) it would be folly to spend what they have uselessly.
baafan
December 17th, 2003, 10:12 PM
Soulimage and SAR make some very good points. However, as Beeker alludes to, the Galactica and the Vipers are vastly outnumbered and outgunned as well as having to defend the civilian fleet. Add to that the premise that Galactica is technologically out of date (she was being de-commissioned) compared to the basestars as well as the Viper Mark 2's and you have a situation where you can't afford to get into any kind of prolonged slugging match. Especially given that there are not going to be any reinforcements or replacements.
And since all the weaponry shown were projectiles versus energy beams, and given that the fleet was getting ready to jump beyond the "red line", Ragnor was their last supply depot for a long time to come. So again as Beeker mentioned, conservation of munitions was also a priority. Even Adama's last command to Apollo, which was along the lines of, "I want all of my pilots to return", implies that Vipers and Viper pilots are at a premium and he can't afford to lose even one. (Of course, there was double meaning in his command as he/Adama wanted Apollo to know he cared for him and wanted him to return safely.)
:)
Sci-Fi
December 20th, 2003, 06:01 AM
My only problems with the Ragnor base star battle scenes was that it was never shown there was any damage being done to the base star(s). In space, any projectile would continue its flight path until stopped or deflected by something. With the volume of fire from Galactica, one could reasonably expect at least one of the base stars to back off because of damage. Galactica never used any missiles, which they did load onto the ship. Also, it seems the base stars only had missiles (non nukes too, which is weird or did they use them all up destroying the home planets?), no defensive or offensive guns (rail guns or otherwise) either.
I also found it interesting from another post that 95% of the fleet was using Baltar's Nav program, so if 30 battlestars was a quarter of the fleet, 120 total, 5% of that would suggest 6 battlestars could have survived, any lesser ships also surviving is unknown. So there could be up to 6 or maybe more "ragtag fleets" searching for a new home or hiding in some ion storm/supply depots.
Antelope
December 20th, 2003, 10:49 AM
From what I see the Galactica would be the equivalent of all the current capital ships in the inventory. It is an aircraft carrier, battleship, and a submarine.
The aircraft carrier mode is obvious with the vipers. I wouldn't assume the vipers or other "aircraft" lack offensive power. We already see they have a fighter--the viper and an ECM/AWACS--Boomer's craft . I would assume they either have a light bomber/missile craft we didn't see yet or the viper is a multipurpose craft just like the various versions of the current F-15 or the old F-4 in the Air Force. I never saw any F-18s in Top Gun since the story revolved around the fighter pilots but we all know the Navy has offensive aircraft on a carrier.
It is like a submarine in that it moves in three dimensions. The FLT concept even expands this. I would asume like a submarine it has it's own complement of missiles/torpedos.
It is like a Battleship in that it has massive projectile fire power. A battle ship needs huge guns so it can fire a projectile a large relative distance. With no gravity or drag in space even a small gun would have an almost unlimited range so you have no need for a massive turret. Most anti-armor warheads today are small and thin and cause most of their destruction as a result of speed and kinetic energy not high explosive. If those so called "AA" rounds were depleted uranium or the future equivalent I would think they would go through the base stars and punch it full of holes like swiss cheese.
SAR Pilot
December 20th, 2003, 03:05 PM
Baafan,
I concede the point. The battle was a holding action, and not a slug-fest. There have been some very valid points made about the obsolete nature of the Galactica. . . I don't think I would want to go toe-to-toe with 2 capital vessels of which I know nothing about, either!
I did like the addition of AEW/ECM craft, which provides a great capability for keeping the cylons at a standoff from the Fleet, if employed well.
As to the other battlestars, the opening is there for Pegasus and others to make a future appearance. Maybe then the nay-sayers about the change in gender will be appeased with the appearance of Sheba! And let's not forget Kane! :salute:
dec5
December 20th, 2003, 05:41 PM
The BG was being mothballed.....most likely the classified systems were stripped out and taken away.
