Talk:Battlestar Group/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:09, 26 September 2005

The designation Battlestar Group 75 would have no more relation to the hull number of a BattleStar then that if US Navy ship to the Task Force number it was assigned to. Example Task Force 38 (WW-II) was the same ships as Task Force 58, all that changed was which Admiral was in charge. Similar statements can be made for AirGroups.

Group

"Curiously, Aaron Doral states that Galactica was one of the original 12 Battlestars built during the early days of the Cylon War, which makes this designation number curiously high."

Um...not really. For example, the first airborne unit in the US Army was the 82nd Airborne Division - it doesn't mean that there were 81 airborne diivsions before it, it meant that it was the 82nd division of the Army, and that it was designed to operate airborne. The 75th Battlestar Group might have been the 75th group in the Colonial Fleet, but the first one to have battlestars in it. And there's no reason that the Galactica couldn't have been shuffled around to other, or newer, Fleet units, especially given what we know happened after the end of the war. Someone should change this articvle to reflect that. Kuralyov 15:23, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

We may also want to keep an eye out tonight to see what Battlestar Group the Pegasus was a part of. -- Joe Beaudoin 15:47, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

I believe their uniforms said 62nd Battlestar Group - can anyone who taped it confirm? Kuralyov 13:35, 24 September 2005 (EDT)

I have it on tape but I cannot tell; the crest is on screen so it is "canonical" but it's too fuzzy to see. I've only got it on regular tape so I can't DVD zoom or anything. Maybe it's displayed on their flight deck: I noticed that "BSG-75" is emblazoned on the flight deck of Galactica (look when Raptors land). However, I don't know if we have a shot of someone landing on Pegasus. A good question for RDM's blog? ---Ricimer, 24 Sept, 2005

Do we know for certain that it HAS to be an acronym? US battleships were given the prefix BB - obviously not battleship. Carriers are CV - C for carrier, V for "heavier than air aircraft" obviously not an acronym. Perhaps Battlestar is a class and BSG stands for something else. It could also be certianly used to explain the number sequencing too - ie Galactica being number 12 of the original Battlestars, but having the number 75.

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 ''"Curiously, Aaron Doral states that Galactica was one of the original 12 Battlestars built during the early days of the Cylon War, which makes this designation number curiously high."''
-Um...not really. For example, the first airborne unit in the US Army was the 82nd Airborne Division - it doesn't mean that theer were 81 airborne diivsions before it, it meant that it was the 82nd division of the Army, and that it was designed to operate airborne. The 75th Battlestar Group might have been the 75th group in the Colonial Fleet, but the first one to have battlestars in it. And there's no reason that the Galactica couldn't have been shuffled around to other, or newer, Fleet units, especially given what we know happened after the end of the war. Someone should change this articvle to reflect that. [[User:Kuralyov|Kuralyov]] 15:23, 23 September 2005 (EDT)
+Um...not really. For example, the first airborne unit in the US Army was the 82nd Airborne Division - it doesn't mean that there were 81 airborne diivsions before it, it meant that it was the 82nd division of the Army, and that it was designed to operate airborne. The 75th Battlestar Group might have been the 75th group in the Colonial Fleet, but the first one to have battlestars in it. And there's no reason that the Galactica couldn't have been shuffled around to other, or newer, Fleet units, especially given what we know happened after the end of the war. Someone should change this articvle to reflect that. [[User:Kuralyov|Kuralyov]] 15:23, 23 September 2005 (EDT)
 : We may also want to keep an eye out tonight to see what Battlestar Group the ''Pegasus'' was a part of. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 15:47, 23 September 2005 (EDT)