RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,821
Posts: 5,472,838
Members: 25,039
Currently online: 566
Newest member: noroadcordova

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Shatner Book Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Nov 20

Trek Original Series Slippers
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Hemsworth Is Sexiest Man Alive
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Trek Business Card Cases
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

February IDW Publishing Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

Retro Review: The Siege of AR-558
By: Michelle on Nov 15

Trevco Full Bleed Uniform T-Shirts
By: T'Bonz on Nov 14


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 26 2012, 08:20 PM   #61
Nightdiamond
Fleet Captain
 
Nightdiamond's Avatar
 
Location: California
Re: Power of the Federation

I think the Cardassians could have a been a dangerous superpower on the same level as the Federation.

They had the organization, infrastructure, and a disciplined military.

What they didn't have was resources and time. The Federation had too much of a headstart on them.

If they had the resources, more time to expand their military and develop tech, they would have been an extremely dangerous enemy.
Nightdiamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27 2012, 11:08 AM   #62
The Green Mushroom
Commander
 
Location: United States
Re: Power of the Federation

T'Girl wrote: View Post
You would seem to be contradicting yourself here.

Nomenclature aside, a small craft damaged a large craft.

I agree. A small craft from the future damaged a large craft. To use a modern analogy, I would not be surprised if a medevac helicopter with a door gunner from today's USAF were able to force a 19th century battleship to strike its colors if they somehow ended up in a firefight.

However, I stand by my original comments. I do not believe that anything in the future is ordained or inevitable or that if someone has fancy technology A then they must have fancy technology B. I will limit myself to what I observe in understanding how things might work in such a setting. As I see things, there is no weapon readily available to anyone but the Borg during Janeway's tour on the Voyager that could be mounted on a shuttle and then disable a functional ship the size of Voyager before the Voyager would have a chance to return fire and overwhelm the shuttle's defenses. I do not equate shuttles to fighter planes. I equate a shuttle to a dinghy.

I am willing to say that if I am wrong, then my theory is invalid. Is there any weapon that could be mounted on a shuttle and disable the Voyager before Voyager could mount a counterattack?
The Green Mushroom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27 2012, 06:44 PM   #63
Arpy
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Power of the Federation

They use battleships instead of Galactica-like aircraft carriers for a reason IMHO. Fighters are not (yet?) as capable against capital ships in the Trek world as they are in the real one.
Arpy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27 2012, 07:11 PM   #64
KamenRiderBlade
Lieutenant Commander
 
KamenRiderBlade's Avatar
 
Re: Power of the Federation

They didn't design fighters to be Firepower heavy like the Defiant was designed.

Glass Canon mentality of design along with high agility and speed along with long range attack capabilities is what you need for a vicious fighter in the Star Trek age.
KamenRiderBlade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27 2012, 10:39 PM   #65
EmperorTiberius
Captain
 
EmperorTiberius's Avatar
 
Re: Power of the Federation

I guess power of torpedo means even a shuttle can be dangerous, but I wander if Starfleet would be willing to take the high casualties? In Star Trek weapons are too good for the shields. They would lose tons of people.
EmperorTiberius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27 2012, 11:55 PM   #66
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Location: comfortably residing in the meat packing district
Re: Power of the Federation

KamenRiderBlade wrote: View Post
They didn't design fighters to be Firepower heavy like the Defiant was designed.
During the battle to regain DS9 (Sacrifice of Angels), each of the Starfleet fighters phaser shots were doing as much damage (size of fireball) to a Cardassian ship, as one of the main phaser strips on a Galaxy class firing a equal number of shots at a similar target.

So the Starfleet fighters of that battle, at least for a couple of dozen shots, has the same hitting power as a Galaxy class.

T'Girl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 28 2012, 12:33 AM   #67
KamenRiderBlade
Lieutenant Commander
 
KamenRiderBlade's Avatar
 
Re: Power of the Federation

T'Girl wrote: View Post
KamenRiderBlade wrote: View Post
They didn't design fighters to be Firepower heavy like the Defiant was designed.
During the battle to regain DS9 (Sacrifice of Angels), each of the Starfleet fighters phaser shots were doing as much damage (size of fireball) to a Cardassian ship, as one of the main phaser strips on a Galaxy class firing a equal number of shots at a similar target.

So the Starfleet fighters of that battle, at least for a couple of dozen shots, has the same hitting power as a Galaxy class.

Then they didn't give them long range or manueverability to have better survivability.
KamenRiderBlade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28 2012, 07:56 PM   #68
Arpy
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Power of the Federation

Re shuttles and torpedoes: don't shuttles and runabouts carry "micro torpedoes"?

