| Subject: Re: Imperial fleet Vs Federation fleet |
Author:
Warspite
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 08:30:05 10/01/02 Tue
Author Host/IP: ipd54b191d.free.wxs.nl/213.75.25.29
In reply to:
caon hayes
's message, "Re: Imperial fleet Vs Federation fleet" on 02:04:47 10/01/02 Tue
>Looks like TrekGOD aint the only one "fataly flawed"
>he ONE thing you missed the POINT on with your
>examples was this. Yes it is true about the success or
>railure rate of Patriot missles BUT what you failed to
>consider and what makes your comparison FLAWED is
>this, The missles you talk about had the time to close
>the distance between the launch point and the targets
>positios!
And so would torpedos. Your point? We have SEEN torpedoes cover a distance of AT LEAST 475,000,000km (more reasonably around 600 million km). And please don't spout the TM again. The TM is clearly overruled in this case. On screen always overrules the TM.
>If the distances were say 500 feet from
>lauch point until the missle was detected and was
>within firing range your 60% kill ratio would drop
>dramaticly, and 60% hit also means 40% misses. See the
>point?
Of course there is the possibility of a miss. I have never said that torpedos never miss (though they are very accurate generally). Warp strafing 'may' increase the odds of them missing (though we have never seen anything miss during a warp strafing attack). What is your point?
>You also don't have it right about nav
>deflectors remamber the projected force field that
>extends 2 km out in front of the ship, the second is a
>tractor deflector that extends thousands of km in
>front of the ships pushing things aside, NOT targeting
>objects as you suggest. Its like a snow plow that
>simply plows the road ahead of the ship ANY "fist"
>sized object would be thrown clear of the ships flight
>path because of the tractor/pressor beam being aimed
>in its general direction. There is even a cute little
>picture to illstrate it on pg. 88 of the TM. Please
>try to get the info right.
Oh for pete's sake. THIS AGAIN??? Look, let me help you out here since you're obviously struggling to understand the info. Look at that nice picture you mention on page 88. Yes there are the five "nested low level deflector shields", but do you also notice the other beam shooting out well ahead of them? It is labeled "Macroscopic object deflected by active deflector beam"? No, obviously not. It seems a general warsie tactic to somehow block out what they don't want to see. I have told you about this beam meany times. I have given you exact quotes like...
"...a powerful tractor/deflector that sweeps thousands of kilometers ahead of the ship, pushing aside larger objects that present a collision hazard."
TNG:TM p 87
and...
"Higher sub-light velocities require the use of precision aimed deflector beams directed at specific targets in the projected flight path."
TNG:TM p 46
and even...
"...warp velocities exceeding warp 8 require the use of two deflector generators operating in phase sync, and velocities greater than warp 9.2 require all three deflector generators."
TNG:TM p 88
I'm sorry if I sound pissed off at you, but I have told you this a number of times, and you seem to simply want to ingore what you want, and pick what you want from the same source. It is a waste of mine and everyones time to make me keep correcting you.
>It helps to lesson the
>confusion. Although you can argue the point because
>the TM isn't "canon". As far warp strafing I don't
>beleive it is possible in the manner you trekkies
>suggest, given what we know about the range of trek
>weapons and the time it takes for torpedoes to arm
>themselves. At warp 2 they would only have about a
>quarter of a second to get in firing range target the
>ship and fire the torpedo with any hope of it arming
>itself in time to detonate.
YAWWNNNN!!!!!! Another mistake. We have seen torpedoes travel a distance of a least 450,000,000km. Our best estimate puts their range at over 600,000,000km. A ship at warp two would take 200 seconds to cover that distance. That is over three minutes! I think that plenty of time for the tactical officer to target the ship, go away and get a coffee, and still be back in time to press the fire button.
As for the TM, it is not canon. That doesn't mean it cannot be used, just that in any conflict with the show, the TM ALWAYS loses (no 'ifs, 'buts' or 'maybes'...ALWAYS!). That means that in this case, we know that the range of torpedoes ARE higher than shown in the TM.
>If the ship fires at warp onesomething likeThe TOS examples you
>mentioned are even worse examples to use the range of
>klingon disruptors on those old klingon battle
>cruisers was only 100,000 km at warp 6 that's
>.00085034 seconds to react.
Firstly, where are you getting the range info from?
Secondly, not all examples use Klingon ships, and most examples use torpedoes not disruptors.
>torpedoes of the day had
>ranges of 750,000 km this gives a whopping .006377551
>seconds to react.
Source? I assume that its the TM. If so, you should read it again and get your facts right. Firstly, the torpedo you mention was the first type of torpedo, and was made in 2215. The original Enterprise was not even launched until 2245. That is 30 YEARS after that first torpedo. It gets even worse for you. Kirk did not take command of the Enterprise until somewhere around 2258. That is 43 years after that first torpedo. Therefore, the warp starafing examples would have occurred between 43-48 years after that first torpedo. Is it unreasonable to assume that after 43-48 years, the torpedo range might have been improved somewhat? Secondly, given that the torpedo ranges from the TM have been shown to be wrong anyway, this figure should be treated with a large grain of salt.
>Don't ya think maybe its a little
>implauseable. Just maybe the writers of the show back
>then were tring to make warpdrive seem to make the
>ships more maneuverable. Maybe the ships speed wasn't
>that fast but maybe the warp fieild made them lighter
>more agile like space-time driver coils on modern
>impulse drives. A non-propulsive static warp bubble
>wouldn't give them FTL speed but would give them alot
>more maneuverability so they could be as agile as a
>fighter but the size of a cruiser. It would also
>explain why with modern 24th century impulse drives
>they don't use the warpdrives in the manner showmn on
>TOS. This is complete conjecture and BS I realize, but
>it does fit with the dialog and would explain weapon
>range "mistakes" if the whole time they were infact at
>sub-light but generating a warpfield equal to 392
>cochranes in a static warp bubble to reduce the
>aparent mass of the ship so as to increase
>maneuverability.
Or, the events are exactly as shown ON SCREEN, but the non-canon TM is wrong. Hmm...let me think....occams razor anyone?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 