View Single Post
Old August 20 2013, 09:00 AM   #169
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: So many Mirandas/So few Constitution-refits?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
I did. It's obvious they lost sight of Reliant... and that's about it, it seems. "Veered away" would be a course change or a turn and I don't think that actually happens (actually, it could be that Reliant was the one that veered away when the phaers grazed the port side).
It's obvious that the Enterprise was already turned away (you can see her in profile) as the Reliant fires her aft torpedo. Since Khan didn't order an evasive before he fired aft torpedoes then it had to be Enterprise to make the turn away.
Khan might not have ordered it. The phaser shot did toss the ship a bit to the point that Khan has to cling to the helm console to stay on his feet. OTOH, the camera angle is different between the two shots; one shows both Reliant and Enterprise in front aspect, the other shows both in profile with Enterprise farther behind; could be Reliant was knocked into a sudden portside turn by the phaser blast.
A change in camera angle doesn't change that the Reliant is moving forward and the Enterprise is moving away to the starboard. However, it's possible that the phasers zipping by could've caused the ship to alter the Reliant's course to port although it's a big difference of 30-40 degrees.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Incorrect. "Friendly forces" means simply "anyone fighting the same enemy you are." In this context, the paragraph is basically saying "Your defense shouldn't get in the way of other people's offense, nor should it prevent you from preparing for offensive action."
The paragraph clearly states that the leader of the friendly forces is setting the conditions of the defense so his/her friendly forces can destroy or fix the enemy.
Though the outcome of decisive combat derives from offensive actions, leaders often find it is necessary, even advisable, to defend. The general task and purpose of all defensive operations is to defeat an enemy attack and gain the initiative for offensive operations. It is important to set conditions of the defense so friendly forces can destroy or fix the enemy while preparing to seize the initiative and return to the offense.
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
A good example of this is the defense of a firebase against massed attack. Maybe you've got reinforcements in the area or air cavalry or something who can come and attack your opponent; you want to keep your enemy from advancing, so you need suppressing fire and lots of it, maybe some well-placed grenades or antitank rockets to break up their advance.
Suppressing fire from guns will send bullets that can kill. Grenades and antitank rockets can kill or destroy their targets.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
That isn't the GOAL of a defensive action. A defensive action that destroys none of the enemy but prevents them from advancing is preferable to an action that destroys MOST of the enemy but still allows your position to be overrun.
The GOAL of a defensive action is to destroy or fix an enemy attack and gain the initiative to be able to go on the offense. Preserving the health and well-being of enemy forces isn't a requirement.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
This is basically why torpedoes (also grenade launchers and antitank missiles) are not defensive weapons: they are designed to be pointed at a target and then activated, causing the destruction of said target. Either weapon CAN be used in a defensive action, but they are DESIGNED to destroy a specific type of target and are not actually optimized for that usage.
They are designed to destroy something that could be either attacking the weapons platform (defense) or to be attacked (offense).

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
So can Soccer. But that's not the GOAL of the exercise. Turning around and sinking your enemy means you're going on the offensive while potentially eschewing opportunities for defensive action. There's a clear difference between the two.
A counterattack is still a defensive action because you're defending against an attack with an attack.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
In this example: Ship B has failed to defend itself if, in the act of sinking Ship A, it sustains irreparable damage to its engines and subsequently has to be abandoned and scuttled.
Then in this case it's a draw.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
OTOH, if Ship-B uses white phosphorous rounds to confound Ship-A's gunners and then falls back out of range, it has successfully defended itself even though it has not destroyed the enemy. The "fence" case you allude to occurs if, in the act of attempting to fall back out of range a white phosphorous round from Ship-B winds up setting Ship-A's magazine on fire and the attacking ship explodes; since Ship-B has survived it is still a successful defense.
That defense resulted in the destruction of the enemy ship. It's just as the same as if Ship A misses or lightly damages Ship B but Ship B sinks Ship A.

