-
hey what's this??
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v480/punkboi/Parno2/polismassa.jpg[/img]
Cuzz looks like asteroids outside there. Just curious cuzz I don't remember what that scene was about. Maybe somebody can find a youtube link.
You don't actually think I'd pay close enough attention do you? And why I don't?
[img]http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/2506/fireshipsinvisiblehand.jpg[/img]
I've never seen anyone try to explain how at the speed they were traveling, a ship could literally 'pour' water like this. No wind resistance... thats a good trick. Even if there IS an explanation, it looks stupid as hell and I noticed it immediately. The physics just don't look right.
-
It isn't possible - that's not water, it's high-energy super-duper fire-extinguishing energetic plasma, that's shoved out at OVER NINE-THOUSAND 200 billion Gigajoulewattvoltampres
>_>
-
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2353826]that's shoved out at OVER NINE-THOUSAND 200 billion Gigajoulewattvoltampres
>_>[/QUOTE]
I knew that fanboy was lying... he CLAIMED it was 10,000+
:bugeye:
-
[QUOTE=TW Scott;2353622]First of all when you have a ship with shields and armor as powerful as a Star Destroyers, evasdive maneuvers is only for when trying to avoid collision with other ISDs. Like modern battleships battles are determined by who can bring the most guns to bear, not by who can dodge the most shots. Not to mention that a 1.6 km craft is going to be easy to hit even while trying to make maneuvers. So why waste the power you could be putting power into maneuvers instead shields or damage control?[/QUOTE]
You know scott, the last time i ever heard of a battleship battle was world war two between the USS George Washington i believe and a japanese battleship, actually that was the only time in world war 2 is believe where there was a ONE ON ONE encounter between two abttleships and one outright sank the other.
No the tirpitz doesnt count because a. it was taken on by like 3 battleships some cruisers and destroyers, and b. tehcnically speaking it was scuttled.
Anyways the shields on your ISDs suck, look at when Grievouses war ship took on that republic abttleship in the beginning of episode three, how long exactly was that engagement?
I went to the bathroom when it started and by the time i got out there was no ship left to be found...
Thats really sad shield strength.
-
[QUOTE=alpinedigital;2353777]hey what's this??
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v480/punkboi/Parno2/polismassa.jpg[/img]
Cuzz looks like asteroids outside there. Just curious cuzz I don't remember what that scene was about. Maybe somebody can find a youtube link.
You don't actually think I'd pay close enough attention do you? And why I don't?
[img]http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/2506/fireshipsinvisiblehand.jpg[/img]
I've never seen anyone try to explain how at the speed they were traveling, a ship could literally 'pour' water like this. No wind resistance... thats a good trick. Even if there IS an explanation, it looks stupid as hell and I noticed it immediately. The physics just don't look right.[/QUOTE]
The physics arent right, in practice the armour of those capitol ships can barely sustain an asteroid hitting it, and plus on re entry the ship would have been torn assunder jsut from the heat. And WHAT THE HELL is the point of putting water on soemthing that is smodlering around 2000+ degrees?
The fact is that the ship would have in reality never had a chance of landing in any less than 1000 seperate pieces spread over about 200 miles.
-
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2353743]Modern battleships? Are you STUPID? Who uses BATTLESHIPS anymore? I know the US hasn't used them since... oh... world war 2...?
And this is yet another reason Trek would win - the ability to evade incoming fire thanks to smaller size, more efficient engines, and far greater maneuverability.
And you are wrong... modern surface ships DO evade...
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzveUz-WRGQ[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p6KswPYXnU&feature=related[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxyMzR9K1Dk&feature=related[/url][/QUOTE]
Actually the 4 iowa class battleships are in current use by the US navy, 2 are moth balled, the reason being that when it comes time to bombard a beach, 9 sixteen inch diameter main guns do the job pretty damned well.
-
[QUOTE=fedr808;2354024]Actually the 4 iowa class battleships are in current use by the US navy, 2 are moth balled, the reason being that when it comes time to bombard a beach, 9 sixteen inch diameter main guns do the job pretty damned well.[/QUOTE]
You know what does the job better?
Missile strikes... from missile destroyers and cruisers... you know why? Pinpoint target-window of the target-building accuracy.
-
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2354083]You know what does the job better?
Missile strikes... from missile destroyers and cruisers... you know why? Pinpoint target-window of the target-building accuracy.[/QUOTE]
Actually, no missiles dont do the job better, actually they are way more innefficient, first off, the 16 inch projectile holds more explosives thna a cruise missile, and the cruise missile is many time more expensive.
anyways, the Iowas do carry 16 tomahawks anyways...
-
[QUOTE=fedr808;2354362]Actually, no missiles dont do the job better, actually they are way more innefficient, first off, the 16 inch projectile holds more explosives thna a cruise missile, and the cruise missile is many time more expensive.
anyways, the Iowas do carry 16 tomahawks anyways...[/QUOTE]
Uhm, you realize a Tomohawk Cruise Missile can level the entire city at once, right? A typical SSN can carry almost 150 TacToms (tactical tomohawks) with everything from Talm-A to Talm-N warheads... an SSBN could carry over 300 of the lil fuckers, giving it the ability to wipe out a small COUNTRY on it's own, all with conventional weapons!
And currently, the IOWA's are all decommed, as of 1992. [url]http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/battleships/battleships.asp[/url]
Currently, sea based overland fire support is conducted via Guided Missile frigates and destroyers... with the new DDX Class up in the air about if it's going to contain shore bombardment guns or rely on missiles.
A modern frigate has a rapid fire 3 inch battery capable of shore bombardment - a single modern frigate can put out as much firepower as a WW2 Battleship on a shore based target, with greater accuracy and less collateral damage.
-
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2354464]Uhm, you realize a Tomohawk Cruise Missile can level the entire city at once, right? A typical SSN can carry almost 150 TacToms (tactical tomohawks) with everything from Talm-A to Talm-N warheads... an SSBN could carry over 300 of the lil fuckers, giving it the ability to wipe out a small COUNTRY on it's own, all with conventional weapons![/QUOTE]TLAM-N is the nuclear warhead - hardly conventional.
The rest of the TLAMs have at most 1000-pound yields, if memory serves.
So without the nukes, the Tomahawk isn't all that impressive in terms of destructive capability, but can deliver what it does over impressive range and accuracy.
With nukes... well, whole other ball-game.
-
Lets get back to this though... can somebody explain all these asteroids? Are they just cruising out in an asteroid field? I dont remember anything about this scene...
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v480/punkboi/Parno2/polismassa.jpg[/img]
-
[QUOTE=Kittamaru;2354464]Uhm, you realize a Tomohawk Cruise Missile can level the entire city at once, right? A typical SSN can carry almost 150 TacToms (tactical tomohawks) with everything from Talm-A to Talm-N warheads... an SSBN could carry over 300 of the lil fuckers, giving it the ability to wipe out a small COUNTRY on it's own, all with conventional weapons!
And currently, the IOWA's are all decommed, as of 1992. [url]http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/battleships/battleships.asp[/url]
Currently, sea based overland fire support is conducted via Guided Missile frigates and destroyers... with the new DDX Class up in the air about if it's going to contain shore bombardment guns or rely on missiles.
A modern frigate has a rapid fire 3 inch battery capable of shore bombardment - a single modern frigate can put out as much firepower as a WW2 Battleship on a shore based target, with greater accuracy and less collateral damage.[/QUOTE]
Well for starters, were not counting nukes because of the fact that we wouldnt use them.
Using missiles is an idiotic idea. you wanna know why? because we would only aim for targets of interest, that means any and every buil;ding we see, what we wouldnt see are the enemy infantyr in the bushes, in the trees, behind the rocks.
With artillery barrages, for one thing you have the psychological affect, if your hidden in a bush you KNOW that you wont get hit by a tomahawk cruise missile, but artillery is soemwhat random, just pick a point and every target within 100 meters is screwed.
And also it keeps the enemies heads down much better than a missile does.
-
[QUOTE=alpinedigital;2354483]Lets get back to this though... can somebody explain all these asteroids? Are they just cruising out in an asteroid field? I dont remember anything about this scene...
