|
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. |
|
|||||||
| The Next Generation All Good Things come to an end...but not here. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
|
#1 |
|
Captain
Location: Gamma Hydra Section 10
|
Was warp ramming a realistic anti-borg tactic?
__________________
"Your knowledge of Klingon curses is impressive. But, as the Romulans might say, only a Veruul would use such language in public" |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Rear Admiral
Location: UK
|
Re: Was warp ramming a realistic anti-borg tactic?
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Commodore
Location: Toronto, Ontario
|
Re: Was warp ramming a realistic anti-borg tactic?
__________________
"Who are you?! And how did you get in here?!" "I'm the locksmith. And... I'm the locksmith." |
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Admiral
|
Re: Was warp ramming a realistic anti-borg tactic?
Perhaps Riker wanted a "standard" sublight ramming, the sort that does the most damage in ST:NEM and in DS9, but also wanted LaForge to deliver some sort of a warp-powered but not warp-speed boost to the destruction. Say, the "warp power" might have been routed to shields to get better penetration, or used to create a bigger explosion at impact. Just sayin'. Writer intent probably was to imply a warp-speed ramming here, but the wording chosen for it was odd and quite atypical for a going-to-warp scene. Timo Saloniemi |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Rear Admiral
Location: UK
|
Re: Was warp ramming a realistic anti-borg tactic?
*The Enterprise crew were willing to die if it was neccessary in order to prevent the Borg from reaching Earth *Self-Assured Destruction is only used as a last resort *"Warp Ramming" may not have worked, therefore the Enterprise and her Crew would die for nothing *Theres only been one real instance (NEM...Picard literally rammed the Ent-E down the throat of the Scimitar and then quickly ordered Self Destruct, which was disabled by the damage but nonetheless, to make sure Shinzon wouldn't be able to deploy the Thalaron Weapon) where the Enterprise Crew were close to sacrificing themselves in order to save countless more lives Therefore we can assume that such "Desperate Acts" are only considered in a hopeless situation and as a final resort, if theres even a small possibility that the crew can survive, the plan is thrown out the window |
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Admiral
|
Re: Was warp ramming a realistic anti-borg tactic?
OTOH, the crew might be thinking "ramming can't work because it didn't work for those ships at Wolf 359", lending extra incredulity to their faces; they have tended to be more stoic in the face of impending death in general (at least when it's something they have no power over). Our TOS heroes frequently threatened their foes with suicide, but always merely in the form of bluff. When self-destruct would have made a strategic difference but could not have been used as a bluff, Scotty suggested it but Kirk dismissed the idea as insane ("By Any Other Name"). Probably suicide is strongly against the Starfleet code or UFP ethical codes in general, as also suggested by "Half a Life" and all those times Klingons or Romulans attempted or committed suicide. Timo Saloniemi |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
Fleet Captain
Location: Liverpool, UK
|
Re: Was warp ramming a realistic anti-borg tactic?
Choosing to destroy his whole crew as opposed to half.
__________________
One day soon, man is going to be able to harness incredible energies, energies that could ultimately hurl us to other worlds in... some sort of spaceship. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
The finest Vice Admiral in the fleet
Location: Satyrquaze
|
Re: Was warp ramming a realistic anti-borg tactic?
__________________
“If at first you don't succeed, cheat, repeat until caught, then lie.” -Anomymous |
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
Captain
Location: U.S.A.
|
Re: Was warp ramming a realistic anti-borg tactic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
Fleet Captain
Location: Liverpool, UK
|
Re: Was warp ramming a realistic anti-borg tactic?
![]() But then we wouldn't have got the "cool special effects".
__________________
One day soon, man is going to be able to harness incredible energies, energies that could ultimately hurl us to other worlds in... some sort of spaceship. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 | |
|
Lieutenant Commander
|
Re: Was warp ramming a realistic anti-borg tactic?
As to why no one at Wolf 359 tried ramming, I think the fleet was badly commanded. In Q Who, the Enterprise inflicted 20% damage on the Borg ship with only three shots, and in BoBW, Data said it would take 80% damage to disable the cube. Each Federation vessel only needed to inflict 2% damage to destroy the Borg, yet they failed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
To boldly go...
Location: Kansas City
|
Re: Was warp ramming a realistic anti-borg tactic?
Such an "idea" seems to ignore that even when the ship is moving at maximum warp (something like 2000x the speed of light) it's not really moving at that speed (and, thus doesn't have that much energy) because the ship doesn't move at the speed through "real space." It manipulates the fabric of space so that its vastly slower speeds in subspace translates to "FTL speeds" in normal space. So I think "warp ramming" isn't likely to cause that much more damage than just ramming the ship at full-impulse.
__________________
Just because it's futuristic doesn't mean it's practical. |
|
|
|
|
#13 | |
|
Vice Admiral
|
Re: Was warp ramming a realistic anti-borg tactic?
__________________
J.J. Abrams didn't change Star Trek, audience expectations did. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Rear Admiral
Location: On the Left Coast
|
Re: Was warp ramming a realistic anti-borg tactic?
|
|
|
|
|
#15 | |
|
Vice Admiral
|
Re: Was warp ramming a realistic anti-borg tactic?
It would be like being shot with a bullet from a gun. The physical body of the bullet only causes a portion of the damage to a person's body, what does a lot more damage is the shock wave generated by the bullet's passage, hydrostatic shock causes the cells adjacent to the bullet's path to rupture, resulting in bleeding. Similarly, the warp field of a starship extends hundreds or thousands of meters around the ship, as the ship passes through, say a Borg cube, the field would be ripping apart the molecular structure of the cube. There would be a reciprocal effect which would also destroy the starship. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:22 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.


