Re fireballs from fighter blasts: can't get too excited about those. There weren't any shield bubbles in those battles either. The ships were too close together. They weren't firing nearly as much as they could have. When they did, they weren't from all their weapons arrays. There weren't as many different types of ships in the battles as there should have been. Especially from the races that had fewer models previously shown on screen. Their formations were silly. There wasn't enough damage to hulls. The action is different from the dialogue. The list goes on and on. I just watch and enjoy without thinking too much about it.
Arpy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28 2012, 10:08 PM   #69
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Location: comfortably residing in the meat packing district
Re: Power of the Federation

KamenRiderBlade wrote: View Post
T'Girl wrote: View Post
KamenRiderBlade wrote: View Post
fighters
Starfleet fighters
Then they didn't give them long range or manueverability to have better survivability.
The Starfleet fighters do have a pair of warp engines, you can see them on the craft's underbelly. And they seem to have more maneuverability than a runabout.

T'Girl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 28 2012, 10:15 PM   #70
KamenRiderBlade
Lieutenant Commander
 
KamenRiderBlade's Avatar
 
Re: Power of the Federation

Then Federation and Dominion fleet battle tactics are moronic.

They're so close to each other that you can actually crash into other ships.

This is the 24th century, long range targeting should be standard on both sides.
KamenRiderBlade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29 2012, 08:42 AM   #71
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Power of the Federation

During the battle to regain DS9 (Sacrifice of Angels), each of the Starfleet fighters phaser shots were doing as much damage (size of fireball) to a Cardassian ship, as one of the main phaser strips on a Galaxy class firing a equal number of shots at a similar target.
That is, apparently none...

Similarly, the Dominion ships were able to light up huge gasoline explosions every time they hit the shields of DS9 in "Call to Arms", but apparently none of the shots resulted in any appreciable damage to the station. Certainly there were no physical marks afterwards, either on DS9 or on those Cardassian ships.

If your best weapons barely dent the enemy, then there's no point in fighting at long ranges. You need to crowd your opponent and pummel him slowly to death, just like in a big gang fight in a slum where nobody can afford a gun, or in 14th-18th century naval warfare.

Range only began to play a role in naval fighting around WWI when the possibility first arose of seriously hurting or even crippling the enemy with just one salvo. But Trek bears quite a bit of resemblance to pre-WWI style in other respects, too: the absence of aircraft for spotting let alone fighting, and the lack of radar or much in the way of radio, either. The FTL sensors and subspace radios basically amount to horizon-scale situational awareness and communications, in the scale of space...

What Trek has over WWI is fire control. pre-WWI guns had the range to engage at great distances, but it would have taken a miracle to score a hit at that range. Combining this with the fact that a battleship's shell had slim chances of going through another battleship's armor made it perfectly sensible to sail very close to the enemy and to pummel him with a range of guns, starting with the big ones but bringing all sorts of peashooters into play as the range diminished. It also made it sensible to launch all ships in one big mass into an unholy melee, so that even the wimpiest peashooters aboard the smallest tin cans could contribute. Trek looks pretty much like that - just with better targeting.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 29 2012, 10:47 AM   #72
KamenRiderBlade
Lieutenant Commander
 
KamenRiderBlade's Avatar
 
Re: Power of the Federation

Timo wrote: View Post
During the battle to regain DS9 (Sacrifice of Angels), each of the Starfleet fighters phaser shots were doing as much damage (size of fireball) to a Cardassian ship, as one of the main phaser strips on a Galaxy class firing a equal number of shots at a similar target.
That is, apparently none...

Similarly, the Dominion ships were able to light up huge gasoline explosions every time they hit the shields of DS9 in "Call to Arms", but apparently none of the shots resulted in any appreciable damage to the station. Certainly there were no physical marks afterwards, either on DS9 or on those Cardassian ships.

If your best weapons barely dent the enemy, then there's no point in fighting at long ranges. You need to crowd your opponent and pummel him slowly to death, just like in a big gang fight in a slum where nobody can afford a gun, or in 14th-18th century naval warfare.

Range only began to play a role in naval fighting around WWI when the possibility first arose of seriously hurting or even crippling the enemy with just one salvo. But Trek bears quite a bit of resemblance to pre-WWI style in other respects, too: the absence of aircraft for spotting let alone fighting, and the lack of radar or much in the way of radio, either. The FTL sensors and subspace radios basically amount to horizon-scale situational awareness and communications, in the scale of space...

What Trek has over WWI is fire control. pre-WWI guns had the range to engage at great distances, but it would have taken a miracle to score a hit at that range. Combining this with the fact that a battleship's shell had slim chances of going through another battleship's armor made it perfectly sensible to sail very close to the enemy and to pummel him with a range of guns, starting with the big ones but bringing all sorts of peashooters into play as the range diminished. It also made it sensible to launch all ships in one big mass into an unholy melee, so that even the wimpiest peashooters aboard the smallest tin cans could contribute. Trek looks pretty much like that - just with better targeting.

