| Subject: Re: Imperial fleet Vs Federation fleet |
Author:
capn hayes
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 13:42:56 10/01/02 Tue
Author Host/IP: NoHost/207.14.48.2
In reply to:
Warspite
's message, "Re: Imperial fleet Vs Federation fleet" on 08:30:05 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
>DO YOU REALIZE HOW STUPID YOU SOUND, YOU QUOTE THE THE TECH MANUAL ONE SECOND AND DISMISS IT OUT OF HAND THE NEXT, ONLY USING WHAT MAKES YOU SOUND RIGHT!
>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.
>YOU AREN'T CORRECTING ME YOU ARE ONLY USING DOUBLE TALK TO TRY AND MAKE YOURSELF LOOK GOOD WHEN IN FACT EVERYTHING I HAVE STATED IT CORRECT OUT OF THE TECH MANUAL REFERENCES TO GENERATORS BEING USED HAS NOTHING TO DO TARGETING ANYTHING AND I DID READ THE TM WHICH YOU DISMISS SO EASILY. MAYBE YOU SHOULD READ IT AGAIN BECAUSE I'M GETING TIRED OF EXPLAINING THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
>>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. i DON'T EVER REMEMBER SEEING A REFERENCE TO THOSE RANGES ON THE ANY SHOW OBVIOSLY YOUR CONFUSED AGIAIN SO YOU'VE RESORTED TO SPECULATION AS A WAY OUT. NICE TRY!
>
>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.
THIS IS SO YOU CAN ALWAYS BE RIGHT!
>
>>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? WELL IF YOU MUST KNOW THE OFFICIAL STAR TREK MAGAZINE.
>
>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. OF COURCE THAT WOULD MEAN YOU WERE WRONG AND WE CAN'T HAVE THAT.
>
>>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? NO IT WOULD MERELY PROVE MY POINT BUT WE CAN'T DO THAT.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 