Why did we never see personal shields (or any type of armor) on Starfleet security personnel? You'd think that security would have some type of protective gear that could deflect or absorb phaser fire...
Why no security personnel personal shields?
- Thread starter AlboOfBorg
- Start date
There have been references to personal shields (Worf rigs a bulletproof one in "A Fistful of Datas", Leighton wants to distribute shields to troops in "Paradise Lost"), but we don't know if these are capable of resisting phaser fire.
It's entirely possible that 24th century Federation technology cannot produce a portable forcefield that would be strong enough to repel anything more lethal than bullets or riot missiles such as stones. Either such a device would be too heavy and power-hungry for a single man to carry, or then the technology cannot be miniaturized at all.
The TNG Technical Manual speaks of platoon-sized forcefield shields, which sound like a more appealing option. Those would not contradict what we see on screen, as the small posse of heroes we normally follow would be too small to haul along such a device. Also, the TNG TM shield sounds like something that wouldn't be very mobile: it might protect an encampment, but couldn't protect an advance or a retreat. Good gear for infantrymen in a large campaign, seldom useful for the landing party of an exploratory starship.
In contrast, we may well have seen various kinds of physical armor. The Klingon armor has been shown to be useless against bullets or knives or even fists, so we might deduce it is either purely decorative, or then optimized for resisting disruptor or phaser fire. Starfleet may have developed a similar type of clothing, as in "Nor the Battle to the Strong" we see the character Burke after he has taken a direct chest hit from a Klingon disruptor, and his shirt shows layered charring that might suggest it had partially protected him from the blast.
So the battlefield reality of the 24th century might be that no personal shield is capable of resisting the beam weapons of the day to any practical degree, so it's not even worth trying; but that ablative clothing may offer partial protection from glancing hits, which is a worthwhile goal. Similarly, today's infantrymen may carry ceramic armor that protects them from shrapnel even when it's not practical for them to haul thick composite steel shields that would be capable of stopping an actual rifle bullet.
Timo Saloniemi
It's entirely possible that 24th century Federation technology cannot produce a portable forcefield that would be strong enough to repel anything more lethal than bullets or riot missiles such as stones. Either such a device would be too heavy and power-hungry for a single man to carry, or then the technology cannot be miniaturized at all.
The TNG Technical Manual speaks of platoon-sized forcefield shields, which sound like a more appealing option. Those would not contradict what we see on screen, as the small posse of heroes we normally follow would be too small to haul along such a device. Also, the TNG TM shield sounds like something that wouldn't be very mobile: it might protect an encampment, but couldn't protect an advance or a retreat. Good gear for infantrymen in a large campaign, seldom useful for the landing party of an exploratory starship.
In contrast, we may well have seen various kinds of physical armor. The Klingon armor has been shown to be useless against bullets or knives or even fists, so we might deduce it is either purely decorative, or then optimized for resisting disruptor or phaser fire. Starfleet may have developed a similar type of clothing, as in "Nor the Battle to the Strong" we see the character Burke after he has taken a direct chest hit from a Klingon disruptor, and his shirt shows layered charring that might suggest it had partially protected him from the blast.
So the battlefield reality of the 24th century might be that no personal shield is capable of resisting the beam weapons of the day to any practical degree, so it's not even worth trying; but that ablative clothing may offer partial protection from glancing hits, which is a worthwhile goal. Similarly, today's infantrymen may carry ceramic armor that protects them from shrapnel even when it's not practical for them to haul thick composite steel shields that would be capable of stopping an actual rifle bullet.
Timo Saloniemi
Because starfleet combat operations have never been portrayed with anything approaching an educated or informed speculation on what might actually be realistic given the level of technology.
So who's first with the obligatory "but that's not what star trek is about" comment?
dude - a phaser and a black outfit is all a prepared federation solider needs...
(yes I agree what we see on screen is pretty retarded).
It's hard to know where to start isn't it? Tactics seems to consist of "run forward while firing" like it's WW1!
There is no use of aircover, the fire teams seem to make no use of any advanced sensors or imaging technology etc etc...
Fuck I'd settle for us seeing federation soldiers with watches or some other timepiece!
In universe, there's no reason for UFP ground forces not to use them. The life-support belts in TAS look like something that would have evolved out of or led to such research. Larger units should also be available for area defense.
As to why they're not on the show? Lack of tactical knowledge or lack of desire to show proper tactics on the part of the writers are reasons. Showing the tactics which would be used and equipment which should be logically at hand would undercut the drama of the stories told. With rock-disintegrating ray guns and shields capable of deflecting same, where's the risk to the characters? Well, it's exciting for the story to have a drawn out phaser fight, so let's fudge the phaser power and have everybody hide behind crates and rocks.
From a production standpoint, it's $$$. Not just building a prop, a belt or whatever, would cost but showing the field itself would be a killer, especially before the advent of CGI. A writer could put shields and hovertanks with phaser cannons, photon grenade launchers, and defensive transporters (beaming away charging enemies, mines, etc.) in a script and the producers will draw a line right through it.
As to why they're not on the show? Lack of tactical knowledge or lack of desire to show proper tactics on the part of the writers are reasons. Showing the tactics which would be used and equipment which should be logically at hand would undercut the drama of the stories told. With rock-disintegrating ray guns and shields capable of deflecting same, where's the risk to the characters? Well, it's exciting for the story to have a drawn out phaser fight, so let's fudge the phaser power and have everybody hide behind crates and rocks.
From a production standpoint, it's $$$. Not just building a prop, a belt or whatever, would cost but showing the field itself would be a killer, especially before the advent of CGI. A writer could put shields and hovertanks with phaser cannons, photon grenade launchers, and defensive transporters (beaming away charging enemies, mines, etc.) in a script and the producers will draw a line right through it.
It's hard to know where to start isn't it? Tactics seems to consist of "run forward while firing" like it's WW1!
There is no use of aircover, the fire teams seem to make no use of any advanced sensors or imaging technology etc etc...
Fuck I'd settle for us seeing federation soldiers with watches or some other timepiece!
add to that
no use of AI/robotic/autonomous weapons
implications of transporter technology to weapons is not explored.
also the fact that it seems like just about anyone can get the drop on a starfleet crew on their own ship.
I agree that especially before the prevalence of CGI on trek that these were limiting factors but i don't think it takes that much effort or money to come up with a good dramatic story that has believable future warfighting elements.
Add everything available up and it could become a problem. Larry Niven stopped writing stories set in the latter eras of Known Space because he'd developed technologies (and the Teela Brown "luck" gene") which made it almost impossible for him to come up with problems they couldn't overcome.
A good writer can portray future combat effecitvely. I think the fight on Cestus III in "Arena" is a good example. The enemy's far away and invisible, all scouting and targeting's done by sensors (until Spock's tricorder gets fried another good bit), and the weapons are long-ranged and lethal. And it's exciting. Too often, writers of lesser skill and experience will simply hand wave and treat phaser fights like modern gun battles between cops and street thugs.
A good writer can portray future combat effecitvely. I think the fight on Cestus III in "Arena" is a good example. The enemy's far away and invisible, all scouting and targeting's done by sensors (until Spock's tricorder gets fried another good bit), and the weapons are long-ranged and lethal. And it's exciting. Too often, writers of lesser skill and experience will simply hand wave and treat phaser fights like modern gun battles between cops and street thugs.
Great points about Cestus III.
Most Starfleet ground battles would probably be like that. Both sides firing at the other out of easy visual range. Targeting using portable sensor readings.
Another factor in ST is that in all the series, Security was seen mainly aboard ship.
And one would think that they normally wouldn't wear armor aboard ship.
Do Marines stationed aboard aircraft carriers go around in full battle dress?
I don't know but I suspect the answer is no.
Most Starfleet ground battles would probably be like that. Both sides firing at the other out of easy visual range. Targeting using portable sensor readings.
Another factor in ST is that in all the series, Security was seen mainly aboard ship.
And one would think that they normally wouldn't wear armor aboard ship.
Do Marines stationed aboard aircraft carriers go around in full battle dress?
I don't know but I suspect the answer is no.
It depends on the situation. If they are about to deploy into the battlefield they will be. If they are performing security duties they will also be walking around armed just like MP's at a base gate.
I tend to cringe a lot when people posit that the heroes and technologies of the future should operate in a manner consistent with the heroes and technologies of today, only better. History has proven you wrong often enough, guys.
Logically speaking, infantrymen of today should be fighting at distances of several kilometers, judging by the development of personal weapon ranges until WWII. They should also wear impenetrable armor, which nevertheless gets penetrated by hypervelocity/explosive ammunition. Except that they shouldn't exist at all, because air power has already obliterated them - an unnecessary step, really, because poison gas already got them all. That is, if the war ever took place, which it didn't because everybody died in the first twenty minutes anyway, asleep at their homes, and the world now glows at night without the need (or availability) of artificial lighting.
It just didn't happen that way. Technologies tend to cancel out each other, often leaving us back at the original caveman stage. The increasing range of infantry weapons got reversed with the introduction of automatic weaponry, and now most fights take place at slingshot ranges again. Armor goes in and out of fashion as threats and combat doctrines change. The enemy often has an unexpected interest in keeping your infantry alive, and air power is such an unbalanced asset that combatants either serve on the side that has so good air cover it doesn't need it any more, or on the side that cannot use air power at all and must adapt to an aircraftless, pre-WWI type of existence.
It wouldn't be difficult at all to postulate a future where things like camouflage and armor are useless, hence worse than useless for the meek infantryman. And it wouldn't be much of a leap of logic to assume that the most powerful Trek weapons, such as transporters, are the ones that have been most completely and most urgently negated by countertechnology.
Since we never see phaserproof personal shielding on Federation forces, and since we see it comes as a nasty surprise to them when used by the Borg, we should accept this as a consistent feature of the Trek universe. Coming up with the rationales would be quite a bit easier than it would be for a WWI, Napoleonic, medieval or Roman warrior to understand why today's soldiers enjoy no real increase in survival odds or the ability to advance against their enemy counterparts.
Timo Saloniemi
Logically speaking, infantrymen of today should be fighting at distances of several kilometers, judging by the development of personal weapon ranges until WWII. They should also wear impenetrable armor, which nevertheless gets penetrated by hypervelocity/explosive ammunition. Except that they shouldn't exist at all, because air power has already obliterated them - an unnecessary step, really, because poison gas already got them all. That is, if the war ever took place, which it didn't because everybody died in the first twenty minutes anyway, asleep at their homes, and the world now glows at night without the need (or availability) of artificial lighting.
It just didn't happen that way. Technologies tend to cancel out each other, often leaving us back at the original caveman stage. The increasing range of infantry weapons got reversed with the introduction of automatic weaponry, and now most fights take place at slingshot ranges again. Armor goes in and out of fashion as threats and combat doctrines change. The enemy often has an unexpected interest in keeping your infantry alive, and air power is such an unbalanced asset that combatants either serve on the side that has so good air cover it doesn't need it any more, or on the side that cannot use air power at all and must adapt to an aircraftless, pre-WWI type of existence.
It wouldn't be difficult at all to postulate a future where things like camouflage and armor are useless, hence worse than useless for the meek infantryman. And it wouldn't be much of a leap of logic to assume that the most powerful Trek weapons, such as transporters, are the ones that have been most completely and most urgently negated by countertechnology.
Since we never see phaserproof personal shielding on Federation forces, and since we see it comes as a nasty surprise to them when used by the Borg, we should accept this as a consistent feature of the Trek universe. Coming up with the rationales would be quite a bit easier than it would be for a WWI, Napoleonic, medieval or Roman warrior to understand why today's soldiers enjoy no real increase in survival odds or the ability to advance against their enemy counterparts.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo you do realize that Trek has been more than often dumbed down in it's televised form so the writers can glorify the dramatic effect more instead of using their brains to adjust the drama to accommodate more advanced technology.
While I agree that in some instances the technologies would cancel each other out ... often more than not such a scenario is unlikely because we are talking about the future.
Problem is that it's done by people from the 21st century and their line of thinking (which is limited).
The novels on the other hand do portray far better and more consistent use of technologies.
On TV, things are scaled down to accommodate the 'cool' factor, when the idiots don't even realize that fighting at distances of 300 000 km and utilizing tactics unlike what we know of today would be FAR more interesting.
But let's get back to the topic at hand.
Personal force-field generators were mentioned in one of the episodes of DS9.
Also, let's keep in mind that Worf created his own personal force-field for the purpose of deflecting incoming bullets, but the reason it was unstable and weak was due to the fact he used his comm-badge components.
It was a makeshift/quick job to get TEMPORARY protection.
When personal force-fields were mentioned, their usage in the field is very much so plausible, but never saw the light of day because it would have been too expensive to show it, and the writers often dumbed things down on DS9 (and other shows) as I mentioned before to suit the drama or because they didn't have time to flesh things out properly.
And there is no reason to think a personal force-fields would be unable to protect from directed energy weapons when we know that force-fields protect an individual/item/whatever from physical objects penetrating it, energy emissions (directed energy weapons fit into the category) and many other things.
The only difference between a personal force-field and one that can be emitted by the computer in the corridors of a star-ship is the fact that the former one has a limited power supply which is probably enough to protect an individual from several phaser shots, and the latter has a virtually unlimited source of power which can also take far more.
While I agree that in some instances the technologies would cancel each other out ... often more than not such a scenario is unlikely because we are talking about the future.