This goes right back to being able to destroy the enemy while defending.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
And if Ship-B turns around and blows Ship-A out of the water, Ship-A is said to have "counter-attacked" which is an offensive action.
Ship B is the defending force so a counterattack is still defending
US Defense Department Military Dictionary: Counterattack:
(DOD) Attack by part or all of a defending force against an enemy attacking force, for such specific purposes as regaining ground lost or cutting off or destroying enemy advance units, and with the general objective of denying to the enemy the attainment of the enemy's purpose in attacking. In sustained defensive operations, it is undertaken to restore the battle position and is directed at limited objectives.
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
But he's NOT in engineering. He's in one of the ladder access ways that Kirk used to GET to engineering in the previous movie. We don't really know what he's doing there, but "fixing the computer" is far from certain even then.
He's not in the intermix/warp core area but that doesn't mean he is not in engineering.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
It's also uncertain whether "fully automated by the time we dock" refers to the automation system installed later, or to the docking system that Enterprise normally used that had been otherwise compromised by Reliant's attacks. Probably the latter, considering that in order to dock they had to place their computers under control of space dock's computers.
Considering Scotty was pulled immediately off the Enterprise to go to the Excelsior after docking it is unlikely he had time to setup a separate automation system that was used in combat against the BOP.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Their "main transwarp computer drive," yes. Enterprise, which does not have transwarp drive, would have no reason to hook its automation system into its warp drive computers. More importantly, the warp drive wasn't the failure point for the automation system. The shield generators were, and even then it appears to be more of a software problem than a hardware one.
Scotty controlled the ship's warp drive with the automation system. Since he hooked practically every system up to it then it would've been through engineering where everything can be controlled. If it was merely a software issue then a reboot or manual override would have been an option. Since that wasn't the case, it's more a hardware issue than software issue.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Or hit the button on the automation center labeled "manual override."
If they could have they surely would have. Since they didn't and wouldn't, well there was no manual override for the automation system

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
That's just it: she didn't GET repairs, but still went back into service.
Getting stolen from space dock with incomplete repairs to battle damage does not qualify for going back into service, IMO.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
The weak link on the Enterprise at the time was Scotty's jury-rigged automation. With a full crew aboard (or at least somebody in deflector control who could override the automation center and raise the shields manually) they would have defeated Kruge easily.
Hang on. That probably would've been something Scotty and Co would have considered. Instead they acted as if there was nothing that could be done. Running down to engineering or any specific system wasn't even a consideration at any point.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Considering how poorly Grissom handled the Klingon attack, it's unlikely Morrow was referring to a combat mission in the first place.
Perhaps not for Grissom but for whatever reason, his dialogue pointed to the Enterprise getting in trouble.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
OTOH, why would he expect there to be combat at Genesis? The entire project is highly classified; the only reason the Klingons know about Genesis is because their spies have intercepted the data, and the only Klingon who does anything about it is an unhinged warlord acting on his own initiative.
For something that is highly classified then it's pretty leaky as the alien in the bar that McCoy tried to enlist knew of the "forbidden Genesis planet" in the "Mutara sector". The Klingons and everyone else were probably interested just because the planet became forbidden and well, just magically popped out of no where. (But probably more because it's forbidden )

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
You continue to use "shorted out" as if that's just a fancy way of saying "blown to smithereens by a photon torpedo." That's really weird.
What's really weird is that the shorting out happened 13 seconds after the torpedo hit. The torpedo contributed to the automation shorting out permanently but it was already overloaded/broken when they tried to raise the shields. Funny enough, the automation center did bring the shields partially up before breaking, just no shields in the front.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
We see some sliders being pulled all the way down prior to their being ARMED. We don't know what the down position even means, or what the arming sequence actually is for those weapons, primarily because everything we think we know about how the arming console works goes right out the window the moment Chekov pulls a joystick out of the wall and says "torpedoes ready, Sir."
When Kirk gives the order to "stand by photon torpedoes" we see all the sliders with the labeling "TORP ENERGY LVL" being pulled down or already down to the bottom. The joystick is labeled as the "Firing Switch" which apparently is just the trigger. Chekov does push the joystick button to fire the torpedo.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Your argument is that a training ship would have dummy equipment yet the evidence shows that they had live torpedoes and phasers and no indication of deficient sensor capability or lack of science and exploration gear.
Phasers is simple: it's easier to turn them off and not use them than it is to uninstall them altogether. The ship obviously doesn't have planetary survey exploration gear because they weren't setting out to survey a real planet; they have torpedoes aboard, but we don't know what type or how many.
There is nothing obvious in the movie that the training vessel was not going to do any training exploration. What we do know is that they had actual torpedoes and if those were actual then all the other equipment aboard ship would have been the actual device as well.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
We also don't know the size of the asteroid in TMP, except that Ilia seemed to think the navigational deflectors would be able to push it away. For all we know, that entire asteroid would have fit inside their shuttlebay.
Or the asteroid was the size of a small moon as the navigational deflectors of the TOS Enterprise could nudge a rock the size of the Earth's moon. We do know that it is far enough away that the big glowy photon torpedo is no longer visible on it's way to hit the visible asteroid in the distance.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Again, we don't know why he wanted to go back to Genesis in the beginning. Grissom was already surveying the planet. For all we know it could be to visit his son and spend quality time with him.
That's an odd reason to spend two weeks refitting an entire starship, no?
If it takes two weeks to repair the rest of the battle damage, bondo the exposed hull plating and sand and get a new paint job then why not? Perhaps he wanted a redo on making a good impression with his son.

Regardless of why he wanted to go back initially, they still had damage to repair, crew to refill and other refit-type operations before the ship could go back on active duty.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote