Battlestar Galactica vs Omega class Destroyer

[Rathark]

Just to poison the well, I suspect the Omega would win this one. But does the sneeze-and-it-blows-up Battlestar stand a chance? It's forward lasers are pretty impressive at close range. And didn't it shield an entire continent from nuclear missiles in one episode? If so, then why can't it shield itself as effectively? Equally valid, how would the Vipers fare against Starfuries? Does the Galactica have a speed advantage in either realspace or hyperspace?

Are the Cylons more advanced than the Colonials? If so, why do their fighters fare so badly against Vipers? Is it lack of creativity among their robotic pilots? Or are the Cylon fighters optimised for attacking larger vessels? (They are actually rather good at this). Or are they seen as disposable Kamikaze agents, like Centauri fighters?

[paladin]

I'm not sure who win an engagement between the galactica and an omega but I think it would be close.

The cyclons do lack creativity which why they attack en masse.

[StarshipTitanic]

I think the BSG shot down the missiles.

The BSG wins hands down. It has more weapons than the omega.

[starfury]

BSG. it has both more weapons and fighters then the omega. 120 to 24 as I recall from tigerclaw's site.

[Rathark]

Would you say that the Colonials are on a par with the Centauri or even the Minbari?

[NecronLord]

Just to poison the well, I suspect the Omega would win this one. But does the sneeze-and-it-blows-up Battlestar stand a chance? It's forward lasers are pretty impressive at close range. And didn't it shield an entire continent from nuclear missiles in one episode? If so, then why can't it shield itself as effectively? Equally valid, how would the Vipers fare against Starfuries? Does the Galactica have a speed advantage in either realspace or hyperspace?

Are the Cylons more advanced than the Colonials? If so, why do their fighters fare so badly against Vipers? Is it lack of creativity among their robotic pilots? Or are the Cylon fighters optimised for attacking larger vessels? (They are actually rather good at this). Or are they seen as disposable Kamikaze agents, like Centauri fighters?

They do Kamikaze runs in the film version, but later on Lucifer (cylon commander) expresses concern for the pilots. Also te galactica does have force feilds, They are just underplayed. Notice whenever they are in the landing bay it is open to space and they aren't all eating vacuum. And to my menory it was a sheild that destroyed the missiles.

[StarshipTitanic]

Would you say that the Colonials are on a par with the Centauri or even the Minbari?

I think a battlestar is half as strong as a post-ICS ISD, but I have no calcs to prove it, it's just opinion. Remeber, the BSG never had visible structual damage to the hull and it's 500 yahrns (which is equal to a year) old.

[Edi]

BSG wins hands down. More and more powerful weapons, a whole lot more fighters with more powerful weapons than the opposition.

Galactica does have shielding of a sort, it's not just as obvious as in SW or ST, because there are no visible bubbles or such, instead it seems like the armor of the battlestar absorbs incoming energy, distributes it over a wide area and reradiates it out into space, acting exactly like a shield would. See here: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Ess ... ating.html. If they start utilizing force fields in addition to that...

As for why the Colonials seem to fare badly against the cylons, not surprising since they are outnumbered at least two to one and more often by three, four or five to one in engagements with the cylons. They do surprisingly well when you account for that.

Also, there is the fact that the Galactica is bigger than a star destroyer, some 1800+ meters long. It's billed as being only 600 m long in many sources, but some fans scaled it, using the dimensions of the Colonial shuttle as a baseline (because those are known), and came up with around 1850 m, which is almost exactly one nautical mile. There was an article on that on Robert Hancyzk's BSG pages, but they seem to have vanished off the face of the net. A pity since they contained an impressive archive of BSG fanfic as well. Good quality too. But given this size, and the demonstrated power of the BSG's armament in action against Cylon basestars (e.g. the Pegasus destroying two of them simultaneously), a battlestar wouldn't even be slowed down by an Omega.

Edi
Edi

[Akm72]

A quick google search did not reveal any concensus on the size of the BSG, with people providing evidence for lengths ranging from 610m up to several miles long. It seems that BSG suffered from the common sci-fi complaint of magical inflatable spaceships when in comes to exterior shots.

[Crayz9000]

Also, there is the fact that the Galactica is bigger than a star destroyer, some 1800+ meters long. It's billed as being only 600 m long in many sources, but some fans scaled it, using the dimensions of the Colonial shuttle as a baseline (because those are known), and came up with around 1850 m, which is almost exactly one nautical mile. There was an article on that on Robert Hancyzk's BSG pages, but they seem to have vanished off the face of the net.

I think the consensus is 1.2 kilometers, or a little shorter than a Star Destroyer.

[paladin]

Would you say that the Colonials are on a par with the Centauri or even the Minbari?

I think BSG and B5 would be a good cross-over. Their technologies seem to be similiar.

[StarshipTitanic]

I think a BSG/SW one would be a bit more accurate.

[Crayz9000]

I think a BSG/SW one would be a bit more accurate.

No. Their appearances may be similar, but the technologies are still different.

Although the Galactica could certainly use a hyperdrive.

[StarshipTitanic]

How are their techs so radically different that B5 is more like them?

BSG has no problem going past lightspeed in normal space, actually.