Miranda Class Phasers

[Starlock]

Miranda Class Starships have PHASERS?

who'da thunk it...

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I didn't create the wiki article.

You cited it as your definition for what a destroyer is when you attempted to suggest Reliant was a destroyer. We have now gone through and examined those parts of the definition and discovered--as you have already conceded--that Reliant doesn't fit this definition any better than any other ship in Starfleet. So perhaps you need to come up with a DIFFERENT definition for "destroyer" if you want Reliant to be that?

I don't mean closer to the Cube I mean closer to each other as pairs compared to Nebula/Ambassador which moved in tandem. Saratoga and Melbourne may have already broken formation.

That's an interesting formation, then, since Melbourne was closer to the cube than the Saratoga and was therefore immediately destroyed.

Funny thing though: Saratoga did NOT have its rollbar torpedo/phaser attachments at Wolf-359. Neither did the Lantree in "Unnatural Selection." If you were planning on eventually connecting the destroyer role with heavy phaser armaments (which is a whole different can of worms, actually) then the presence of rollbar-free Mirandas on the battlefield is a problem.

But they would need to be reclassified

No they wouldn't. They would simply invent classifications for the NEW ships that come into service. Same thing happened in the transition from sails to screws. The new huge gun-heavy warships of the dreadnaught age were called dreadnaughts and battleships, and in later years there were pocket battleships, battlecruisers and aviation cruisers. And again with aircraft carriers: the big Essex class ships were dwarfed by the larger Midway class, and in later years the Kitty Hawk carriers carried the designation "supercarrier."

The K'Tingas would still be "battle-cruisers" under the new scheme, and by most indications they still ARE. The Vorcha is usually referred to as an "assault cruiser," which is a separate designation and may actually allude to the larger vessel being able to carry huge numbers of troops, plus that bigass disruptor cannon on the bow.

Negh'Var's designation is never given, but considering it went into service under gowron's watch I'd wager it's something like "war cruiser" or something.

Not sure about that. It has more phasers than the Galaxy and more torpedo tubes.

It has four torpedoes to the Galaxy's four, yet the latter's torpedo launcher is at least twice the size as the Intrepid's. Thus the Galaxy has been shown firing those "multishot" torpedo attacks from a single tube while the Intrepid is not capable of this.

And I don't think you really want to stand by the "more phasers = more power" argument, or else the Miranda really is less powerful than the Constitution.

Is that another random fact you've just pulled out of your ass? You're getting good at this.

You can assume what you want of the statement fact or conjecture but I stand by it. Intrepid is extremely well armed...

Then find me a quote where Paris or anyone else says or even implies that Voyager was specifically designed for combat and then you'll have something.

 

[Timo]

"The Thaw"?

Paris: "This ship was built for combat performance, Harry, not musical performance ."

Silly smiley inside the quotes because it was just a joke by Paris, a feeble one that wouldn't have worked if Paris hadn't chosen "combat performance" as the opposite for "musical performance"; there simply aren't that many types of "performance" that could have contrasted with what Kim was doing. (Perhaps "warp speed performance" would have been all right, too.)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Saquist]

You cited it as your definition for what a destroyer is when you attempted to suggest Reliant was a destroyer.

Citation does not equal ownership.

We have now gone through and examined those parts of the definition and discovered--as you have already conceded--that Reliant doesn't fit this definition any better than any other ship in Starfleet.

More accurately Reliant's Miranda class doesn't have comparative size to fit the early definition of Destroyer However as Destroyers did get larger it could still fit the definition but Enterprise would be with it in the same classification.

That's an interesting formation, then, since Melbourne was closer to the cube than the Saratoga and was therefore immediately destroyed.

That's why it would be a "broken formation".

Funny thing though: Saratoga did NOT have its rollbar torpedo/phaser attachments at Wolf-359. Neither did the Lantree in "Unnatural Selection." If you were planning on eventually connecting the destroyer role with heavy phaser armaments (which is a whole different can of worms, actually) then the presence of rollbar-free Mirandas on the battlefield is a problem.

Lantree was a supply ship. That's not a problem.
Not for Saratoga unless those sensor pods were actually the torpedoes mentioned upon arming.

No they wouldn't. They would simply invent classifications for the NEW ships that come into service. Same thing happened in the transition from sails to screws. The new huge gun-heavy warships of the dreadnaught age were called dreadnaughts and battleships, and in later years there were pocket battleships, battlecruisers and aviation cruisers. And again with aircraft carriers: the big Essex class ships were dwarfed by the larger Midway class, and in later years the Kitty Hawk carriers carried the designation "supercarrier."

Frankly I don't have the expertise or knowledge to comment further. I have attempted to understand all the designations and I have only a mild understanding but not an expansive knowledge.

It has four torpedoes to the Galaxy's four, yet the latter's torpedo launcher is at least twice the size as the Intrepid's. Thus the Galaxy has been shown firing those "multishot" torpedo attacks from a single tube while the Intrepid is not capable of this.

Galaxy has cluster fire.
Intrepid has rapid fire.

The difference can be seen especially in DS9 when a Galaxy fires torpedoes on a weapon platform it's one at a time with a interval. Intrepid fires it's torpedoes in rapid sucession. The dual hardpoint is quite formidable.

And I don't think you really want to stand by the "more phasers = more power" argument, or else the Miranda really is less powerful than the Constitution.

I'm okay with my argument. I'll let you know if I ever switch over to the "more phasers=more power" argument. My argument is that the Intrepid is sporting the same phaser power output as Galaxy with the Type X phaser based on the ship's amazing performance during Basics part I.

Then find me a quote where Paris or anyone else says or even implies that Voyager was specifically designed for combat and then you'll have something.

I have something regardless but satisfying you is a different set of parameters. Even with out the provided information from Timo the evidence for Voyager in that regard is quite strong and is often the stuff of much contention as the ship's survival as a hero ship.

But I'm not interested in mocking the evidence with appeals to emotion. It merely is what is. Voyager took on a wide range hostiles and more often than not...survived and or dominated.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

We have now gone through and examined those parts of the definition and discovered--as you have already conceded--that Reliant doesn't fit this definition any better than any other ship in Starfleet.

More accurately Reliant's Miranda class doesn't have comparative size to fit the early definition of Destroyer However as Destroyers did get larger it could still fit the definition but Enterprise would be with it in the same classification.

Modern destroyers aren't significantly better armed than cruisers of the same or slightly larger size. The Arleigh Burkes use the same 5-inch mount as the Tico cruisers, but has one less gun than the Ticonderogas. In the more conventional sense (Cold War/WW-II era) Destroyers ALWAYS had smaller guns than the cruisers, typically 5 inch rifles to the 8 or 10inch guns on the larger cruisers.

Meanwhile, the fact that the Mirandas--with and without rollbars--are still in service a century later is suggestive that her phaser armament is FAR from her most distinctive feature. You're welcome to go babbling on for another three and a half pages pretending you still have a point to make, but at the end of the day Reliant's classification--even if there were some hard evidence to work with--wouldn't tell us anything at all about its phaser armament.

If that's all you've got left, we can put this one to bed.

 

[blssdwlf]

"The Thaw"?

Paris: "This ship was built for combat performance, Harry, not musical performance ."

Silly smiley inside the quotes because it was just a joke by Paris, a feeble one that wouldn't have worked if Paris hadn't chosen "combat performance" as the opposite for "musical performance"; there simply aren't that many types of "performance" that could have contrasted with what Kim was doing. (Perhaps "warp speed performance" would have been all right, too.)

Although couldn't Paris have made the same argument if he was on a Miranda, Constitution or Excelsior? The music would probably sound better on a passenger ship or a Galaxy class

Speaking of Galaxy and Intrepids, there are some pretty good collages of the two ships firing torpedoes and phasers on Youtube. Without actually seeing a Galaxy-class and Voyager go against a comparable adversary it's hard to gauge how powerful their weapons are compared to each other.

Galaxy
http://youtu.be/d734afLFPds

Intrepid
http://youtu.be/zonqRRcFkzk

 

[Saquist]

We have now gone through and examined those parts of the definition and discovered--as you have already conceded--that Reliant doesn't fit this definition any better than any other ship in Starfleet.

More accurately Reliant's Miranda class doesn't have comparative size to fit the early definition of Destroyer However as Destroyers did get larger it could still fit the definition but Enterprise would be with it in the same classification.

Modern destroyers aren't significantly better armed than cruisers of the same or slightly larger size. The Arleigh Burkes use the same 5-inch mount as the Tico cruisers, but has one less gun than the Ticonderogas. In the more conventional sense (Cold War/WW-II era) Destroyers ALWAYS had smaller guns than the cruisers, typically 5 inch rifles to the 8 or 10inch guns on the larger cruisers.

Meanwhile, the fact that the Mirandas--with and without rollbars--are still in service a century later is suggestive that her phaser armament is FAR from her most distinctive feature. You're welcome to go babbling on for another three and a half pages pretending you still have a point to make, but at the end of the day Reliant's classification--even if there were some hard evidence to work with--wouldn't tell us anything at all about its phaser armament.

If that's all you've got left, we can put this one to bed.

It should have been put to bed the moment blssddwlf explained why the 6% less estimate was accurate. You pressed further....

This was your time to waste.
This was your sacred cow.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

More accurately Reliant's Miranda class doesn't have comparative size to fit the early definition of Destroyer However as Destroyers did get larger it could still fit the definition but Enterprise would be with it in the same classification.

Modern destroyers aren't significantly better armed than cruisers of the same or slightly larger size. The Arleigh Burkes use the same 5-inch mount as the Tico cruisers, but has one less gun than the Ticonderogas. In the more conventional sense (Cold War/WW-II era) Destroyers ALWAYS had smaller guns than the cruisers, typically 5 inch rifles to the 8 or 10inch guns on the larger cruisers.

Meanwhile, the fact that the Mirandas--with and without rollbars--are still in service a century later is suggestive that her phaser armament is FAR from her most distinctive feature. You're welcome to go babbling on for another three and a half pages pretending you still have a point to make, but at the end of the day Reliant's classification--even if there were some hard evidence to work with--wouldn't tell us anything at all about its phaser armament.

If that's all you've got left, we can put this one to bed.

It should have been put to bed the moment blssddwlf explained why the 6% less estimate was accurate. You pressed further....

It was an attempt to figure out what you thought Reliant's designation had to do with its phaser armament. Apparently the answer is "nothing at all" so that's that.

 

[Saquist]

Modern destroyers aren't significantly better armed than cruisers of the same or slightly larger size. The Arleigh Burkes use the same 5-inch mount as the Tico cruisers, but has one less gun than the Ticonderogas. In the more conventional sense (Cold War/WW-II era) Destroyers ALWAYS had smaller guns than the cruisers, typically 5 inch rifles to the 8 or 10inch guns on the larger cruisers.

Meanwhile, the fact that the Mirandas--with and without rollbars--are still in service a century later is suggestive that her phaser armament is FAR from her most distinctive feature. You're welcome to go babbling on for another three and a half pages pretending you still have a point to make, but at the end of the day Reliant's classification--even if there were some hard evidence to work with--wouldn't tell us anything at all about its phaser armament.

If that's all you've got left, we can put this one to bed.

It should have been put to bed the moment blssddwlf explained why the 6% less estimate was accurate. You pressed further....

It was an attempt to figure out what you thought Reliant's designation had to do with its phaser armament. Apparently the answer is "nothing at all" so that's that.

You pursued it like a prosecutor even after having your answer which made the whole situation irrelevant. You needed it to be "nothing at all". It couldn't be anything else ...and it was never as illusive as you made it out to be.

I made it too easy for you. You wanted something more than the truth. From what I could tell a mixture of conflict and self aggrandizement. Shrug that off if you like. I don't need it to be true merely my objective observations of your behavior. You may have had exactly your stated intentions. At least your behavior improved with time but it took quite a while for you to figure out how unnecessary all the emotional effort you applied really was.



Every Captain Nemo needs his Moby Dick, I suppose.

 

[Birdog]

Every Captain Nemo needs his Moby Dick, I suppose.

Literary fail. Captain Nemo was from Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Captain Ahab chased the titular whale in Melville's Moby Dick.

 

[Unicron]

This thread seems to have been spinning in circles for some time now. I'm going to close it, but if someone wants to restart the original topic (Miranda phasers and TWOK damage), they're more than welcome.