Hard Light Productions Forums

General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Sir T on July 23, 2008, 08:18:38 pm

Title: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: Sir T on July 23, 2008, 08:18:38 pm
Just thought it might be nice to list ships that had FS names so that we know where they got their inspiration.

I'll start by the fact that I just found out that the Galetea was the name of the British light cruiser that fired the first shot of the Battle of Jutland in World War One (which inspired this thread)

The Warspite was an armoured cruiser in the same battle and was nearly destroyed.

Others?
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: Droid803 on July 23, 2008, 08:50:51 pm
No, the HMS Warspite was a Dreadnought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Warspite_%281913%29
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: Colonol Dekker on July 23, 2008, 08:58:09 pm
And just from Memory HMS Warrior was the first vessel to use Armour Plating :nod: We did it all first :yes: (don't mention the moon or space though :nervous:)
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: NGTM-1R on July 23, 2008, 09:34:38 pm
Working from memory, and down from destroyer. (Only good for FS2)

Bastion and Vengence have both been used by ships of the Royal Navy. On the NTF side, so have Repulse and Vindicator.

Monitor; lot of ships have used the name, to be fair, but the most famous is of course the USS Monitor, Eriksson's turreted ironclad, nemesis of the CSS Virginia. Actium and Lysander have both been used as the names of Royal Navy warships, possibly more than once. So has Steadfast, and Warspite has already been mentioned. NTF ships only include one to my knowledge: Congreve.

Trafalgar, Champion, Vigilant, Agrippa, Malta have all been used by RN warships on the GTVA side. Glorious has been used by more than one of the ships of the Royal Navy. Likewise for the Refute, Majestic, Outrage, Impervious, Conquest, Explorer, Undaunted, Vanguard, Retribution, Vengence, and Vindication, all NTF cruisers.

Also an upset, the Vasudans come in with two: Andromeda and Mirage.


In retrospect it makes sense only one USN ship would be on the list, as the United States Navy names their ships for states or cities and past officers or battles for the most part. This could be interpreted as a little retro in feel, perhaps. On the other hand, it makes you wonder slightly where :v: was actually based during the production to see so many RN names pop up.
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: Colonol Dekker on July 23, 2008, 09:40:02 pm
RN has been involved in much more naval actio i guess.  :nod:
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: terran_emperor on July 23, 2008, 09:43:41 pm
Prehaps they know that the Royal Navy has better taste in names than the US Navy  :p

oh and dekker...the USA would never have gotten to the moon if we hadnt sent colonists to america...
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: Colonol Dekker on July 23, 2008, 09:46:20 pm
Lol thank god i'm not the only Londoner up at this godawful time on HLP....

We invented the Jet engine so i guess we contributed, good old Frank Whittle, we salute you!!

RN has been involved in much more naval actio i guess.  :nod:

I didn't mean tha tot sound rude by the way.  The Royal Navy just had a few centuries woth of cengagement and lfagships to refer to.

Tired = Bad spelling, off to sleep. Night Night FS chaps.
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on July 24, 2008, 03:13:36 am
The Repulse was one of two ships that sank off the coast of Malaya during the Second World War. It was destroyed by Japanese fighters, along with the Prince of Wales, due to a lack of fighter cover on the part of the Royal Navy.

When I was younger, I always wondered what the British were thinking back then, but after learning a bit of history and playing The Battle of Wesnoth, I understand why they had most of their forces in Europe.
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: Al Tarket on July 24, 2008, 03:24:37 am
the brits got lucky, the americans where around to help out and even some australians.

the Germans actually had the first jet plane, thanks to Hans Joachim Pabst von Ohain and shortly after Frank Whittle did the same.
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: Wanderer on July 24, 2008, 11:20:19 am
Given that Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk mere days after mighty US navy lost more or less eight battleship in Pearl Harbor there wasnt much US forces could do... Even combined Australian, British, Dutch and American forces were just swept away by the Japanese navy.

And given the abilities of Japanese Zero fighters no amount of allied air cover would have helped the doomed capital ships as tactics to beat Zero had not invented or used yet.
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: NGTM-1R on July 24, 2008, 02:15:33 pm
And given the abilities of Japanese Zero fighters no amount of allied air cover would have helped the doomed capital ships as tactics to beat Zero had not invented or used yet.

