Talk:Battery/Archive 1 - Revision history

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

2020-04-11T01:39:53Z

Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:39, 11 April 2020
Line 4:		Line 4:
	:"If the rails mount on the guns serve any real functional purpose, it is probably heat dissipation; due to the lack of any medium to draw heat away from objects in space, disgarding waste heat would be a serious issue for the show's apparently chemical-propelled projectile weapons."		:"If the rails mount on the guns serve any real functional purpose, it is probably heat dissipation; due to the lack of any medium to draw heat away from objects in space, disgarding waste heat would be a serious issue for the show's apparently chemical-propelled projectile weapons."

	This seems like making up excuses for a production error, to me. If the intent of those rails really is heat dissipation, they would be much wider to provide a larger surface to radiate heat on. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 18:15, 31 March 2006 (CST)		This seems like making up excuses for a production error, to me. If the intent of those rails really is heat dissipation, they would be much wider to provide a larger surface to radiate heat on. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 18:15, 31 March 2006 (CST)

	:I concur. They just like the word "railgun" because it sounds cool. Distinctions between various slightly different kinds of hypothetical weaponry probably never occured to them. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar\|CalculatinAvatar]] 20:26, 31 March 2006 (CST)		:I concur. They just like the word "railgun" because it sounds cool. Distinctions between various slightly different kinds of hypothetical weaponry probably never occured to them. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar\|CalculatinAvatar]] 20:26, 31 March 2006 (CST)
Line 10:		Line 10:
	::I never said it wasn't an excuse for production error, though I doubt it was so much error as "it looked cool". However, since the show's full of production errors to explain away (I'd love for someone to explain to me why they bothered dressing up guns in the miniseries but stopped in the TV series as anything other than laziness) and we have been explaining them away all over this wiki, I don't understand why this one should be any different. =P --[[User:David Templar\|David Templar]] 21:28, 31 March 2006 (CST)		::I never said it wasn't an excuse for production error, though I doubt it was so much error as "it looked cool". However, since the show's full of production errors to explain away (I'd love for someone to explain to me why they bothered dressing up guns in the miniseries but stopped in the TV series as anything other than laziness) and we have been explaining them away all over this wiki, I don't understand why this one should be any different. =P --[[User:David Templar\|David Templar]] 21:28, 31 March 2006 (CST)

	:::[[Wikipedia:Fanwank\|It]] might be widespread, but I don't have to be happy about it. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 22:21, 31 March 2006 (CST)		:::[[Wikipedia:Fanwank\|It]] might be widespread, but I don't have to be happy about it. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 22:21, 31 March 2006 (CST)

	::::Haha, fair enough. Believe me when I say I prefer tight scripts over fanwanking any day, despite my ability to fanwank with the best of them. That unfortunate skill came from the nightmarishly long 7 years of Voyager and not nearly short enough 4 years of Enterprise... And with RDM's aversion to technobabble and reluctance to keep military/tech advisors on hand, BSG is a series destined to go down the path of fanwankery. Hell, even trying to stay consistent between episodes would cut down on the fanwank, they don't need a tech advisor for that. --[[User:David Templar\|David Templar]] 22:37, 31 March 2006 (CST)		::::Haha, fair enough. Believe me when I say I prefer tight scripts over fanwanking any day, despite my ability to fanwank with the best of them. That unfortunate skill came from the nightmarishly long 7 years of Voyager and not nearly short enough 4 years of Enterprise... And with RDM's aversion to technobabble and reluctance to keep military/tech advisors on hand, BSG is a series destined to go down the path of fanwankery. Hell, even trying to stay consistent between episodes would cut down on the fanwank, they don't need a tech advisor for that. --[[User:David Templar\|David Templar]] 22:37, 31 March 2006 (CST)

	:::::What makes this case especially egregious is that the cannons have never even been referred to as "railguns" in any canon source. I don't think you can get much worse than ''[[Wikipedia:fanon (fiction)\|fanon]]'' fanwank. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 22:50, 31 March 2006 (CST)		:::::What makes this case especially egregious is that the cannons have never even been referred to as "railguns" in any canon source. I don't think you can get much worse than ''[[Wikipedia:fanon (fiction)\|fanon]]'' fanwank. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 22:50, 31 March 2006 (CST)