All the anti missile systems and nukes had to be replaced later in the show....most likely even then the BG was still not up to code....
BTW all the Cylon hardeware should be considered smart weaponry since none of it is organically controlled......not counting the organic type Cylons....which is a new type of organic life...
kingfish
December 20th, 2003, 05:45 PM
What amazed me was how are they are able to shoot bullets and missiles in the vacuum of outer space. Energy weapons would be more effective. What do they do when they run out of bullets? The original Viper had an energizer which had to be recharged(mentioned in the novelization).
dec5
December 20th, 2003, 06:18 PM
Bullets and missiles are independent projectiles....they keep on going even when the ship is gone....
Where as a beam weapon basically needs the ship to be there to keep on firing....and is basically a neon sign saying "I am here!" A great disadvantge that seems to have never been exploited...in sci fi. Just imagine a anti ship smart missile that is FTL and able to follow up a beam to it's source.
baafan
December 20th, 2003, 07:29 PM
Hi SAR:
:salute: right back at ya.
I'd love for Cain and the Pegasus to show up! With only 1 battlestar, your options and priorties have to be very conservative. While 2 battlestars against an entire Cylon fleet is still absolutely atrocious odds, at least you do have some flexibility. I guess it would be akin to a fighter and his wingman. Without the wingman, he's extremely vulnerable and can't afford to take many chances. In fact, it's probably best to not engage. I think the same is true with the Galactica.
The Cylons don't have to win any battle. Just keep on attritioning the fleet. 10 Cylons lost for every coloinal and the Cylons are going to win.
Kind of reminds me of my chess tactics (of which I'm not very good). But, if I can get 1 major piece up (like a bishop or knight), I start exchanging like crazy because at the end, I'll end up with the only major piece and usually that's enough then to win.
When Cain and Sheba and Bojay show up, they better still be male, female, male respectively. LOL. :)
baafan
December 20th, 2003, 07:41 PM
SAR said:... very valid points made about the obsolete nature of the Galactica. . . I did like the addition of AEW/ECM craft, which provides a great capability for keeping the cylons at a standoff from the Fleet, if employed well.
Hi again SAR:
I totally agree about the AEW/ECM craft (i.e. the Raptor). Having different types of craft is definitely an improvement over the TOS. On TOS, the way I remember it, there were Vipers and shuttles. That's it. So having various craft for different types of purposes/missions to me is more realistic.
Being able to successfully hold off 2 basestars and 10 squadrons of Cylon fighters wasn't too bad for an obsolete battlestar and 1 obsolete squadron of Vipers! Just think what the colonials could have done with uptodate technology.
:)
baafan
December 20th, 2003, 07:53 PM
Kingfish said: What amazed me was how are they are able to shoot bullets and missiles in the vacuum of outer space. Energy weapons would be more effective. What do they do when they run out of bullets? The original Viper had an energizer which had to be recharged(mentioned in the novelization).
Hi Kingfish:
Being able to shoot bullets and missiles in space is no different than firing the rocket engines of a space craft to propel them through space. As for being less effective than an energy weapon, seems to me that being destroyed by an explosive or projectile is no different than being destroyed by an energy beam. Destroyed is destroyed.
However, I agree that overall, energy weapons would be more efficient in that they "hit" their target essentially instantaneously (i.e. speed of light). And as you suggest, they can be re-charged versus having to be re-loaded/re-stocked when they run out of missiles or bullets.
But you got to admit, laying down a hail of bullets and missiles as suppression fire was pretty good visual effects (although not entirely sure it was realistic).
:)
SAR Pilot
December 20th, 2003, 08:13 PM
Here! Here! Cain, Sheba, and Bojay, hoorah! :beer:
From what I have noticed, projectile weapons have a distinct advantage when it comes to range. A projectile, once fired, will continue at the same relativistic speeds as it was fired (or boosted to while in flight), and continue indefinately. . . of course eventually a gravity well will exert enough pull that it will slow and change direction with the different gravitational tugs of planets, stars, etc. . . whereas a beam weapon requires a great deal of power to go long distance, and even then the effect is reduced as the beam dissipates, which would occur pretty rapidly.
