Any reason for fire and wait?

[Rowan Sjet]

^ You don't seriously think they'd use that ugly fucker? Besides, why would one of the nacelles be straight and the other bent?

 

[JD]

hellsgate said:

Not to be rude, but that seriously looks like someone's very bad attempt at drawing the Enterprise free hand. IMHO that can't be a legit concept. At least I hope not.

 

[archeryguy1701]

Rowan Sjet said:
^ You don't seriously think they'd use that ugly fucker? Besides, why would one of the nacelles be straight and the other bent?

Hell, even if you look past the nacelles themselves, the pylons are screwy! One of them is bent!

 

[FordSVT]

Star Wolf said:

Plum said:

Uptightgirl said:
In tng and in the movies they fire a couple of shots then wait for the enemy to recover and react and damage the Enterprise plus a few casualties then fire a couple of more shot then wait to for the enemy to inflict more damage and inflict more federation crew casualties.

Does this not seem really very poor tactics?

Also allowing your crew members to die when you could have simply gone in for the kill or disabled the enemy totally right from the start and thus avoid you own casualties altogether.

In fact it seems these poor battle tactics would be subject to least a court martial or inquiry even though the poor victims were just lowly background crewman.And the families of these crewman must have had a report of the poor battle tactics of the captain in allowing this to happen and hold him accountable

Kirk once explicitly stated that his ship, to prevent interstellar war, was expendable. That's certainly not the deal in todays Navys. But the reluctance of star fleet ships to fire on others is, I speculate, a more intelligent and far looking move. If your ship is destroyed but it leads to diplomacy instead of war then millions, perhaps billions, might not have to worry about dieing in a star war.

Service on a star ship is dangerous, I've always agreed with Picard on this point!

Ah, just speculating. But it's a pretty good observation about the tactics of various shows which I think do follow this pattern. And hey, star ship captains rarely loose.

Remember the Samual L. Jackson Tommy Lee Jones movie Rules of Engagement I argued with my best friend that was the point. That the MAU commnader had a moral obligation to accept the casualties rather then blow a crowd away because a few terrorist hid among their human shields. Sometimes cops and soldiers are called on to give their life rather then take the enemy's. It is the reason "honor" is added to codes of duty and country.

Countries have sacrificed their own towns and cities for the greater good, a single military vessel is nothing compared to that.

 

[hellsgate]

http://www.startrekreborn.net/viewpage.php?page_id=84

http://www.startrekreborn.net/images/ent_05_07_004.jpg
http://www.startrekreborn.net/images/ent_05_07_007.jpg
These are the real views of the re-imagined U.S.S. Enterprise

 

[JD]

I don't think that is the movie. It looks like the same one they Trekmovie.come that was created by a fan who works for the company that does effects for BSG and did the effects for ENT. At least the one in the picture on definitely top is.
Here's the story from Trekmovie.com
Link

 

[hellsgate]

No reason at all to fire & wait. Just bitch-slap the taste out of the enemy's mouth & let the crewpersons aboard the escape pods convey what happened.

 

[tafkats]

hellsgate, I modified your post because the larger images were stretching the thread. Please feel free to repost at a smaller size.