Timo Saloniemi
Yeah, it's the 24th century by DS9 era. They should be able to hit targets at great ranges.

in TNG, they can hit precise targets from orbit.

It stands to reason that they can hit a ship from a similar distance.

I'm not asking for such precision targeting at those long ranges that you can hit a specific window on a ship, just make sure you collide with the enemies shield or hit the vessel square on the silohuette.

Pummeling enemies works great IRL because you have to reach the enemy and you have to recoil your fists to deliver another blow.

It makes no sense to pummel at close range with a ship if your weapons have targeting accuracy at range and the ability to travel far distances with your projectiles. In fact, that's how you should be fighting. The only advantage of fighting at close range is the ease to target sub systems accurately and the ease to dodge around the target to get a clear shot if they rotate their vessel to present their stronger shield side to you. The bad part about close range combat in ships is that it's easy for the enemy to hit you, and you are a huge target silohuette for the enemy.

It makes no sense for space battles to be fought at close range such as DS9 battles. I know the director did it for dramatic license, but it's quite illogical when you think about it.

Think about how easy it is to shoot a person with a pistol within the same room of a average sized room. Now imagine having to shoot the same guy with a pistol at 500 feet away. Machine targeting could make that kind of shot a sinch and consistant in accuracy of hits. Humans would take forever to get even resonably close and have a reliable hit pattern.

Computer aided targeting systems in ST should be quick, accurate, and consistant, even at super long ranges.
KamenRiderBlade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29 2012, 11:27 AM   #73
The Green Mushroom
Commander
 
Location: United States
Re: Power of the Federation

Well said, Timo.

While I can see no reason, technically speaking, why torpedoes should not be able to work at long ranges, I can also see no reason why a ship wouldn't be able to simply get out of the way of a torpedo that was coming at them with a few seconds warning. I also see no evidence that phasers do work at long ranges. Putting two and two together that sounds like a recipe of battles staying within phaser range and close enough to fire torpedoes that cannot be dodged.

I also see little evidence that the Federation ("We're not a military"), the Dominion (Jem'Hadar are cannon fodder), the Klingons ("We love hand to hand combat and WANT to die in battle") or anyone else really even seems to care about tactics. If humans have given up war and everyone else thinks about differently, tactics as we know them and tactics that a modern naval officer would use in the same situation might no longer exist.
The Green Mushroom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29 2012, 11:30 AM   #74
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Power of the Federation

Well with FTL sensors you could potentially detect and destroy incoming torpedeo fire. Phaser power might dissipate over extended ranges.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29 2012, 11:59 AM   #75
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Power of the Federation

Completely regardless of the accuracy of targeting, some key reasons for choosing a specific fighting range would remain the same.

If a single hit hurts, you should keep your distance, because even if a hit is 100% guaranteed in terms of accuracy, distance may allow you to lessen its effect in various ways. Say, the incoming fire may lose strength over distance: rayguns might suffer from the inverse square law, missiles might run out of fuel, and even if the fire following you is persistent, you may stretch out the impacts timewise, Doppler style, by flying away from the fire.

If a single hit is of no consequence, and recovering from multiple hits is just a matter of time and perhaps labor, then there's no point in keeping your distance. The closer you get, the easier it is for you to maximize the amount and effectiveness of your fire on the opponent and create momentary "overload" situations on him. If you dodge and swerve at a distance, you might avoid some low percentage of hits, with the balance of the battle never swinging enough in your advantage. If you go close, Doppler might again be your friend: you could accelerate towards your foe constantly firing and create a time-on-target effect on the enemy wherein your effective firepower is dozens of times the total output of all of your guns. Enemy counterfire would not be correspondingly intensified. (Except in the case of weapons whose traveling speed doesn't depend on your own speed, for which phasers may or may not qualify; say, with lasers, you wouldn't get any Doppler advantage from accelerating towards your foe.)

At some very low distance, your ability to swing your guns would become a limiting factor, as angular velocities would increase. On the other hand, at point blank, the angular size of the foe would also increase, so you might start hitting him with your "side weapons" in addition to your "bow guns".

You might also be worried about the blast radius of your projectiles, or of the hits you score. This seems to affect Trek photon torpedo fighting somewhat.

Finally, there is the boarding range to consider - another factor from ancient warfare that Trek sorta reintroduces with transporter.

Overall, Trek fighting has every right to bear very little resemblance to today's naval or aerial fighting, and would indeed look odd if resembling either of those.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.