Problem is that it's done by people from the 21st century and their line of thinking (which is limited).
The novels on the other hand do portray far better and more consistent use of technologies.
On TV, things are scaled down to accommodate the 'cool' factor, when the idiots don't even realize that fighting at distances of 300 000 km and utilizing tactics unlike what we know of today would be FAR more interesting.
But let's get back to the topic at hand.
Personal force-field generators were mentioned in one of the episodes of DS9.
Also, let's keep in mind that Worf created his own personal force-field for the purpose of deflecting incoming bullets, but the reason it was unstable and weak was due to the fact he used his comm-badge components.
It was a makeshift/quick job to get TEMPORARY protection.
When personal force-fields were mentioned, their usage in the field is very much so plausible, but never saw the light of day because it would have been too expensive to show it, and the writers often dumbed things down on DS9 (and other shows) as I mentioned before to suit the drama or because they didn't have time to flesh things out properly.
And there is no reason to think a personal force-fields would be unable to protect from directed energy weapons when we know that force-fields protect an individual/item/whatever from physical objects penetrating it, energy emissions (directed energy weapons fit into the category) and many other things.
The only difference between a personal force-field and one that can be emitted by the computer in the corridors of a star-ship is the fact that the former one has a limited power supply which is probably enough to protect an individual from several phaser shots, and the latter has a virtually unlimited source of power which can also take far more.
Yes - and I'm quite thankful of this.
If the writers tried to portray "advanced" technology, the episodes would get dated basically overnight. But TOS props still appear futuristic because they don't pretend to be more advanced versions of existing trinkets. We can't ridicule the tricorder so easily, because we simply don't know what a tricorder is and what it is supposed to do!
Prohibitively expensive VFX is only part of it. With today's budgets and techniques, we could easily see our heroes fly around in personal jet belts like so many Supermen - a Trek ability that has in fact been confirmed on screen, unlike phaserproof personal forcefields. But that wouldn't be Star Trek. Back in the TOS days, the reason for not doing flying heroes may have been 90% budget and 10% dramatic choice, but today we have half a dozen spinoff shows of which at least two could have afforded the effect. It's now 10% budget and 90% being true to the history and pseudohistory of Star Trek.
After we get that out of the way, it's fairly easy to tackle the in-universe rationalizations. Why don't we have flying soldiers today? Back in the fifties and sixties, the US Army abandoned the idea, but only partially because the earliest attempts were initially cumbersome. More importantly, it was decided that there was little logic in making the infantrymen fly. After all, that would deprive them of their greatest strength - the cover of terrain.
And no reason to think they would be able to. Save, of course, for the evidence on screen that our heroes don't wear phaserproof batbelts. And against that evidence, we can choose between the whole lot having IQs of 47, or there being a treknological reason why it can't be done.
Certainly the existence of tanks and bunkers today is no basis for believing that my biking helmet will stop bullets. And just as certainly we cannot trust that starship shielding technology could be scaled down (or up) effectively.
That, and the fact that the latter is the size of a starship corridor. Bulk is at least as important a limiting factor as mass is.
Timo Saloniemi
Taking into consideration they have power cells the size of a palm in the 24th century, for all we know, they can have a belt consisting of 10 cells to power the personal force-field which would be able to absorb hundreds of directed energy weapon blasts in the battlefield.
But if we go with the assumption they have only 1 or 2, then I'd say a dozen or so shots at medium setting would be manageable.
After all, phasers have very small energy cells, and yet it's high settings can destroy a building.
So it stands to reason the power cells for the personal force-fields would be able to absorb enough incoming energy that would save a person from a certain death.
It's not my fault the writers endow their characters with an IQ of 47 and decided to retard the technology just because it suits the drama.
That tends to ruin things for me and make the end result utterly stupid/pointless in the long run.
Instead of utilizing the full potential of the technologies to adjust to the drama, they dumb it all down for the 'quick fix' and something that will not 'confuse' people.
Excuse me?
Are we surrounded by people of limited intelligence?
And while your analogies are certainly good and sensible read Timo, keep in mind that in numerous occasions such analogies cannot be applied because of a too large time span between contemporary time and Trek's future.
Reasoning, tactics, behavior, technology, use of that technology ... it would all change DRASTICALLY specifically because those humans aren't supposed to be like many contemporary humans in behavior, reasoning and how they think.
Once again I repeat, the televised version was made by 21st century humans, and over time, plenty of technological capabilities were dumbed down, not to mention forgotten for the sake of drama, or it was too expensive to be shown.