	::::::I shamefully admit my own involvement in that unfortunate incident. I didn't start it, but had a part in continuing it for a time. --[[User:David Templar\|David Templar]] 23:14, 31 March 2006 (CST)		::::::I shamefully admit my own involvement in that unfortunate incident. I didn't start it, but had a part in continuing it for a time. --[[User:David Templar\|David Templar]] 23:14, 31 March 2006 (CST)

	:::::::You know, if we were talking about a land-assault vehicle instead of a space ship, that would make this whole thing a case of fanon cannon battletank fanwank. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 23:34, 31 March 2006 (CST)		:::::::You know, if we were talking about a land-assault vehicle instead of a space ship, that would make this whole thing a case of fanon cannon battletank fanwank. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 23:34, 31 March 2006 (CST)

	::::::::How's this for re-stirring up some muddy water ... image stills submitted for Emmy consideration refer to [http://darthmojo.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/little-gold-statues/ "railguns"] -- [[User:Fredmdbud\|Fredmdbud]] 18:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)		::::::::How's this for re-stirring up some muddy water ... image stills submitted for Emmy consideration refer to [http://darthmojo.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/little-gold-statues/ "railguns"] -- [[User:Fredmdbud\|Fredmdbud]] 18:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Typhoeus: /* Limitations */

2010-08-30T19:17:20Z

Limitations

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:17, 30 August 2010
Line 90:		Line 90:
	Note of interest, two second firing delay between shots i've noticed, quiet fast for such high calibre guns?		Note of interest, two second firing delay between shots i've noticed, quiet fast for such high calibre guns?
	--[[User:CHr0n0sPh3r3\|CHr0n0sPh3r3]] 14:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)		--[[User:CHr0n0sPh3r3\|CHr0n0sPh3r3]] 14:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

			==Galactica and Auto Fire==
			I think [[Galactica (TRS)\|''Galactica'']] can use auto fire as well, there's some evidence to suggest this, such as "[[Valley of Darkness]]" was one of them (although... now I think of it, I think [[Cylon Centurion]]s where specifically heading for weapon control...), but there was another episode, "[[Flight of the Phoenix]]", where [[Sharon Agathon]] (I ''think'' that's the episode) suggests that the Cylon virus will eventually take control of the weapons and turn it onto [[The Fleet (TRS)\|the fleet]]. Now, if I am wrong with my two pieces of evidence, then I guess I am just wrong, but I am certain there were references ''somewhere'' about ''Galactica''<nowiki'</nowiki>s [[Battery\|batteries]] being used in auto-fire. -- [[User:Typhoeus\|Typhoeus]] 19:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

CHr0n0sPh3r3 at 14:04, 8 April 2009

2009-04-08T14:04:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:04, 8 April 2009
Line 87:		Line 87:

	Finally, basestars can't stop a shell. Only reason two batteries is more effective than one is there are two of them.--[[User:David Templar\|David Templar]] 19:51, 14 April 2007 (CDT)		Finally, basestars can't stop a shell. Only reason two batteries is more effective than one is there are two of them.--[[User:David Templar\|David Templar]] 19:51, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

			Note of interest, two second firing delay between shots i've noticed, quiet fast for such high calibre guns?
			--[[User:CHr0n0sPh3r3\|CHr0n0sPh3r3]] 14:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: /* Rails */ gah

2008-07-21T19:43:27Z

Rails: gah

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:43, 21 July 2008
Line 21:		Line 21:

	::::::::How's this for re-stirring up some muddy water ... image stills submitted for Emmy consideration refer to [http://darthmojo.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/little-gold-statues/ "railguns"] -- [[User:Fredmdbud\|Fredmdbud]] 18:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)		::::::::How's this for re-stirring up some muddy water ... image stills submitted for Emmy consideration refer to [http://darthmojo.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/little-gold-statues/ "railguns"] -- [[User:Fredmdbud\|Fredmdbud]] 18:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