The bomber force that attacked Prince of Wales and Repulse was not escorted.
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: admiral_wolf on July 24, 2008, 05:17:57 pm
Unconnected to the title in a way, but Subspace may have been used as a reference to Red Dwarf.  It's in Series 4, Ep. 6.
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: Snail on July 24, 2008, 05:42:45 pm
I keep expecting Tom Baker's head to pop out of the light at the end of the tunnel.
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: Colonol Dekker on July 24, 2008, 05:59:59 pm
Don't let Axem hear ytou say that.. JAD 5 will feature it no doubt now :rolleyes: That was in Blue Harvest too wasn't it?
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: admiral_wolf on July 24, 2008, 06:05:21 pm
Well if it helps, I managed to get a photo of "The Doctor" and "the assistant" before they left The Galatea.

http://www.shillpages.com/dw/aldres11.jpg

The Following Information is Classified Level Omega people, please don't mention/show the photo to anyone.  I'll lose my commision and end up on Support Duties in Laramis!
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: Colonol Dekker on July 24, 2008, 06:14:01 pm
Lozzle, i remember that......

You lucky dog, the Piper in your presence.
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on July 25, 2008, 08:40:09 am
And given the abilities of Japanese Zero fighters no amount of allied air cover would have helped the doomed capital ships as tactics to beat Zero had not invented or used yet.

The bomber force that attacked Prince of Wales and Repulse was not escorted.

It's just two destroyers with many guns. You can't expect much... :doubt:

Given that Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk mere days after mighty US navy lost more or less eight battleship in Pearl Harbor there wasnt much US forces could do... Even combined Australian, British, Dutch and American forces were just swept away by the Japanese navy.

And given the abilities of Japanese Zero fighters no amount of allied air cover would have helped the doomed capital ships as tactics to beat Zero had not invented or used yet.

Ah yes, that too. The good thing was that the Americans had their Pacific Navy carriers out at sea on...what, a training exercise on that day, so the Japanese failed to deliver a really crippling blow. If the carriers had been destroyed during Pearl Harbor, I think the Americans would have had a huge problem in the Pacific.

Those Zeros were made by Mitsubishi, I think... :drevil:
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: admiral_wolf on July 25, 2008, 12:24:24 pm
Could it be that someone at Volition was a closet anorak?

http://flickr.com/photos/90134546@N00/292369809
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: brandx0 on July 25, 2008, 05:27:02 pm
Quote
It's just two destroyers with many guns. You can't expect much...

I hope that was supposed to be a joke.  The Prince of Wales was a King George V-class Battleship and the Repulse was a Renown-class Battlecruiser.  And they were supposed to have air cover, but the carrier assigned to escort them was damaged en route.
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: Admiral_Stones on July 25, 2008, 05:39:14 pm
Quote
It's just two destroyers with many guns. You can't expect much...

I hope that was supposed to be a joke.  The Prince of Wales was a King George V-class Battleship and the Repulse was a Renown-class Battlecruiser.  And they were supposed to have air cover, but the carrier assigned to escort them was damaged en route.

Aren't Battleships supposed to have flak cannons and Anti-Fighter Beams mounted on them or so?
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: NGTM-1R on July 25, 2008, 09:13:30 pm
Brit AA bordered on laughable by US standards, and that was before Pearl Harbor.

A US attack transport circa mid-1942 would have had more and better AAA guns then either PoW or Repulse did when they were sunk.
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on July 26, 2008, 04:27:41 am
Quote
It's just two destroyers with many guns. You can't expect much...

I hope that was supposed to be a joke.  The Prince of Wales was a King George V-class Battleship and the Repulse was a Renown-class Battlecruiser.  And they were supposed to have air cover, but the carrier assigned to escort them was damaged en route.

Aren't Battleships supposed to have flak cannons and Anti-Fighter Beams mounted on them or so?

You've played too much FreeSpace... :drevil:

The thing is, I've seen pictures of both ships. They have lots of guns, yes, and I do believe they are quite powerful ships in their time, but even destroyers with lots of guns aren't invincible. Why do you think ships need escort?
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: Al Tarket on July 26, 2008, 05:08:59 am
"are not invincible". the japanese carrier formation near pearl harbor a long time was proof of that that even the best ships are not always at top class. that also goes with that american carrier that was bombed and almost destroyed once but just after that battle finished it got bombed again and sank by a few enemy fighters.
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: Admiral_Stones on July 26, 2008, 05:18:20 am
Quote
It's just two destroyers with many guns. You can't expect much...