If the mini goes into full production as a series I would really like to see the "Powers that be" aboard Galactica consider further additions to the fighting craft squadrons, craft specialized in anti-ship roles, and adding more ranged weapons to the Viper arsenal like missiles. I mean, hey, if the Cylons can have missiles, shouldn't the humans?
Baafan, I agree, a single battlestar would have to fight a strictly running defensive as leaving the civvie ships would leave them open to slaughter. . . and there goes the human race! However, if the command authority gets the factory ships to build anti-shipping fighters or even just missiles, plus more capable variants of the Raptor, the Galactica could send limited pre-emptive strikes against Cylon strongholds and base stars along the fleet's intended route of flight (pun intended).
A second battlestar, would give the fleet more capability to conduct the classic hit-and-run tactics we all know and love, while leaving the fleet under constant protection. Now, here's the real question: Adama assumed command of the fleet after Atlantia was destroyed, so should Pegasus turn up, wouldn't they have to follow Adama's orders? Even if it meant hanging with the fleet?
beeker
December 20th, 2003, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by kingfish
What amazed me was how are they are able to shoot bullets and missiles in the vacuum of outer space. Energy weapons would be more effective. What do they do when they run out of bullets? The original Viper had an energizer which had to be recharged(mentioned in the novelization).
I think that what you are overlooking is the difference between bullets. All bullets are not created equal. In concept there is fundamentally no difference between a sabot round shot from an M-1 tank and an arrow fired from a bronze age bow. In practical terms there is simply no comparison between the two. A small super-dense dart accelerated to near the speed of light could put to shame any laser weapon. A good description of the possible future of projectile weapons is in the Bolo books (the Hellbore). Even small masses accelerated at sufficiently high velocities would be devestating.
A ship like Galactica would probably have a small factory that could make simple projectiles from raw materials (actually I would expect that given the raw material the Galactica could probably rearm itself fully in time). If that is the case then the only limiting factor is energy, and that is the same as with energy weapons.
In order to say that energy weapons would be more effective we have to know several things about them. Power consumption, accuracy. rate of fire and ease of defense (how easy it is stopped) are the most important. There are other factors, but unless the energy weapons matches on these points (or comes close) the projectile weapons will win out. Currently it looks like projectile weapons will be with us for a long time to come.
gunnerk19
December 20th, 2003, 10:24 PM
Ok, but I'm still kinda fuzzy on this whole "reimagined" BSG, primarily on two points; in TOS, the Galactica and Vipers had laser generators and energy weapons, which would negate the option of the Galactica having an on board munitions factory; If Moore had wanted to even remotely stick to the original, why would he arm these ships with projectile weapons ?, which brings point 2 into play... It's been a long time and I am far from an expert, but I don't recall EVER seeing TOS Galactica making a Hyperspace jump, so why now?
And something I just thought of... in "Experiment on Terra" (BTW, I thoroughly enjoyed Edward Mulhare's character), the Galactica uses a projected defensive shield to defend the planet from the Eastern Alliance' warheads... Why doesn't the Galactica in the miniseries have the same capability to defend either itself or the civilian convoy ships?
It seems to me that there is a serious lack of continuity between the two stories, and that bugs me big time, but not much can be done about it now... :/:
baafan
December 20th, 2003, 10:54 PM
Gunnerk said:...but I don't recall EVER seeing TOS Galactica making a Hyperspace jump, so why now?
Hi Gunnerk, Moore took many liberties in re-imaging BSG from the original, not the least is the weaponry available to both sides. With the mini becoming a regular series, I guess we'll have plenty of opportunities to judge whether this change from TOS is for better or worse.
