Crew Complements

>>15177798
Probably only a few hundred at most.

Keep in mind, most of the ship is eaten up by the hanger bays and engines. The actual habitable part of the vessel is relatively small.

File: [EG]Gundam_0083_01_BD(1080p_10bit)[634AA91D].mkv_snapshot_09.15_[2017.02.06_00.59.25].jpg (871KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

871KB, 1440x1080px

>>15177798
In 0083, captain Synapse mentions to the Torrington base commander that the ship has a crew of 211. That is before they are assigned any pilots, though.

>>15177810
A Nimitz class supercarrier carries a crew of over 5000, according to wikipedia.

Now, the Pegasus-class is notorious for being revised across its various members; White Base is a tiny 260-something meters long apparently, while Albion breaks the 300m mark, but the Nimitzes are just a bit shy of 333m long themselves.

Now, the biggest flaw I would identify in comparing a fictional ship line to a real world supercarrier class is that the former is not just a carrier, it's a flight-capable carrier-cruiser.

For reference, the Ticonderoga class guided missile cruiser gets by with like 400 personnel on a boat of 173m. Here you can see what a difference it makes to have the facilities and personnel needed to be a carrier, but the actual issue I'm dodging is that the Pegasus-class CAN FLY. The real estate taken up by the huge-ass space shuttle looking rocket engines and whatever additional hardware is used to set up the minovsky craft system has to be significant, and I don't recall the Pegasus-class having the ability to shit out mobile suits in any number comparable to the amount of aircraft a naval carrier, let alone a supercarrier such as a Nimitz, could shit out when the order is given. The conclusion here would be that, yes, the Pegasus-class would likely have noticeably less than the 5000-man crew count I brought up at the start.

I wanna say a realistic number should be somewhere edging on 1000 maybe? Even with automation it takes a lot of people to deploy, recover, maintain and operate anything that makes its home on a warship, then you have the hundreds responsible for making the warship work properly. Shit even back in WWII a flatdeck carrier still demanded anywhere from over 1000 to over 2000 in crew.

Like, when a number like >>15179436 crops up, that comes off as nearly skeleton crew.

But this is all conjecture, and the official numbers no matter how lowballed they are are nonetheless official and override all conjecture.

>>15179947
White base and even Albion have less than 10 ms onboard, Nimitz can go up to 90 various planes and helicopters iirc, it's definitely not the same scope of vessels.

We could look at stuff like the Kiev carrier, light aircraft carriers or helicopter carriers, those can go down under a crew of 1000 while still carrying 20 aircraft or so. So a 300 crew for a starship carrying 6 ms isn't too crazy even according to reality (whatever that means).

>>15179947
Maybe the nips don't know what an actual carrier's crew size would be and MS carriers are more like helicopter carriers instead of aircraft.

>>15180720
I opted to cut myself off before relating to Kievs, which are significantly closer to compare to what with being aircraft-deploying cruiser-carriers; at that point I felt I was just getting too autistic over things.

I would argue though that 300 is still going real low, since that's less than a Ticonderoga. The Kievs demand like 1200 or so but they also still hold more assets than a Pegasus.

Admiral Kuznetsov is in the same paradigm of cruiser-carrier, but as a heavier-built platform, and it needs about 1500 apparently, but again they field a greater number of assets than a Pegasus. I'd say that the amount of maintenance and crew personnel shaved off by having a single digit mobile suit complement vs 30-50 of planes and/or helicopters isn't going to be enough to realistically tank the crew size down to below 500.

>>15180746
The Tarawa and Wasp class LHDs cram in double digit numbers of choppers (and for the Wasps, sometimes those can be Ospreys!) and break 1k in personnel, I think this is before you factor in the marines that get lumped in.

Fact is that no matter how you go at it, they come off as undermanned even in circumstances where they shouldn't. It can be handwaved by saying there's a heavy amount of automation going on, but it definitely smacks of arbitrary number for the sake of arbitrary number.

That said, the Hyuga-class chopper-carrier sorta vindicates the idea of 300something working for a "carrier" platform carrying a small number of air assets, though we're really looking for something more cruiser-like such as with the Kiev-class.

>>15177798

What kind of recretional facilities the albion has?

>>15177798
A big enough crew that salt supply becomes an issue.

>>15181110
> refugee
> crew

File: 1480997251006.jpg (40KB, 353x357px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 353x357px

>>15181104
>>15181104
Cuck chambers with a crew complement of 11 fully-prepped negrospacenoid Zeon bulls

>>15180790
Well you also gotta remember that this is the future. I think it's safe to assume a lot of functions on a modern ship that would take several people have been automated/streamlined to use fewer people.

File: 1486407640690.png (299KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 900x900px

>>15181368
Heh, you're pretty good at memeing, kid.

File: You're pretty good.jpg (11KB, 540x304px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 540x304px

I've got your crew compliment right here in the filename.

>>15180790
>>15179947
US Navy vessels carry lots of extra crew for extra hands during damage control. Plus you love around half the crew during port calls so you need the extra hands just to finish a single tour.

File: img_0 (2).jpg (81KB, 500x647px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 500x647px

>>15177798
>0083
Nina best girl

>>15179947
I don't know much, but I want to guess that computer did a lot of things that require a lot of manpower in the past. So that's why the ship has minimal crew for maintaining it. It cuts the manpower cost.