I hope that was supposed to be a joke.  The Prince of Wales was a King George V-class Battleship and the Repulse was a Renown-class Battlecruiser.  And they were supposed to have air cover, but the carrier assigned to escort them was damaged en route.

Aren't Battleships supposed to have flak cannons and Anti-Fighter Beams mounted on them or so?

You've played too much FreeSpace... :drevil:

The thing is, I've seen pictures of both ships. They have lots of guns, yes, and I do believe they are quite powerful ships in their time, but even destroyers with lots of guns aren't invincible. Why do you think ships need escort?

FS is somewhat strange with its warship classes. The PoW and the repulse both weren't destroyers. Battleships and their equally armed but faster bretheren (less armored Battlecruisers) are designed to blow away other ships and such posses less AA defences.
 The wiki says they were escorted by four destroyers, all combined they had a rather good AA defence, but without the carrier as much as 86 bombers screwed fiery explosive death   right up the brit's asses. Too bad, I like brits :(
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: NGTM-1R on July 26, 2008, 06:03:15 am
FS is somewhat strange with its warship classes. The PoW and the repulse both weren't destroyers. Battleships and their equally armed but faster bretheren (less armored Battlecruisers) are designed to blow away other ships and such posses less AA defences.
 The wiki says they were escorted by four destroyers, all combined they had a rather good AA defence, but without the carrier as much as 86 bombers screwed fiery explosive death   right up the brit's asses. Too bad, I like brits :(

The majority of Brit destroyers did not have power-worked dual-purpose guns and hence their many batteries were, at best, marginally effective in an AA role. (It's rather telling many of them eventually had to give up their after torpedo tubes for a 4" high-angle gun.) Furthermore at that point in the war they would have been bereft of any sort of light AA gun, and their medium AA gun would have been the the 2-pdr pom-pom (as it was through almost the entire war) which was a very advanced weapon when it was introduced into service...11 years before. Prince of Wales had a useful battery of 5.25" guns to call on, but they had about half the rate of fire of a US 5" mount, and at that point in the war lacked much in the way of fire control.

Despite 6 years of battle in the North Atlantic against submarines, and numerous engagements in every sea bordering the European continent against surface ships, for the RN in WW2, death usually came from the air.
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: Wanderer on July 26, 2008, 07:18:34 am
Brit AA bordered on laughable by US standards, and that was before Pearl Harbor.

A US attack transport circa mid-1942 would have had more and better AAA guns then either PoW or Repulse did when they were sunk.
Well... US battleships carried about the same or even less AAA guns than King George class vessels in 1941.. Non-AA guns marked (including non-DP batteries)

Quote from: Wikipedia
HMS Prince of Wales
10 × 14 in/45 cal. (356 mm/45 cal.)(2 × 4, 1 × 2) mk VII
16 × 5.25 in/50 cal. (133 mm/50 cal.) dual purpose (8 × 2)
48 2 pdr (1.5 in) AA (40 mm) (6 × 8)
1 40 mm AA
8 20 mm AA (8 × 1)

USS Arizona
12 × 14 in (356 mm) guns
12 × 5"/51 (127 mm) guns

12 × 5"/25 (127 mm) guns
2 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes

USS North Carolina
9 × 16 inch (406 mm) guns
20 × 5 inch (127 mm) dual-purpose guns
16 × 28 mm machine gun
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: terran_emperor on July 26, 2008, 07:47:55 am
[quoteauthor=Ian Hislop]
...Wikipedia. that reliable tool for all of us[!]
[/quote]
Title: Re: Historical ships with FS names
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on July 27, 2008, 03:01:23 am
[quoteauthor=Ian Hislop]
...Wikipedia. that reliable tool for all of us[!]
[/quote]

Not really. It's good for basic reference, but that's it. When the articles on Citizendium are fully developed, you might want to consider looking at those.

In any case, I'm a layman when it comes to real ship armament. :blah: