And Riker isn't a great battlefield commander, as seen in Generations and Insurrection. 
I would clone a ship full of Sisko's... and Jadzia's
I would clone a ship full of Sisko's... and Jadzia's
Operation Return - Casualties seemed too significant
- Thread starter AdmiralBruno
- Start date
In conflicts with heavy attrition, which is harder to replace: hardware (vessels and equipment) or software (fleshy creatures trained to operate the machines)? Is there a good book chapter on this in real life conflicts, and was this explored in DS9 beyond casualty reports and Nog becoming lieutenant jg due to battlefield promotions?
It depends in real life, on the country, it's demographics and population.
The best example is Britain, which has never been able to field an army as large as other European powers, and in WW2 suffered a critical manpower shortage from 1944 onwards, though this was after 5 years of horrific attrition, so manpower was clearly shorter in supply here. Of course, the most disposable hardware (tanks, trucks etc.) was being supplied by the USA.
There were however downsides to it, most notably the appalling quality of armour used by the western allied armies. The fact that their burning Shermans were easily replaced did not help the crews much when a Tiger or Panther tank could hold up a whole column and leave a trail of burning vehicles and crews. They could have made a better tank earlier, but they decided more was better, and that what they had would do. The British made a similar decision earlier in WW2 when choosing between a supply of 6-pounder anti-tank guns, vs the far less capable but cheaper 2-pounder. They chose the latter and spent the desert campaign watching shells bounce off German armour.
To apply this to Trek, clearly the "that will do" philosophy bit Starfleet hard, with their fleet of ships anything up to a century old wiped out by the Borg, despite having obviously kept the Cardassians and numerous others at bay. This clearly changed their attitude, as afterwards we saw far more newer ships, and they started programs like the Defiant and Prometheus classes.
As I said before though, they clearly need to make up the numbers in wartime, and this led to, IMO the massive numbers of Miranda, Excelsior and kitbash ships we saw in DS9, ships with skeleton crews of older or younger commanders, ships that make up for the lack of ablative armour like the smaller Defiant with the fact the big holes the Dominion weapons make largely opening up empty spaces that can be patched over later. They presumably, like the US Navy of today, keep the mothball fleet around for exactly that reason.
Of course that means when the Miranda class previously playing courier or freighter suddenly found themselves retrofitted with new phasers and torpedo launchers, Starfleet would have needed other ships to fill that old role, NX class? Original spec connies? Heck, no reason why a ship couldn't keep flying essentially forever that has ever been stated onscreen.
I'm not sure the statistics are there. We saw but a fraction of the Wolf 359 ships, and the biggest fraction of that fraction was essentially brand new, namely assorted Galaxy kitbashes from Ed Miarecki. In the Dominion War, there were so many Mirandas and Excelsiors there that these supposedly carefully assembled fleets actually were just as geriatric as, if not more so than, the improvised Wolf 359 one!
OTOH, it's not as if age or quality would really make a difference against the Borg...
Does it take skill to fight with a starship? In WWII, good fighter pilots were in short supply, but the sides that triumphed in air combat were the ones that had the least overall skilll: they took their aces out of the fight ASAP and sent them to train rookies, so that the resulting average was far less skilled than the all-ace Axis force but not fatally so; was able to grind the ace force to dust; and left the Axis with nothing but the rookies.
Yet fighter planes were solo jobs. Team weapons would probably be a different matter. Tanks were discussed above, and skill was fairly irrelevant compared to technical details or general logistics. Even in naval combat, there were no even duels where skill would have mattered: when battleships slugged it out, technical defects and breakthroughs mattered more than any high speed marksmanship of the gunners, and when destroyers or aircraft carriers fought cruisers or submarines, the more useful type of warship sent the less useful one to the bottom.
But Trek doesn't have dissimilar ships, not really. A Miranda has all the same gear as a Galaxy, annd if it's older and weaker, this doesn't show in any way in the manner by which it gets used. A sign of lack of skill, or irrelevance of skill?
Timo Saloniemi
Well when we see ships actually beat the Borg, they are generally new ones, but as you say, there is only enough evidence on-screen to suppose, nothing definitive.
Well, excellent fighter pilots were in short supply, the allies built up a very large number of decent fighter pilots, and paired with marginally superior equipment overall and vast superiority in numbers, they won the air battles over Germany and Japanese territory definitively. The very best allied fighter pilots fought to stay with their units of course, Johnnie Johnson flew until the end of the war while holding the rank of Group Captain, though was considered far too valuable to get himself killed.
Well not strictly true, the Japanese thoroughly outclassed US units in night actions in the early part of WW2, and to use an earlier example, the training and skill of English gunners in comparison with their French and Spanish opponents was crucial in the victory at Trafalgar, giving the ability to fire 4 salvoes to their opponents 3.
In Trek of course, I stated in an earlier post, I suspect that those hundreds of old ships padding out the fleets we see on-screen were likely manned with whoever Starfleet could get, not the premium ships of superhumans we saw in peacetime.
Well we don't see that - where we see "tactics" the Galaxy class ships form a kind of heavy artillery/armour while the Miranda's zoom around with the Defiant. Also they are organised into "Galaxy", "Cruiser" and "Destroyer" wings. They do seem to have varying capability and roles according to size, at least in DS9.
But that's sort of what I was speaking about: they had night combat destroyers that triumphed over cruisers in dissimilar combat. This would probably have worked just fine even without special training, as Japanese torpedoes were good standoff weapons and minimal cover from night or the elements would drastically favor the attacker's survival.
It's curious that the fleets fight homogeneously, in the "number of guns decides and range and caliber is irrelevant" style of pre-precision-gunnery, steam-powered, big-fleet doctrine of rough WWI era. The equipment probably shouldn't bear that out - perhaps Starfleet is forced to deploy especially skilled people on the inferior ships to compensate?
Tactics are difficult to discern in the fleet melees at impulse. But fleets sail from battle to battle at the speed of the oldest Miranda, indicating Starfleet forgoes strategically significant technological advantages in favor of some other doctrinal concern.
Timo Saloniemi
I really doubt that.
Well quite, arguably those Japanese torpedoes were the most effective naval weapon of the war, except carrier aircraft of course.
I'm always reminded of the bit in the "Happy Return" I think where Hornblower pulls some very effective manoevering, thereby giving his larger opponent as big a defecit as he can, then literally has to stand and watch his ship get ripped to pieces as it exchanges fire with the enemy, although ultimately his superior initial tactics and superior crew tell, and his opponent sinks.
Hornblower was a huge influence on trek, so its still not hard to discern it's influence in DS9. I'd imagine all Starfleet's people are brave, dedicated and skilled.
Numbers I'd imagine. They lost a Galaxy class ship at the first encounter that two escorting disposable Mirandas, or a squadron of attack fighters, might have saved. You always need someone watching your back!
Actually no. They usually missed. The japanese theory of long-range torpedo attack was unconsisted with the accuracy of their gyro gears. The perfect example is first battle of Java Sea, when NINETY-TWO long-range torpedoes were launched by Japanese, but only a single (!) hit the opponent. Genrally, they were simply too inaccurate to use in real combat condition on large distances. The majority of ships, hit by those torpedoes, were either attacked from moderate distances, or ambushed.
And those torpedoes were dangerous for the ship, that carried them. A single hit near torpedo tubes, and pressurised oxygen guaranteed detonation.
Interesting facts there, I was referring to their effectiveness in the various actions where they gave the allies throroughly bloody noses throughout the early months of the war, but yes I don't remember reading of success at long ranges with the weapons.
There were a few, generally in 1942-1943, but almost every one long-range hit were achieved by the surprise: the US ships simply did not expect torpedo attack on such distances.
Similar threads
