View Single Post
Old September 11 2013, 05:15 PM   #44
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Imagine the TOS Starfleet

Shawnster wrote: View Post
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
During Nelson's/Hornblower's era of the Royal Navy the sailing ships were mostly distinguished by the number of guns they carried. A "first-rate" like HMS Victory or the fictional HMS Defiant (wall painting in "In a Mirror, Darkly") would carry 104 guns, a second-rate 90-98 guns and a third-rate 64-80 guns.

All these ships had in common that they were "ships-of-the-line", i.e. they were considered powerful enough to engage the enemy fleet in the traditional parallel lining and broadside exchange (Nelson broke this rule and therefore won at Trafalgar in 1805)
Avro Arrow wrote: View Post
Which is why I don't personally think that any ship referred to as a starship automatically means she's the same class as Enterprise. Sorry. YMMV, of course.

Enterprise's commissioning plaque notwithstanding, of course. Since that was there from the earliest days of the series, I think that's just one of the things that hadn't really been ironed out yet (like Earth vs. Federation ship), and at best refers to "Starship Class" the same way you might refer to a "destroyer class" vessel IRL, but then within the destroyer classification, you'd have, say, St. Laurent or Restigouche class ships.
Could this be a possible rationalization of starship vs. Starship Class? The Royal Navy had all kinds of ships in the 18th and 19th centuries; however, only a select few were "Ships of the Line." Those were special ships had their own distinction and, as Robert describes, different ratings.

So TOS has spaceships and starships; however, Starships as in the Starship Class are a distinct breed. They are the 23rd century equivalent of a Ship of the Line. There are only 12 like Enterprise in the fleet because they are so rare and special. Oh, sure, there are other space ships, but they are inferior when compared to the Starship Class.

Just tossing this out there as a possible rationalization.
I think this makes perfect sense. Further, based on the notion of "rate" systems, why can't there be Class I, II, III etc. Starships?

J.T.B. wrote: View Post
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Why only 12 ships? IIRC the US Navy had 12 aircraft carriers in the 1960's and this was an inspiration.
This got me thinking. This chart may be of interest to some of you; as you can see there were a bit more than twelve carriers in service during TOS's run, though quite a few were ASW or amphibious carriers. And you can also see a number of familiar Starfleet names that were in service at the time.

(click for full size)
Wow, that's fascinating. Thanks for sharing.

jpv2000 wrote: View Post
Darkwing wrote: View Post
So Kirk's Enterprise was definitely NOT the biggest thing Starfleet had. it was the biggest and best ship sailing solo on independent operations. But bigger, better, more capable battleships (with tighter leashes), bigger, better, more capable research ships (with watchdogs), and other types should also exist.
That's the way I see it as well. It was Kirk and the unique gestalt he had with his crew that made the Enterprise the best ship to send to a crisis, not the actual ship itself.
That works.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote