Phaser beams

[T'Girl]

If a phaser was simply a high powered laser then we wouldn't be able to see it in space.

Whatever the phaser beam is, it would seem to be clear that it is "self illuminating," This might have something to do with the maximum range or the range problem. If we can see the phaser beam in transit that means that something is being emitted by the beam itself, there is a discharge or decay taking place. By the time the beam travels to it's maximum range the beam doesn't just simply come to a stop as much as it no longer has any credible force behind it.

This might be the reason Starships took to doing battle at near point blank distances when they could, to maximize their phaser's striking power.


.

 

[blssdwlf]

This might be the reason Starships took to doing battle at near point blank distances when they could, to maximize their phaser's striking power.

That seems reasonable and there is evidence from "The Doomsday Machine" that phaser's were suppose to be more effective at close-range than from far. To the same extent, "The Undiscovered Country" echos that with stun setting at close-range to the head being fatal

We do know that in TOS, the phase battle range appears to be from point-blank to 90,000 km and further to "extreme ranges". The battles suggest that against a shielded ship (like another Connie,) 90,000 km is the max range for a phaser attack.

Perhaps in the TNG and later continuity, battles between equivalent forces that shielding technology outpaced weapons forcing the fighting distance to be much closer to have any chance of doing any damage as you have suggested...

 

[Mytran]

That's a pretty good explanation for the lack of FTL battles in the 24th century!
I've now got a great mental picture of two ships nose to nose firing the hell out of each other to little effect

 

[C.E. Evans]

Another argument for close-range phaser battles is from the TNG Tech Manual, which implies that sustained or prolonged contact is what really wears down an enemy ship's shields. I think it's easier to do that at relatively close ranges than at longer ranges.

I also tend to think that the farther two ships are, the more difficult the phaser lock, especially if the ships are moving to evade one another at high impulse velocities. In such a case, it would make photon/quantum torpedoes more ideal as a longer-range weapon, IMO.

 

[T'Girl]

If we're very close then the majority of my shots are going to hit you, your shield do not have time to "recharge." At a couple of million kilometers I hit you one time in ten, your shields never drop below ninety percent.

 

[TiberiusMaximus]

Discussions about FTL battles and such always remind me of Wraith Hiveships on Stargate Atlantis, launching crippling close-range broadsides at one another until one succumbs and blows up. Whereas Ancients or humans usually drone weapons, essentially self-guided torpedoes capable of hitting a target multiple times before exploding. Wraith weapons at long range aren't as effective.

The same reasoning applies to Trek, if you can hit the enemy at long range, it's a good strategy but sometimes the quickest way to defeat them is get as close as you can and try to smash the living daylights out of them before they do it to you. It also depends on your shields, if you can withstand more damage than they can, getting close is worth the risk.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

I think it stands to reason that a beam of energy be it laser or some kind of plasma will lose energy the further it travels and thus will do more damage at closer range. If a laser or phaser did not lose energy as it travelled distance it would continue on forever and break the laws of physics.

Phasers seem to be best for doing damage to shields. In Star Trek XI during the Kobayashimaru scene Kirk says to target the Klingon warbirds (yes warbirds ) with photon torpedoes to which McCoy reacts to by saying "but their shields are up" which to me would seem to indicate that Torpedoes are useless against shields and that Torpedoes are used primarily to destroy a vessel that has lost shielding.

Phasers vs Shields (more damaging at close range as less energy is lost in transit)

Torpedoes vs Hull

 

[blssdwlf]

^^ I wouldn't take anything from that simulation seriously since Kirk rigged it so he could win. Actually, you probably couldn't take that simulation seriously since it is rigged so no matter what you did you would lose

In TOS, photon torpedoes were used to smash the shields and seriously damage a Klingon Battlecruiser in "Elaan of Troyius". Phasers were used to destroy a distant Klingon warship in the beginning of "Errand of Mercy". Both can be used against shielded and unshielded targets in TOS and most likely as well in TNG+.

 

[Deks]

Phasers have been described to have a maximum effective range of 300 000 km (at least in the 24th century).
That alone might suggest that they have the capacity to travel that distance in just 1 second.

Battles would have been much more interesting if they were actually fought at such large distances.

 

[Timo]

the Klingon warbirds (yes warbirds )

I can't understand why people have trouble with this. Klingons have been consistently described as operating birds of prey ever since TOS folded; ENT further introduced warbirds and raptors into this avian mix.

It's too bad that the Romulans in TNG were so often erroneously claimed to operate warbirds, too. Embarrassing how so many writers could make that error, and then fail to 'fess up...

In TOS, photon torpedoes were used to smash the shields and seriously damage a Klingon Battlecruiser in "Elaan of Troyius".

Or then Kirk chose torpedoes in order to avoid a diplomatic incident: he'd use the soft touch and let the Klingons live with the consequences.

Actually, you probably couldn't take that simulation seriously since it is rigged so no matter what you did you would lose

I guess so. If the enemy shields are up, then it's hopeless to fire any type of weapon at them - the enemy ships are probably as resilient as the hero ship, and they outnumber the hero.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[blssdwlf]

In TOS, photon torpedoes were used to smash the shields and seriously damage a Klingon Battlecruiser in "Elaan of Troyius".

Or then Kirk chose torpedoes in order to avoid a diplomatic incident: he'd use the soft touch and let the Klingons live with the consequences.

Perhaps. From what I could tell, not all 6 photons made a direct hit so it could have been far worse (or even fatal) for the Klingon ship.

I had figured the reason why photons were used were because it had less initial power requirements than phasers and wouldn't have been picked up as easily by the Klingon sensors (probably same reason Kirk didn't apply warp power to the shields.)

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Actually, you probably couldn't take that simulation seriously since it is rigged so no matter what you did you would lose

I guess so. If the enemy shields are up, then it's hopeless to fire any type of weapon at them - the enemy ships are probably as resilient as the hero ship, and they outnumber the hero.

Timo Saloniemi

Only a minute previous to the dialogue I quoted McCoy turns to Kirk and says "well shouldn't we fire back?".

It seems a little strange that McCoy would be all for firing back at the Klingons and then a minute later thinking it would be futile considering they have shields up. The only difference is that the second piece of dialogue has Kirk mention Torpedoes.

This leads me to assume that McCoy saw no problem attacking shields with Phasers but thought it made no sense to use Torpedoes on shields.

Therefore as far I am personally concerned Phasers are for against shields and Torpedoes are for against unshielded targets.

This dialogue to me is the most clear cut and canon I've seen in regards to phasers and torpedoes usefulness.

 

[blssdwlf]

This dialogue to me is the most clear cut and canon I've seen in regards to phasers and torpedoes usefulness.

Sure, in AbramsTrek. There are enough examples that things works differently in the other series though

 

[Timo]

Only a minute previous to the dialogue I quoted McCoy turns to Kirk and says "well shouldn't we fire back?".

Good point.

Then again, McCoy is famed for being a general contrarian... How could anything Kirk did or left undone be right anyway?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[All Seeing Eye]

This dialogue to me is the most clear cut and canon I've seen in regards to phasers and torpedoes usefulness.

Sure, in AbramsTrek.

and yet Abrams Trek is the only current Trek and it's the future of Trek. So to me, it's the stronger canon.

 

[Timo]

A lot of Trek, all across the table, seems to be saying that torpedoes are a nice way to bombard continents into oblivion, but even a volley of them won't necessarily hurt a shielded starship.

TNG era battles are virtually never decided on a torpedo impacting on the shields (the only exception involves quantum torpedoes, in "Defiant"), and TNG era heroes open their battles with phasers and only use torpedoes for follow-up. TAS heavily favored phasers, perhaps because the animation of an immobile beam looked better than the animation of a moving bright dot when frame rate was as low as it was. TOS movies used torpedoes almost exclusively, but apparently only against unshielded targets. ENT got some surprise value out of torps in "The Expanse", but generally still preferred phase cannon.

TOS had a couple of instances where torpedoes rather than phasers were the primary weapon: "Elaan of Troyius", "The Changeling". Mostly, though, torpedoes were invoked when phasers proved ineffective: the introductory "Arena" already treats torpedoes like this. But even there it was indicated that torpedoes were hugely destructive against unshielded targets, such as planetary surfaces or space beasts.

It's sort of understandable, intuitively. Torpedoes go bang, so they might have an area effect. But phasers concentrate their energies on one spot, so they could well be the preferred penetration weapon, and less desirable in attacking a large area target.

That's probably the logic that has driven and will be driving the writers, too. A missile creates area destruction, a beam is for penetration. And shielded enemy starships call for penetration. OTOH, the intuition of those who witnessed the last big wars would be that guns kill enemy ships at a range, and torpedoes (while even more potent at sinking the baddie) are only effective at very short ranges and thus relying on them might be suicidal. That range limitation doesn't apply to Treknology as such, and isn't intuitive to those whose experience is of the guided missile era, but the end effect is the same.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

In TNG and VOY, when the crews go head-to-head with Borg drones I've noticed a tactical advantage that no one seems to realise.

Its been established that phasers have variable intensity and beam width settings, so why not (when facing off against a horde of oncoming drones) set a hand phaser to maximum and wide beam and take out multiple targets before they have a chance to adapt? I know it diminishes the tension and drama of an unstoppable enemy slightly, but thats pretty much been done at the ewnd of VOY anyway what with Admiral Janeway's futuristic anti-Borg technology.

Just a thought that's been bugging me for a while.

-Bry

 

[Timo]

Indeed, it seems that our heroes tackle the Borg piecemeal even when they don't have to.

There's a slight element of story logic there, though. The Borg scale their response to match the threat. If our heroes are in the middle of investigating/sabotaging a Borg ship from the inside and see five Drones slowly wobbling towards them, perhaps it's wise to just shoot the closest one, and then perhaps the second-closest if the heroes still haven't completed their task. By, say, throwing a photon grenade that takes out all five at once, the heroes would just be telling the Borg to become more aggressive more rapidly.

One generally doesn't get rid of Drones simply by killing them, because there are always a few hundred more. One has to devise some sort of a daring escape plan, or a cunning kill'em all maneuver that destroys all the reserve Drones as well. And for that, one usually needs time - which may best be bought by not annoying the Collective too much!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[blssdwlf]

This dialogue to me is the most clear cut and canon I've seen in regards to phasers and torpedoes usefulness.

Sure, in AbramsTrek.

and yet Abrams Trek is the only current Trek and it's the future of Trek. So to me, it's the stronger canon.

Nothing wrong with that Afterall, they're like a bunch of quantum universes - as long as the traveler knows which one he's in and what rules they use I think Timo painted out a good broad picture of the differences and the logic though.

 

[GalaxyX]

Indeed, it seems that our heroes tackle the Borg piecemeal even when they don't have to.

There's a slight element of story logic there, though. The Borg scale their response to match the threat. If our heroes are in the middle of investigating/sabotaging a Borg ship from the inside and see five Drones slowly wobbling towards them, perhaps it's wise to just shoot the closest one, and then perhaps the second-closest if the heroes still haven't completed their task. By, say, throwing a photon grenade that takes out all five at once, the heroes would just be telling the Borg to become more aggressive more rapidly.

One generally doesn't get rid of Drones simply by killing them, because there are always a few hundred more. One has to devise some sort of a daring escape plan, or a cunning kill'em all maneuver that destroys all the reserve Drones as well. And for that, one usually needs time - which may best be bought by not annoying the Collective too much!

Timo Saloniemi

Nice logic there man. This seems to coincide with on screen evidence as well.