			:::::::::Gah. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [[bsp:\|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 19:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

	==Cleanup==		==Cleanup==

Fredmdbud: /* Rails */

2008-07-21T18:59:52Z

Rails

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:59, 21 July 2008
Line 19:		Line 19:

	:::::::You know, if we were talking about a land-assault vehicle instead of a space ship, that would make this whole thing a case of fanon cannon battletank fanwank. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 23:34, 31 March 2006 (CST)		:::::::You know, if we were talking about a land-assault vehicle instead of a space ship, that would make this whole thing a case of fanon cannon battletank fanwank. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 23:34, 31 March 2006 (CST)

			::::::::How's this for re-stirring up some muddy water ... image stills submitted for Emmy consideration refer to [http://darthmojo.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/little-gold-statues/ "railguns"] -- [[User:Fredmdbud\|Fredmdbud]] 18:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

	==Cleanup==		==Cleanup==

David Templar: /* Limitations */

2007-04-15T00:51:42Z

Limitations

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:51, 15 April 2007
Line 82:		Line 82:
	Secondly, we see Galactica's main guns engage missiles ALL THE TIME. Again, her main batteries are seen as a standoff means of deflecting missiles from basestars. Indeed, her main batteries would be far better at providing anti-missile defence for the fleet than her flak guns due to disbersion issues.		Secondly, we see Galactica's main guns engage missiles ALL THE TIME. Again, her main batteries are seen as a standoff means of deflecting missiles from basestars. Indeed, her main batteries would be far better at providing anti-missile defence for the fleet than her flak guns due to disbersion issues.

	Finally, basestars can't stop a shell. Only reason two batteries is more effective than one is there are two of them.		Finally, basestars can't stop a shell. Only reason two batteries is more effective than one is there are two of them.--[[User:David Templar\|David Templar]] 19:51, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

David Templar: Deletion of Limitation section

2007-04-15T00:51:25Z

Deletion of Limitation section

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:51, 15 April 2007
Line 64:		Line 64:

	::::I agree on Small Arms. I may work on this merge a little later if no one beats me to it. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 15:34, 9 January 2007 (CST)		::::I agree on Small Arms. I may work on this merge a little later if no one beats me to it. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 15:34, 9 January 2007 (CST)

			== Limitations ==

			I took out the Limitations section because all the things it suggest is contrary to onscreen evidence. It went something like this.

			"Since its turrets are relatively slow to traverse, a battlestar's main guns would be a poor choice for engaging [[Cylon Raider (RDM)\|enemy fighters]] which are small, fast and extremely maneuverable. They would also be impractical for defending against enemy missile attacks, which would be more suceptible to attack from [[Weapons in the Re-imagined Series#Point_defense_guns\|point defense weapons]] or Vipers.

			The turrets' slow rate of fire also means that a single turret, if left to operate alone - either due to damage, power failure or any other events - may not be a very effective method of attack. It is for this very reason that the turrets are grouped in batteries."

			Basically, the above suggests three things.
			1. Poor choice for engaging Raiders
			2. Impractical for defending against enemy missile attacks
			3. Lone turret ineffective

			Contrary to the above, we have first of all flak shells for engaging Raiders at the distance, and in fact represent one of the first munitions we ever see Galactica's gun fire. They provide a practical standoff ability to engage distant Raiders, hardly a poor choice.

			Secondly, we see Galactica's main guns engage missiles ALL THE TIME. Again, her main batteries are seen as a standoff means of deflecting missiles from basestars. Indeed, her main batteries would be far better at providing anti-missile defence for the fleet than her flak guns due to disbersion issues.

			Finally, basestars can't stop a shell. Only reason two batteries is more effective than one is there are two of them.

Serenity: Talk:Point-defense cannons moved to Talk:Battery: Moving talk page to "Talk:Battery"

2007-01-10T18:05:28Z

Talk:Point-defense cannons moved to Talk:Battery: Moving talk page to "Talk:Battery"

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:05, 10 January 2007
(No difference)

Spencerian: +reply

2007-01-09T21:34:35Z

+reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:34, 9 January 2007
Line 62:		Line 62:

	:::That's probably the best idea. Links it more to already existing tech articles, pulls all weapons related stuff together, while also reducing the duplication present now. It's basically what I had in mind, but I forgot about the "Science..." series. Though I think "Small Arms" could be an own article, thus seperating it a bit from spacecraft weaponry. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 15:07, 9 January 2007 (CST)		:::That's probably the best idea. Links it more to already existing tech articles, pulls all weapons related stuff together, while also reducing the duplication present now. It's basically what I had in mind, but I forgot about the "Science..." series. Though I think "Small Arms" could be an own article, thus seperating it a bit from spacecraft weaponry. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 15:07, 9 January 2007 (CST)

			::::I agree on Small Arms. I may work on this merge a little later if no one beats me to it. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 15:34, 9 January 2007 (CST)

Serenity: /* General weapons articles organization */

2007-01-09T21:08:26Z

General weapons articles organization

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:08, 9 January 2007
Line 61:		Line 61:
	::I think [[Battery]] is sufficient (in content at least) for both point-defense guns and flak cannon data. I don't think separating them is a good idea. How about this: We create a new article: "Weapons in the Re-imagined Series" (making it a child article of [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]]). This new child details the weaponry for both Cylons and Colonials, summarizing information for topics that need their own separate article just as we do in the [[Cylon Spacecraft]] article. This child article can combine [[KEW]] and [[Battery]], then also note Cylon weaponry, such as their anti-aircraft batteries, basestar missiles, and Cylon KEW (if we know anything about it). --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 14:48, 9 January 2007 (CST)		::I think [[Battery]] is sufficient (in content at least) for both point-defense guns and flak cannon data. I don't think separating them is a good idea. How about this: We create a new article: "Weapons in the Re-imagined Series" (making it a child article of [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]]). This new child details the weaponry for both Cylons and Colonials, summarizing information for topics that need their own separate article just as we do in the [[Cylon Spacecraft]] article. This child article can combine [[KEW]] and [[Battery]], then also note Cylon weaponry, such as their anti-aircraft batteries, basestar missiles, and Cylon KEW (if we know anything about it). --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 14:48, 9 January 2007 (CST)

	:::That's probably the best idea. Links it more to already existing tech articles, pulls all weapons related stuff together, while also reducing the duplication present now. Though I think "Small Arms" could be an own article, thus seperating it a bit from spacecraft weaponry. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 15:07, 9 January 2007 (CST)		:::That's probably the best idea. Links it more to already existing tech articles, pulls all weapons related stuff together, while also reducing the duplication present now. It's basically what I had in mind, but I forgot about the "Science..." series. Though I think "Small Arms" could be an own article, thus seperating it a bit from spacecraft weaponry. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 15:07, 9 January 2007 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:39, 11 April 2020
Line 4:		Line 4:
	:"If the rails mount on the guns serve any real functional purpose, it is probably heat dissipation; due to the lack of any medium to draw heat away from objects in space, disgarding waste heat would be a serious issue for the show's apparently chemical-propelled projectile weapons."		:"If the rails mount on the guns serve any real functional purpose, it is probably heat dissipation; due to the lack of any medium to draw heat away from objects in space, disgarding waste heat would be a serious issue for the show's apparently chemical-propelled projectile weapons."

	This seems like making up excuses for a production error, to me. If the intent of those rails really is heat dissipation, they would be much wider to provide a larger surface to radiate heat on. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 18:15, 31 March 2006 (CST)		This seems like making up excuses for a production error, to me. If the intent of those rails really is heat dissipation, they would be much wider to provide a larger surface to radiate heat on. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 18:15, 31 March 2006 (CST)

