A Defiant Class Starship vs a Corellian Gunship

For polite and reasoned discussion of Star Wars and/or Star Trek.
Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: A Defiant Class Starship vs a Corellian Gunship

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:53 pm

Picard wrote:And Defiant can fire faster than gunship. I made estimates on SpaceBattles thread.
Makes sense after all the ship has small fast tracking (for the SW galaxy at least) weapons designed to combat and take out multiple fighters.

It is not designed to be a fast and manouverable fighter just to kill them, the Defiant is a heavily shielded, heavily armoured powerhouse designed for applying massive firepower in a short period of time on ships larger than itself.

Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1813
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: A Defiant Class Starship vs a Corellian Gunship

Post by Admiral Breetai » Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:17 pm

if ep 3 is any indication then the Defiant can likely fire faster though when they get close they are still very likely going to get hit and hit hard

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: A Defiant Class Starship vs a Corellian Gunship

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:42 pm

The gunship also has shite coverage from what are likely its turbo lasers.

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/5108 ... urbola.jpg

Accepting the logical fact that the ship is symetrical then i have listed from A-D the obvious dual turbo lasers on the facing side and we can see one on the oposite side from B as such these and there oposite numbers out of view are the most likely to be the positions of the 8 turbo lasers.

As you can see from A it can most likely fire at 360 at a elevated target but cannot fire at a ship slightly below its horizon due to its position. A also has issues shooting ships directly behind the gun ship due to it having a fat ass.

B suffers from the same issue but due to the back of the ship cannot hit anything directly behind the ship either unless the target is considerably wider than the gunships arse end.

A and B's counter parts sufffer the same issues obviously due to the symetrical nature of the ships design.

C and its counter part on the oposite side also look like they would have issues firing forwards at low elevation but look to have reasonable coverage aft.

D and its counter part also seem to be blocked at firing forwards at low elevation but have ok coverage aft.

COVERAGE AND POTENTIAL TACTICS:-

Over all a profile like the defiant could take real advantage of the poor firing arcs of these main turrets and the incoming fire could be reduced to just two of them in certain positions and angles.

Locked