Fanwank reason for "Battleship Fights"

[Dale Sams]

So I was sitting around trying to think of more imaginative uses of Trek technology in battles, mostly centered around point defense.

Such as: Why arn't photon torpedoes 'shot down'? Or instead of shield bubbles, just create a point defense shield to stop a torpedo. Even phasers move slow enough that we can see the beam move. AND we know that phasers and torpedoes have a long enough range that the two ships shouldn't be on screen together.

Well maybe ships do have some kind of point defense system and thus ships have to be close enough that they don't have to deal with those defenses.

 

[wulfio]

Well maybe ships do have some kind of point defense system and thus ships have to be close enough that they don't have to deal with those defenses.

This seems like the best explanation to avoid plot holes.

 

[NOVE9]

Bit like the sword fight in dune, the key being to get close enough and slow enough to get past the shields.

 

[Timo]

Why doesn't shielding qualify as point defense? It would seem to provide all the advantages without any of the drawbacks.

- It stops incoming fire; active CIWS usually does
- It never misses; active CIWS sometimes would
- It may or may not consume energy when not being hit; active CIWS may or may not, depending on how fast it can heat up the guns from dormancy to action readiness
- When hit, it may consume energy only at the spot being hit; active CIWS certainy does
- When blocking incoming fire, it does so at a fixed, usually sufficient distance from the ship; CIWS interception distance would be a function of its interception accuracy

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Forbin]

In my fanfic, there are automatic point defense phasers. And EW decoys.
Trek writers, at least TNG-onward, weren't very well-versed in modern military technology.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If starship battles were truly 'realistic', they'd be boring as hell to watch. Ships would be hundreds of light years from each other and do nothing but fire missiles. Who wants to watch a snooze-fest like that?

Never mind the actual feasibility, or lack thereof, of things like space fighter combat and beam weapons. We have these things because they look cool. That's all that's really needed for the bean-counters.

 

[bbailey861]

If starship battles were truly 'realistic', they'd be boring as hell to watch. Ships would be hundreds of light years from each other and do nothing but fire missiles. Who wants to watch a snooze-fest like that?

Not me, Sir.

Never mind the actual feasibility, or lack thereof, of things like space fighter combat and beam weapons. We have these things because they look cool. That's all that's really needed for the bean-counters.

And much of the audience.

 

[tharpdevenport]

If starship battles were truly 'realistic', they'd be boring as hell to watch. Ships would be hundreds of light years from each other and do nothing but fire missiles. Who wants to watch a snooze-fest like that?

Haven't we heard things before like the range of weapons?

I also recall hearing Worf say something about trying to shoot down a weapon or probe being launced from or at a planet and that the sensors and weapons targetting and lock would take something like 12 seconds. Close-range battles suggest limiting the enemies ability to target and shoot down your photon torpedos.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Perhaps torpedoes are built with jamming devices that inhibit phaser lock?

 

[Forbin]

Perhaps torpedoes are built with jamming devices that inhibit phaser lock?

That would be likely.
The game of countermeasure/counter-countermeasure has been going on since WWII.

 

[Timo]

Star Trek has more players than Earth's wars, though. Even if one enemy's jammers were making phasers ineffective against their torps, another's would be behind in the rat race and easily shot down if that were Starfleet's liking.

I still say shields are much better than "active" defenses, and "complementing" them with actively shooting CIWS would be a waste of energy better put to shielding...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Obviously the space battles aren't scientifically feasible, and if two ships are traveling at different degrees of warp you shouldn't be able to see one slowly gaining on the other.

But this isn't a binary choice here, either 'Complete realism' or 'Complete silly drama'. You can have a dramatic space battle but also include things that the characters ought to think of based on their knowledge of the fake physics of the universe. They have defensive fire in Battestar Galactica, they have small agile fighters in B5 and BSG. They had orbital defense drones in one episode of DS9. Battles would be more exciting and easier to suspend disbelief for if ships in combat behaved like spaceships instead of submarines. They'd just be harder to choreograph, and it's the producers who don't like that.

 

[eyeresist]

If starship battles were truly 'realistic', they'd be boring as hell to watch. Ships would be hundreds of light years from each other and do nothing but fire missiles. Who wants to watch a snooze-fest like that?

Me! It would be tense, like submarine warfare (or playing Battleship).


So you can't beam through a shield, is that right?

 

[MikeS]

I would argue that the closest Trek ever came to an accurate depiction of a space battle was Balance of Terror. Which was hardly a "snooze-fest".

 

[Timo]

if two ships are traveling at different degrees of warp you shouldn't be able to see one slowly gaining on the other.

Well, you shouldn't be able to see it (except through your viewscreen that feeds you preprocessed sensor data). But arguably it should still happen - yet it never does, not in Star Trek.

Star Trek has many warp chase scenes, and none of them involve the chasing ship slowly gaining or losing ground. Instead, the two parties involved always travel at the exact same speed. How come? (And why is this a very good thing?)

The one time when they don't, in "Survivors" where Kevin Uxbridge's fake ship leads Picard on a merry chase by adjusting speed to match that of the pursuer, probably tells us why. Chases serve a purpose, in moving the action in a direction that one or the other of the players desires. Typically, the hunter can define the speed (assuming she can outrun the prey) but the prey can define the direction (assuming she isn't so much slower that the hunter can flank her and herd her in).