	:I concur. They just like the word "railgun" because it sounds cool. Distinctions between various slightly different kinds of hypothetical weaponry probably never occured to them. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar\|CalculatinAvatar]] 20:26, 31 March 2006 (CST)		:I concur. They just like the word "railgun" because it sounds cool. Distinctions between various slightly different kinds of hypothetical weaponry probably never occured to them. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar\|CalculatinAvatar]] 20:26, 31 March 2006 (CST)
Line 10:		Line 10:
	::I never said it wasn't an excuse for production error, though I doubt it was so much error as "it looked cool". However, since the show's full of production errors to explain away (I'd love for someone to explain to me why they bothered dressing up guns in the miniseries but stopped in the TV series as anything other than laziness) and we have been explaining them away all over this wiki, I don't understand why this one should be any different. =P --[[User:David Templar\|David Templar]] 21:28, 31 March 2006 (CST)		::I never said it wasn't an excuse for production error, though I doubt it was so much error as "it looked cool". However, since the show's full of production errors to explain away (I'd love for someone to explain to me why they bothered dressing up guns in the miniseries but stopped in the TV series as anything other than laziness) and we have been explaining them away all over this wiki, I don't understand why this one should be any different. =P --[[User:David Templar\|David Templar]] 21:28, 31 March 2006 (CST)

	:::[[Wikipedia:Fanwank\|It]] might be widespread, but I don't have to be happy about it. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 22:21, 31 March 2006 (CST)		:::[[Wikipedia:Fanwank\|It]] might be widespread, but I don't have to be happy about it. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 22:21, 31 March 2006 (CST)

	::::Haha, fair enough. Believe me when I say I prefer tight scripts over fanwanking any day, despite my ability to fanwank with the best of them. That unfortunate skill came from the nightmarishly long 7 years of Voyager and not nearly short enough 4 years of Enterprise... And with RDM's aversion to technobabble and reluctance to keep military/tech advisors on hand, BSG is a series destined to go down the path of fanwankery. Hell, even trying to stay consistent between episodes would cut down on the fanwank, they don't need a tech advisor for that. --[[User:David Templar\|David Templar]] 22:37, 31 March 2006 (CST)		::::Haha, fair enough. Believe me when I say I prefer tight scripts over fanwanking any day, despite my ability to fanwank with the best of them. That unfortunate skill came from the nightmarishly long 7 years of Voyager and not nearly short enough 4 years of Enterprise... And with RDM's aversion to technobabble and reluctance to keep military/tech advisors on hand, BSG is a series destined to go down the path of fanwankery. Hell, even trying to stay consistent between episodes would cut down on the fanwank, they don't need a tech advisor for that. --[[User:David Templar\|David Templar]] 22:37, 31 March 2006 (CST)

	:::::What makes this case especially egregious is that the cannons have never even been referred to as "railguns" in any canon source. I don't think you can get much worse than ''[[Wikipedia:fanon (fiction)\|fanon]]'' fanwank. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 22:50, 31 March 2006 (CST)		:::::What makes this case especially egregious is that the cannons have never even been referred to as "railguns" in any canon source. I don't think you can get much worse than ''[[Wikipedia:fanon (fiction)\|fanon]]'' fanwank. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 22:50, 31 March 2006 (CST)

	::::::I shamefully admit my own involvement in that unfortunate incident. I didn't start it, but had a part in continuing it for a time. --[[User:David Templar\|David Templar]] 23:14, 31 March 2006 (CST)		::::::I shamefully admit my own involvement in that unfortunate incident. I didn't start it, but had a part in continuing it for a time. --[[User:David Templar\|David Templar]] 23:14, 31 March 2006 (CST)

	:::::::You know, if we were talking about a land-assault vehicle instead of a space ship, that would make this whole thing a case of fanon cannon battletank fanwank. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 23:34, 31 March 2006 (CST)		:::::::You know, if we were talking about a land-assault vehicle instead of a space ship, that would make this whole thing a case of fanon cannon battletank fanwank. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 23:34, 31 March 2006 (CST)

	::::::::How's this for re-stirring up some muddy water ... image stills submitted for Emmy consideration refer to [http://darthmojo.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/little-gold-statues/ "railguns"] -- [[User:Fredmdbud\|Fredmdbud]] 18:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)		::::::::How's this for re-stirring up some muddy water ... image stills submitted for Emmy consideration refer to [http://darthmojo.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/little-gold-statues/ "railguns"] -- [[User:Fredmdbud\|Fredmdbud]] 18:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)