Talk: Carrack-class light cruiser/Legends

Should the name of this article be changed to match the bolded words "Carrack-class light cruiser?" JimRaynor55 22:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Possibly. I left it as it was because there was already several links to this location. I probably would be better to move it though... So I will. heh. --Beeurd 00:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• The ship is generally refered to as the Carrack-class light cruiser, but it is generally considered proper form to not be overly specific in the ship type. "Light cruiser" doesn't go too far -- "light escort carrier cruiser" might. =) I think in this case it works either way. --SparqMan 01:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio

Does anyone else think this page reads a lot like it was copied straight out of the essential guide to vehicles? --Maru 06:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If thats the case and you have the book, then you can edit the article to not sound so plagiaristic. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I originally wrote the article from memory, then referred to the essential guide for specifics, and looking back now, it does appear that I copied it in my own words, as the structure is almost identical. However, that was not my intention. Feel free to rewrite the article if appropriate. --Beeurd 22:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the EG, but most of their articles follow a logical structure, IIRC: background, description of vehicle, operational history. Seems like the structure most vehicle articles follow, or ought to. As long as the words are your own, I don't see anything wrong with it. --SparqMan 00:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was one sentence that really struck me as derivative, so I will change that one, but otherwise, I think I might have overreacted... Gomen. --Maru 00:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which sentence, just out of interest? --Beeurd 20:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The last one, and the ones about safety. --Maru 18:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah okay. *re-reads* Fair enough observation, actually... I'll be more original next time. lol --Beeurd 20:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Automation

"The ship's controls were simple and automated enough so that two people could operate the vessel." Two people can control a 350 meter warship? I hadn't seen that before. --SparqMan 21:55, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)

• Anakin did a pretty good job landing the Invisible Hand. And in Heir to the Empire they had Mon Cal cruisers with skeleton crews of like 15 guys. -LtNOWIS 00:00, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, if you can slave-rig the entire Katana fleet, you could have two people pilot a Carrack. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:33, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Plus, "can operate the vessel" doesn't necessarily mean "can operate the vessel effectively and efficiently". That's why the Katana fleet still had 2000 crewers on each ship, even though technically one person on the Katana's bridge could control all 200 Dreadnaughts. 68.47.234.131 09:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Exactly. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 12:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision

Fairly extensive revision. I'm not sure whether the "old, not terribly useful" bias in the article came from the EGVV or someone's rephrasing of that; but it's hardly borne out by the ISB or the novels and RPG material. I've tried to rewrite the page to balance what was there before with the fact that, while neither big nor new, they're tough, fast, versatile little ships. --McEwok 16:57, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

The bias defintely came from the EGVV. I'm pretty sure that I added that. :) --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:54, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

ThonBoka

What's the source for the ThonBoka cruisers AND the Wennis being Carracks? The Wennis is specifically mentioned as being an older model cruiser, has a 'cavernous' docking bay, easily carries at least 23 fighters and five "pinnaces" with hyperdrives (each capable of towing, with some work, 23 fighters), and additionally is wedge-shaped (well, trowel-shaped). We don't get any more specific than "cruiser" in StarCave of ThonBoka, and the one "cruiser" we get a good look at( the Respectable) at has a 200 meter docking bay (longer than an Impstar's, but can probably be assumed to be) and sounds awfully like a Star Destroyer. There's nothing to say the Recalcitrant, the Reluctant, the Reliable or the Courteous are any different (and Lando seems to consider them equivalent when he's visiting), especially given the unusual-for-Imp-ships naming pattern. Old EU, so "cruiser" is apparently being used in the sense Han Solo used it. Also, the Courteous creates a blast big enough to kill 1000 creatures ranging from half a klick to a klick long outright. Yrfeloran 22:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm, with this information, I suppose that these aren't Carracks. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 22:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I guess that it doesn't say the Wennis was a Carrack, but I was surprised to see the Courteous on there with the mention of lots of Carracks at ThonBoka. I'm wondering if there's some other source for that battle that references Carracks. Because it really doesn't specify at all in the book, other than "cruiser" and one mention of "dreadnaughts" and the 500 capital ships figure. Removing the Courteous, anyway. Yrfeloran 22:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Hopefully someone can tell us what is or isn't a Carrack. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 22:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The illustration of the Battle of ThonBoka in The Essential Chronology shows Carracks, but it doesn't discount the possibility of other types of ships. -LtNOWIS 03:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Now I've actually gone and looked it up. Modified Carracks were the ships used to poison the nebula. Eminence is listed as a Star Destroyer, and I think some of the ships in the picture are Dreadnaughts. -LtNOWIS 03:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Thank you. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 20:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Plooriod Bodkin?