Thus we get chases where the pursuer merely wants to escort the fleeing party out of forbidden territory (basically what happens in "Flashback") or towards a supposed safe haven for assorted tactical purposes ("Way of the Warrior"). Then there are chases where the prey leads the pursuer towards a trap, etc.

That's actually incredibly realistic! If we did see one ship "slowly" gaining or losing ground, this would imply the two ships have similar maximum speeds by sheer chance. If the speeds are equal, though, then it's obvious that one or the other chooses to match speeds, and there's no coincidence involved. And if the speeds are unequal, then they are so unequal that no chase will ever emerge.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[tharpdevenport]

"Q Who?" and possibly another one or two TNG episodes have the Borg overtaking the Enterprise at warp and surpassing them. Voyager did it too, this time for the Queen's ship firing on the Voyager while traveling (though to be fair, it wasn't warp, but I think slipstream).


So, yes, it has happened.



Plus the scenario would be absurd. Why run from an enemy that has comprable or superior faster-than-light drives? If they pursue one of two things will happen:

1. You'll get out of warp and the enemy will too, and the fight continues. If anything, Trek has indicated this works against you, because of the time it takes to scan and lock onto a moving target, so if a ship comes out of it very close they can lower your ability to make those hits while still leaving themselves a chance to get some in.

2. One of them will have to stop. Either because: warp/slipstream/whatever drives might fail and they'll have to come out, or because one ship goes for so long it has to power down and recharge (like the Enterprise D had to do once).



Unless you are heading for another Federation ship or ships, it's a poor tactic, so there's no point in trying to overtake another vessel in warp.

 

[F. King Daniel]

So I was sitting around trying to think of more imaginative uses of Trek technology in battles, mostly centered around point defense.

Such as: Why arn't photon torpedoes 'shot down'? Or instead of shield bubbles, just create a point defense shield to stop a torpedo. Even phasers move slow enough that we can see the beam move. AND we know that phasers and torpedoes have a long enough range that the two ships shouldn't be on screen together.

Well maybe ships do have some kind of point defense system and thus ships have to be close enough that they don't have to deal with those defenses.

We saw plenty of point-defence fire in ST'09, specifically the Kelvin protecting itself and later the evacuating shuttles from the Narada's cluster missiles.

My biggest issue with Trek battles is the constantly exploding consoles, which all started with Wrath of Khan. I guess fuses are a lost technology in Trek's time.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If starship battles were truly 'realistic', they'd be boring as hell to watch. Ships would be hundreds of light years from each other and do nothing but fire missiles. Who wants to watch a snooze-fest like that?

Me! It would be tense, like submarine warfare (or playing Battleship).


So you can't beam through a shield, is that right?

Mostly, no, but there's been times when suitably ingenious ways around that have been found.

 

[Timo]

Actually, in TOS, there didn't appear to be any "can't beam down through shields" rule. There was only a "can't beam up through shields" rule, starting with "Arena". Which makes sense - the ships can spit out weapons fire when shielded, so why not transportees? It's only the incoming stuff that needs to be protected against.

It's a bit difficult to find cases of "can't beam down" in later Trek, too. Usually, it's a matter of needing to recover the away team, meaning "can't beam down because couldn't beam up".

So, yes, it has happened.

"Slowly catching up", but without the "toying with the prey" element as in "Encounter at Farpoint"? I guess "Q Who?" does qualify... I stand corrected.

Why run from an enemy that has comprable or superior faster-than-light drives?

Why not?

Knowing the propulsive capabilities of the enemy isn't all that common. It's always worth an attempt. If the enemy does give chase, then you realize you are screwed, because he wouldn't if he couldn't match your observed speed. But it has to come to that observation first.

Unless you are heading for another Federation ship or ships, it's a poor tactic, so there's no point in trying to overtake another vessel in warp.

Uh, why not? Surely you can give chase; catch up with the enemy; and then destroy him, wound him, capture him, or whatever. What would the obstacles be? Most Trek weapons work just fine at high warp, and even transporters can be used if the enemy can be rendered shieldless and velocities closely matched.

We saw plenty of point-defence fire in ST'09, specifically the Kelvin protecting itself and later the evacuating shuttles from the Narada's cluster missiles.

Interestingly, these weapons were powerless to protect the targeted ship herself, but very effective at protecting a third party: both the Kelvin and the Enterprise were hit hard, but the Kelvin provided complete and effortless protection for the shuttles and the Enterprise for Spock's ship.

Using phasers for self-defense against high speed projectile weapons seems to be a desperation tactic that has low odds of success. Doesn't mean our heroes wouldn't try: Kirk seems to give that very command in ST2 against Khan's torpedo launch, but is too late, as Sulu points out.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Cyke101]

My biggest issue with Trek battles is the constantly exploding consoles, which all started with Wrath of Khan. I guess fuses are a lost technology in Trek's time.

IIRC, the exploding consoles were only used to help simulate the deaths of crewmembers, in the Kobayashi Maru, too. I don't recall anyone actually dying from an exploding console during the real battles against Khan himself. Oh sure, maybe someone getting crushed by falling debris but not the consoles themselves.

A further irritant: Voyager's consoles exploded at least the first time she landed on a planet. Which is something she was designed to do in the first place. Starfleet could anticipate the need for shocks to brace the landing struts for a massive vessel, but it couldn't anticipate circuit breakers and fuses for the consoles!