RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,154
Posts: 5,344,069
Members: 24,599
Currently online: 716
Newest member: brollium

TrekToday headlines

New Funko Trek Figure
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Saldana As A Role Model
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

San Diego Comic-Con Trek Fan Guide
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Cumberbatch As Turing
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Retro Review: In the Pale Moonlight
By: Michelle on Jul 19

Trek Beach Towel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 18

Two New Starships Collection Releases
By: T'Bonz on Jul 17

Giacchino Tour Arrives In North America
By: T'Bonz on Jul 17

IDW Publishing October Star Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Jul 16

Cho As Romantic Lead
By: T'Bonz on Jul 16


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Star Trek - Original Series

Star Trek - Original Series The one that started it all...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 8 2013, 10:44 AM   #61
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Klingon Battle Cruiser

In a era of sensor counter measures, stealth, energy blocking shields ... yes. We see weapon misses on the show constantly, sometimes from extremely short ranges.


T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 8 2013, 01:48 PM   #62
SchwEnt
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Klingon Battle Cruiser

TOS starship combat ranged at thousands of miles between ships, and that's appropriate for phaser and disruptor type weapons. But that also has opposing ships well out of visual range (although not sensor range).

If two ships are 7000 miles apart, beyond visual range, would orientation and profile matter? At those distances when the ship isn't visible without sensors, would skinny pylons or narrow necks or broad saucers make a difference?

It's not as if one ship is close enough to manually target the other and has to line up a reticle crosshairs on a D-7's neck boom, so the battlecruiser profile comes into play (TWOK battle was an exception, not the rule).

If a ship can target and hit an enemy vessel so far away that it can't even be seen, then would factors like "low profile" and "minimal aspect" ship orientation make a difference?
SchwEnt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 8 2013, 02:07 PM   #63
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Klingon Battle Cruiser

Stoo wrote: View Post
On the one hand, it's a striking and memorable profile. On the other, that long skinny neck bothers me for some reason.


Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 8 2013, 02:29 PM   #64
Richard Baker
Commander
 
Richard Baker's Avatar
 
Location: Warrior, AL
Re: Klingon Battle Cruiser

The idea behind a lot of the TOS ship designs was that materials and construction techniques had advanced way beyond our understanding- things like the neck boom and the Enterprises nacelle pylons demonstrated this. I think it is interesting that early Klingon ships shown it ST-Enterprise have additional external supports with cables and trusses on the ships as the engineering was not up to the TOS levels yet.
The forward bridge is a big psychological impact- like having the bridge pod up and exposed on the Star Destroyer. The demonstration of pure power and confidence by having your command section 'in the face' of the enemy, showing no matter what the enemy could attempt nothing was to be feared.

Last edited by Richard Baker; July 8 2013 at 09:36 PM.
Richard Baker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 8 2013, 04:09 PM   #65
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: shore leave in La Baule, France
Re: Klingon Battle Cruiser

@ Forbin



@ Richard Baker

Interesting idea! Indeed, the head of the Klingon Battlecruiser rather strikes me as the head of a venomous snake in comparison to the Enterprise's saucer which reminds me rather of a turtle...

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 8 2013, 07:20 PM   #66
EnsignHarper
Commander
 
Re: Klingon Battle Cruiser

T'Girl wrote: View Post

The crude way their ships appear could be a culturally driven look, deliberately cramped, misty and with low light levels. When Kirk ordered his ship out of Romulan space at warp 9, the D-7 chasing him was able to match his speed.


One of the things implied in TNG, is that one of the aces in the Federation hand that helped bring about the permanent Klingon/Federation alliance, was the superior Federation engine technology. In "Yesterday's Enterprise", for example, the alternate Picard notes to his crew that they could outrun the Klingons, but they needed to cover the Ent-C while it reentered the wormhole. This shows up in a few non-canonical novels, as well.
EnsignHarper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 8 2013, 07:28 PM   #67
Redfern
Commodore
 
Redfern's Avatar
 
Location: Georgia, USA
Re: Klingon Battle Cruiser

I built only a single D7 kit, but mine and those owned by two different playmates were cast in a very pale olive green. The ship looked close enough to that color when broadcast in Birmingham (AL, not England) that we assumed that was meant to be the color of the ship.

Sincerely,

Bill
__________________
Tempt the Hand of Fate and it'll give you the "finger"!

Freighter Tails: the Misadventures of Mzzkiti
Redfern is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
amt, battle cruiser, blueprints, klingon, model kit

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.