As for Hyperspace Juming, technically, TOS had it too. The difference is in how it was displayed from an effect perspective. Remember in the ep where Cain and the Pegasus are found? And in the scene where the Cylons are attacking the fleet, the Pegasus is on the other side of the flleet and hadn't been picked up yet by the Cylons and needed to get into action quickly. Cain says to Adama something to the effect of, "... if you don't mind me burning up 1/2 of my fuel to get her up to light speed..." So in TOS, at least the battlestars had FTL capability.
From an effects perspective, the way warp speed was depicted in Star Trek the Movie as compared to TOS was different as well. But in both cases, warp drives were available.
:)
gunnerk19
December 20th, 2003, 11:08 PM
baafan-
Thanks for the correction; As I said before, I'm mostly going on memory of TOS and only have 2 VHS tapes and whatever Skiffy decides to air for references at this point...
beeker
December 21st, 2003, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by gunnerk19
Ok, but I'm still kinda fuzzy on this whole "reimagined" BSG, primarily on two points; in TOS, the Galactica and Vipers had laser generators and energy weapons, which would negate the option of the Galactica having an on board munitions factory; If Moore had wanted to even remotely stick to the original, why would he arm these ships with projectile weapons ?, which brings point 2 into play... It's been a long time and I am far from an expert, but I don't recall EVER seeing TOS Galactica making a Hyperspace jump, so why now?
Moore was trying to go for a more realistic feel than in TOS. Lasers are not necessarialy going to be superior to advanced projectile weapons. Since we don't know the capabilites of their lasers, we cannot say for sure which would be better. However, saying that lasers are better just because they are lasers doesn't work.
You're right that the first Galactica didn't have "jump" technology. Here Moore is simply fixing a major problem in TOS. If ships can't go FTL then galaxy spanning stories simply don't work. In TOS none of the ships had FTL capability (even the Galactica was limited to lightspeed). In that case even the first move by the fleet (to the casino planet) would have taken years.
And something I just thought of... in "Experiment on Terra" (BTW, I thoroughly enjoyed Edward Mulhare's character), the Galactica uses a projected defensive shield to defend the planet from the Eastern Alliance' warheads... Why doesn't the Galactica in the miniseries have the same capability to defend either itself or the civilian convoy ships?
Here is a question. Why didn't the Galactica (and the rest of the fleet) use said shield in TOS? A shield that can somehow stop all projectiles, but not work against lasers doesn't really make sense to me. I am leary of using magic and calling it sci-fi. That shield was nothing more than a magic ending device. With a shield like that the destruction of the colonies should never have happened.
It seems to me that there is a serious lack of continuity between the two stories, and that bugs me big time, but not much can be done about it now... :/:
Yes there is a lack of continuity, but at least in the technical aspects most of it was necessary. TOS left some major problems that simply have to be fixed no matter who writes the story. If Larson/DeSanto or whoever gets a movie going, they will also have to fix those technical problems. Magic shield will have to go away. Every ship will have to explicitly have FTL capability (no FTL no show). And the magic lasers will have to change (maybe not projectiles but different than they were).
Soulmage
December 22nd, 2003, 10:13 AM
In general rail guns are a much more efficient weapon system than energy weapons and are more effective over a longer range.
Rail gun "bullets" are just supe-dense solid slugs of a heavy metal - easy to manufacture if you have access to an appropriate material. Further, as has been pointed out several times, the projectiles keep moving in a more-or less straight path for all intents and purposes indefinitely carrying the same destructive power at long range as they do at short.
Contrast this to an energy weapon who's destructive power dissapates according to the inverse square law the further out from the ship it gets.
Also, while rail guns do require significant amounts of energy, the energy needs of a beam weapon of comparable destructive power would be many times as great as that of a rail gun.
Finally, remember that the Galactica was not built to be a sole ship unsupported by a fleet. The only major advantage of a beam weapon over a rail gun would be the fact that no ammunition was required. If the Galactica had an existing fleet infrastructure to keep its magazines supplied - the way it was intended to be used - the only advantage of beams weapons is effectively negated.
Finally, keep in mind that beam weapons may not use "bullets" but its quite possible that generating such intense beams of power would require some beam focusing or generating components would have to be replaced every few shots, just like ammo anyway.
repcisg
December 22nd, 2003, 12:15 PM
A few thoughts:
Energy weapons would be more effective than projectiles. But would be visually less appealing and make the battle infinitely more difficult to stage. Why energy weapons? Because a coherent weapon (like a laser losses focus only at enormous distances, especially in space). The inverse square rule applies only to non-coherent energy sources like a flashlight or the Sun.
Solid slugs might go on forever but would be far to slow to be efficient at any kind of useful range. The target would simple have to make a small change in course and the slug would miss. The further the target is the smaller the course change needed. To achieve near relativistic speeds the energy required to throw the slug would approach infinity and the recoil would cause the ship to roll. In physics there is a very simple rule - for every force there is and equal and opposite force.
As for the Vipers and Raptor. My first observation is they are practically indestructible. They can bump into each other and bang into hanger doors without scratching the paint. In battle we’ve only seen them in a defensive mode so there is no way of knowing how they might be used offensively. Perhaps if this goes to series or a continuation mini is made then we can see them in action.
As for the Pegasus - good luck. That’s Glens baby, and will probably be a prominent fixture in his new movie. But that does not mean there won’t be others. How a bout the Orion or Olympia or some other ship.
Antelope
December 22nd, 2003, 12:38 PM
I like Moore's use of futuristic based but current physics driven weapons. I know some people want the "traditional" lasar and shields compliment but let's face it once you go beyond known physics anything is possible and then you tend to loose reality. From the tactical point my biggest questions would be using FTL in combat. The use of such ability however makes most realistic tactics irrelavent. As a former military officer I would like a story that doesn't change the reality of war over the past 5,000 years. Technology has changed but tactics really haven't. Only the size and depth of the battlefield continues to grow. Once you make "shields", unlimited directed energy weapons, time travel, faster than light travel, and matter transporters real military operations become irrelavant. I loved Star Trek but lets face it they could always spend 15 minutes with an engineer and miraculously save themselves every week. I think making things more "real" will have us a bit more worried during every battle and give us the enjoyment of second guessing the officers.
Dogface
December 24th, 2003, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by kingfish
What amazed me was how are they are able to shoot bullets and missiles in the vacuum of outer space. Energy weapons would be more effective.
Really? And your experience with real energy weapons amounts to what?
Let me guess--nothing but idle speculation. There are a lot of inherent problems in energy weapons. One has to be able to amass a big pile-o-joules in something that dumps them out VERY fast through your excitation apparatus without melting everything from either electronic resistance or radiant absorbtion. Likewise, alignment can be a pain in the patoot, as anybody who has built a simple laser can tell you. Imagine trying to maintain this sort of mission-critical alignment at power levels far higher than necessary for targeting lasers.
If one is using a laser, then one is SOL if one must deal with dust (lots of dust in space), chaff (easy to have chaff-casters), etc. If one is using a microwave, one has to deal with other material-based problems. Likewise, particle beams have a lot of shielding issues. All of these lose power over distance due to unavoidable physical jimmijangies with the equations and the math and the greek letters and things.
On the other hand, your basic slug-thrower is the ultimate weapon. It's cheap. If you use a linear accelerator, then ammo can be anything that can take a current. Whatever you fire out in space will go at a straight line at near-full velocity until it hits something--no energy loss. That means a lot of long-distance WHAM for a little effort. Missiles are useful because they can put the bang where the bang needs to be. Straight-line isn't always the best way to hit something.
Dogface
December 24th, 2003, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by repcisg
Energy weapons would be more effective than projectiles.
We don't know this. How many times have energy weapons gone head-to-head in combat or field tests against slug-throwers?
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.