Where's the source for that being a Carrack? Kuralyov 17:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm removing it for the time being (I think it's probably a Consular). Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 19:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

figures

I got those figures (also the other ships) from measuring the schematics in the EGGV. The length of the keel is known, the other are derived from that figure. one other thing: I found that the armament for this ship is somewhat heavy. I looked it up in the Starships of the Galaxy book and there they replaced the heavy turbolasers with normal ones. the heavy stats are from the imperial sourcebook from 1989. which one is more correct? --BaldFett 19:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• "the other are derived from that figure". That doesn't make it canon, though. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If you mean the height, then never mind. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • yeah the height and the width. measuring it with a ruler and then calculate the correct sizes. that's been done with other pages too --BaldFett 19:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
      • That's why I said never mind. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

350 metres?

It can't be that big, it look smaller than a corellion corvette. —Unsigned comment by 217.42.107.59 (talk • contribs)

• Well, it's 350 meters. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 22:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Here is the cruiser compared to the world's tallest buildings The main viewport is more than 30 meters wide and 20 meters tall. At that scale a squadren of X-wings could fit on the bride. - Rather Dashing 12:06, 14 December 2006
    • Well, we need to find out if it's a mistake. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Canon sources are few and far between. The x-wing series may have made a mistake that Lucasarts never bothered to fix because of the Ships Obscurity. We could simply note the odd front window in the ‘behind the scenes’ section. - Rather Dashing 20:02, 14 December 2006
        • Or we simply note that 350 meters is a disputed length. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I knew this argument seemed familiar, but couldn't find it on the Wook. Turns out it was here. Anyway, as bizarre as that gigantic viewport is, the length actually came long before the computer games (it originates in the Imperial Sourcebook) and, to my knowledge, has not been disputed anywhere. jSarek 13:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
            • So it's undisputed canon. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
              • Unless I've missed something, yes. jSarek 20:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
                • Well, that's good, then. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that the x-wing game model was the 1st time a designer had to really form it. I'd be satisfied if the sourcebook has an image or external physical discription Rather Dashing 00:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know about an image, but I think it has an external physical description. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

they definetly need to redesign it.... [1] [2]<------ it certainly looks... that if the carrack is 350 meters long, those crewmen are giants...

• 350 meters is the only official length, though. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It just so happens that I have the issue of Tales that the Carrack bridge picture comes from, and it's kind of hard to describe, but the whole bridge isn't shown in that picture- the two officers are on an overhang looking over the bridge, and the bridge viewport seems to stretch across the entire height of the bridge.

• Simplest explanation: the viewport covers multiple decks. Also, I don't own the ISB, but I do own the RASB, and I can pretty much guarantee that there would be a picture of it in there that would predate TIE Fighter. Actually, this doesn't say it, but this is it right here. I don't see what the issue is. - Brynn Alastayr 04:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Another explanation that I've heard is that only a small portion of that view port is actually the bridge. The rest is just a giant piece of transparisteel layed over the hull. First, this gives the ship the decieving apearance of a small shuttle, and second, it is much more difficult for a fighter or enemy capital ship to knock out the bridge if they can't tell exactly where the bridge is. --Tarvin Calaan 20:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Crew?

Is the total crew figure correct? It does seem a shade high...?--Bosda Di'Chi (talk) 17:14, August 10, 2012 (UTC) Given the number of weapon emplacements, I'm inclined to agree, I'd think roughly 50 to 100 people could run it. But if it comes from a cannon source we can't disregard it just because it doesn't make sense. --71.248.55.94 03:48, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

TIE Complement and atmospheric speed

The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels says 5 TIEs, the Fact File (which I can't check) says 5 TIEs, however the Imperial Sourcebook and 2007 Starships of the Galaxy says 4 TIEs. Which one prevails as canon? Also, what is the source for the 1050 kmh atmospheric speed?. No source that I have seen mentions an atmospheric speed (logic says it should have, however, as the Carrack doesn't carry shuttles).--Geekizer (talk) 15:52, March 31, 2014 (UTC)

Minimum crew

What's the source for a minimum crew of 2? The Empire Sourcebook states a skeleton crew of 500.--Geekizer (talk) 16:17, March 31, 2014 (UTC)