On Ds9 we basically got contemporary humans in a dumbed down Trek future of the 24th century.
But if we go with the assumption they have only 1 or 2, then I'd say a dozen or so shots at medium setting would be manageable.
After all, phasers have very small energy cells, and yet it's high settings can destroy a building.
So it stands to reason the power cells for the personal force-fields would be able to absorb enough incoming energy that would save a person from a certain death.
It's not my fault the writers endow their characters with an IQ of 47 and decided to retard the technology just because it suits the drama.
That tends to ruin things for me and make the end result utterly stupid/pointless in the long run.
Instead of utilizing the full potential of the technologies to adjust to the drama, they dumb it all down for the 'quick fix' and something that will not 'confuse' people.
Excuse me?
Are we surrounded by people of limited intelligence?
And while your analogies are certainly good and sensible read Timo, keep in mind that in numerous occasions such analogies cannot be applied because of a too large time span between contemporary time and Trek's future.
Reasoning, tactics, behavior, technology, use of that technology ... it would all change DRASTICALLY specifically because those humans aren't supposed to be like many contemporary humans in behavior, reasoning and how they think.
Once again I repeat, the televised version was made by 21st century humans, and over time, plenty of technological capabilities were dumbed down, not to mention forgotten for the sake of drama, or it was too expensive to be shown.
On Ds9 we basically got contemporary humans in a dumbed down Trek future of the 24th century.
The problem is that the depictions in trek do not even follow common sense. As JoeZhang said tactics in the 24th century seem even worse than that employed in WW 1.
Watching tv one gets used to unrealistic combat - but trek is one of the worst offenders of the shows that I see. Supposedly, hardened military guys practically walk into enemy fire - it's just too much and takes me right out of the show for a minute.
Watching tv one gets used to unrealistic combat - but trek is one of the worst offenders of the shows that I see. Supposedly, hardened military guys practically walk into enemy fire - it's just too much and takes me right out of the show for a minute.
Why would having a power pack protect you from phaser fire?
Power doesn't protect you unless it is used for generating a shield, and that is done by (surprise!) using a shield-generating device. We know that shield generators the size of a starship corridor can stop phasers. We know that shield generators the size of commbadges can stop a couple of low-velocity bullets at most, and that shield generators the size of a batbelt can keep air inside or water outside for brief adverse-environment forays. We don't know what a shield generator the size of a man-portable harness can do - but the onscreen evidence suggests that it cannot achieve anything tactically worthwhile, and there is no treknological or dramatical reason for us to insist otherwise.
But that's what I essentially accuse you of, Deks (in good spirit). You insist that future infantrymen should wear body armor because today's infantrymen do, while I prefer to think that there is a sensible futuristic tactical reason not to do that.
If Trek were really written specifically to imitate 21st century as closely as possible, then personal shields would be part of the writing. The heroes would go to fights in camo gear, sprouting slightly Hollywoodized versions of US Army jargon, crawling and dashing in a Hollywoodized observance of the US Army field manual. And the writers would do their damnedest to erase all evidence of transporters and warp drives, too.
Instead, the heroes do unexpected things, and they do those so consistently that we begin to believe that this strangeness is what the strange future society raises its children to do.
For one more analogy, why did the infantrymen of the past wear brightly colored jackets? They didn't have IQs of 47 or below - for all we can tell, people in the past were smarter than people today. Rather, through hard experience, those infantrymen (or at least their leaders) knew that bright colors were a good survival feature on the smoke-filled battlefields where knowing the positions of your fellow troops was essential while hiding from the enemy was impossible to begin with. Scouts and similar "special forces" wore camouflage back then, too, of course. But then again, so do our Trek heroes on special assignments - while their "regular" ground combat seems to observe the rules of 17th century firefights, probably thanks to the similarities in technology, and thus bright red shirts make quite a bit of sense.
Umm, where and when? Our heroes usually fight from aboard starships, so the selection of episodes featuring distasteful ground combat should be rather narrow. So, can you give examples?
Timo Saloniemi
If you check out some of the fights between the MACO's and various aliens you can see that many of them have absolutely no concept of cover or using suppressive fire to take positions.
Damn, I completely forgot about ENT!
...Probably because I haven't seen much of it past the first season. Okay, point granted. The MACO weapons (plasma rifles?) do not drastically differ from today's assault rifles in function, so the tactics used should be similar.
Timo Saloniemi
...Probably because I haven't seen much of it past the first season. Okay, point granted. The MACO weapons (plasma rifles?) do not drastically differ from today's assault rifles in function, so the tactics used should be similar.
Timo Saloniemi
