View Single Post
Old August 10 2013, 04:13 PM   #107
Re: So many Mirandas/So few Constitution-refits?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
However, TOS did rip off "Enemy Below" and alternated between gun and torpedo with specific constraints that did not emulate 1960's contemporary naval combat.
Which means guided missile cruisers of the early/mid 1960s operated the same way as starships: guns at close range, missiles at longer range. This is very much UNLIKE the WW-II analogy, where guns are used at medium range and torpedoes ... are used at suicidally close range
In TOS, phaser guns were used from as close as 50m to 75,000km and beyond - which also was about the same as their photon torpedoes. Their "specific constraints" that gave them variable power output and equal ability to destroy gives them a flexibility not present in any 1960 (or WW2) comparison. (Well, the torpedoes in TOS and presumably TMP were weaker than the phasers, but I digress.)

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Desperation tactic is desperate.
Not a desperation tactic, but part of the pattern that submarines only use the stern tubes "defensively" (if you can call it that) when on the surface.
Much more to the point: this is not what the stern tubes were INTENDED for, nor was such use either common or particularly successful.
Whatever. You stated, "Those submarines did not use those torpedoes against pursuers" and I only provided instances when they did.

As for "intended", from U-85 link:
"he kept his ship slightly off the fleeing U-boat’s starboard quarter. The Roper gradually overtook the U-boat. As the range decreased to 700 yards and contact was imminent, the U-boat captain reacted predictably, like a cornered rabbit. He fired a torpedo from his stern tube and tried to hit the destroyer "down the throat."
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
But if the forward tube has some kind of autoloader or a quick-launch magazine, it doesn't matter whether you have one tube or twelve, you still launch all twelve torpedoes one at a time until your target dies.
Yes that's true. That might be the difference between the TOS and TMP launcher or at least explaining the observed firings.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Unfortunately Trek never kept up with the times, even their own, IMHO. Even AbramsTrek doesn't really make a change as it still keeps phasers and torpedoes.
OUR ships still have 5" guns, do they not? And again, the broadside launchers in STID would count as a timeline update to the design IMO.
They're still phasers and torpedoes in STID, are they not? I suppose VLS (or Broadsides Launching System ) could count as something new but did they use that to replace AbramsTrek Enterprise's other torpedo launchers? Or was this a one-time, story-specific thing?

Oh- back to the OP's question. The Enterprise and Reliant could be compared to the F-14 and F-18. The F-18 was cheaper to maintain, was more economical and could take on more roles. The Reliant's boxy structure lent itself better to different missions and could have modules bolted on easier than the Enterprise's more specialized design, IMHO. So the Enterprise and her sisters were retired. If we look at a contemporary like the Stargazer/Constellation-class it also appeared to have a massive cargo capacity as well and served to TNG.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote