Talk:Vor'cha class
From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference
In response to the background info regarding the Vor'cha class model being "heavily modified to create the Klingon attack crusier in TNG: "All Good Things...", an anonymous IP user had this to say:
- Not Correct, the Future Cruiser was a newly desiged and built ship,also designed by Rick Sternbach, not the Vor'Cha. --User:64.12.117.10 02:38, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
--From Andoria with Love 02:45, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Unity
What role did the Vor'cha class play in "Unity"? Was it assimilated by the Borg? Valley Forge 16:28, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Nacelles
- "It is of note that this is the first Klingon ship to demonstrate the use of Federation style warp nacelle technology and placement."
This statement does not make sense to me. The nacelles barely look more like Federation style than the K't'inga-class and D7 class, and look almost the same as the Raptor class, and the location is the same as that used on the Raptor, D5 class, D7 class, and K't'inga class. In fact, the only klingon warships not to use this location that I can think of are the Bird-of-preys. Given this, does that quotes statement make sense? --OuroborosCobra 01:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Separable Command Section
The Ertl model of this ship featured a command section that could separate from the main body in a similar manner to the galaxy class Enterprise. While this ability was never seen on screen I think I remeber reeading somewhere that it was the intention of the designers that the forward section would detach in battle situtuations. No idea where I read this unfortunately but is it worth a mention with regard to the ertl model?
[edit] Images of disruptor cannons
As you may have noticed, I renamed the first image in the "Tactical systems" section to note that it is a disruptor cannon, and not a torpedo tube, as previously indicated. The episode clearly indicates that they were firing a disruptor in that image, not a torpedo. Rogue Vulcan 23:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Crew Compliment
Does somebody want to tell how me how in the hell a ship that's only 3/4 the size of the Galaxy class miraculously has more people aboard it? (Carson GT Nighthawk 01:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC))
- Well, you don't know how packed it was on that ship or maybe the galaxy class was more spacious for their crew...who knows. — Morder 02:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I think someone got the numbers wrong, even if packed to the wall they can't possibly fit 1,900 people in there no way. (Carson GT Nighthawk 02:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC))
- You don't know that...especially when US aircraft carriers (about half the length of a galaxy class ship and a lot thinner) routinely carry 5000 people on board...either way we need a source for the numbers. — Morder 02:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Aircraft carriers are rectangular and real though. They aren't fantasy starships with unrealistic crew compliment listings. (Carson GT Nighthawk 02:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC))
- Exactly, so a starship can have as many people on board as it wants...it's fantasy. Besides, I see that the number comes from the Techmanual so - that's just the way it is. — Morder 02:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- The section you are editing is background information, and a direct quote from the DS9 Technical Manual. It is not up for debate, as the entire purpose of the section is to state what is in the Tech Manual, and nothing else. It isn't to state what makes sense, it isn't even to state what we saw on the TV show itself, it is only to say what was in the Tech Manuel. That is why it is prefaced by saying, "The following information of specifications and defenses comes exclusively from the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual:" Even if that was not the case, simply changing the number because you don't like it would be original research, which is also prohibited. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll get someone who does know and blow that 1,900 figure right out of the water. (Carson GT Nighthawk 02:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC))
- Again, it doesn't matter, the section you are editing is a direct quote from a book. The contents of the book are not up for debate, and the purpose of that section is to say what is in the book, and that is it. Please stop editing this number, before this has to get treated as vandalism. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've temporarily locked the page until you can calm down. Cobra stated quite succinctly, it's from the book, it's not up for debate. — Morder 02:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- So let me get this straight, Morder -- going by the measurements from this source, you could fit more than one 5,000-person aircraft carrier inside a Vor'cha-class cruiser? The Klingons must have more spacious accomodations than our Human naval servicepeople -- although I guess we could assume that a lot of the space is taken up by spacewarp equipment, making the DS9TM numbers make perfect sense. Otherwise, the crew listings would be much too low. -- Captain MKB 02:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, I never said that...but the other user was claiming that the number was too high, which is not necessarily true as we know we can fit more people than that in a smaller place. But I suppose you're right...they do have more accommodations than our service people :( — Morder 02:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- More importantly, what Carson doesn't seem to get is that a Klingon vessel has significantly worse accommodation than a Galaxy class starship. This has been made clear many times, most notably in "Unification I". The Klingons are building a ship for war, including the regular carrying of troops, not an explorer vessel with families and schools and holodecks. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