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v480/punkboi/Parno2/polismassa.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Its the end of the third episode, its a secret base located on a giant asteroid in an asteroid field, its not an actual ship.
-
[QUOTE=Sarkus;2354481]TLAM-N is the nuclear warhead - hardly conventional.
The rest of the TLAMs have at most 1000-pound yields, if memory serves.
So without the nukes, the Tomahawk isn't all that impressive in terms of destructive capability, but can deliver what it does over impressive range and accuracy.
With nukes... well, whole other ball-game.[/QUOTE]
*grins* And what, may I ask, is the TASM warhead?
*bows* Pleased to meet someone else who ACTUALLY KNOWS Military tech :cool:
And yeah, TLAM-N isn't conventional, but eh, we have ships out there with em :) Ohio Class for starters :D
-
[QUOTE=fedr808;2354621]Well for starters, were not counting nukes because of the fact that we wouldnt use them.
Using missiles is an idiotic idea. you wanna know why? because we would only aim for targets of interest, that means any and every buil;ding we see, what we wouldnt see are the enemy infantyr in the bushes, in the trees, behind the rocks.
With artillery barrages, for one thing you have the psychological affect, if your hidden in a bush you KNOW that you wont get hit by a tomahawk cruise missile, but artillery is soemwhat random, just pick a point and every target within 100 meters is screwed.
And also it keeps the enemies heads down much better than a missile does.[/QUOTE]
And this kind of shore bombardment is usually done via smaller guns for the rapid refire and accuracy... cause generally, this would only be done with friendlies in the area. Otherwise, nowadays carpet bombing would be far more effective (we have cluster munitions able to take out an entire runway with one bomb, and even some with a delay on them to go off when people are out FIXING the runway).
Then we have mobile artillery like the M109A6 Paladin and the G6-52 Howitzer, able to land 6 shots simultaniously via variable flight trajectories.
Finally, if you ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY have to kill EVERYTHING in sight while Allies are nearby:
[img]http://www.kowabunga.org/images/pictures/military_aviation/ac-130h-0430-2.jpg[/img]
-
[QUOTE=fedr808;2354623]Its the end of the third episode, its a secret base located on a giant asteroid in an asteroid field, its not an actual ship.[/QUOTE]
Okay thats cool. Makes sense. An asteroid field is deadly to ships but they can sit and build a secret base in an asteroid field... no problem. So SW writers invent this asteroid taking out a tower on an ISD scene to show that the bad guys cant fly/shoot worth a shit?
-
I just threw this at somebody in a different thread:
"Q reveals that they have decided not to kill Amanda, and are willing to offer her a choice: return to the Continuum or live as a human and refrain from using her powers. Amanda immediately chooses the latter..."
And soon after, as lives were in danger, she uses her powers to save people from a reactor overload.
I present to you (and any other people who say 'Q' would not help in a Trek vs scenario,) [URL="http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/True_Q_(episode)"]Amanda Rogers from the episode True Q[/URL].
[IMG]http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/thumb/6/6d/Amanda_rogers.jpg/292px-Amanda_rogers.jpg[/IMG]
OH, and this is interesting... can anyone confirm if this data is useable to debate ST weapons power?
"Torpedoes are often depicted as being easy to modify to suit specific situations. Despite the stated maximum yield, torpedoes can apparently be made far more destructive with relatively little effort. In Star Trek: Voyager, Tuvok and Kim modify a normal photon torpedo with a gravimetric charge, similar to that of Borg technology, and increase its destructive yield to 54 isotons. Kim comments that 50 isotons would have been sufficient to destroy a small planet. Moments later, Janeway instructs them to increase its yield even further, to 80 isotons. It is not specified exactly how they modified the warhead, but it only requires a few hours to complete the work and uses materials readily available on Voyager."
-
[QUOTE=alpinedigital;2355025]I just threw this at somebody in a different thread:
"Q reveals that they have decided not to kill Amanda, and are willing to offer her a choice: return to the Continuum or live as a human and refrain from using her powers. Amanda immediately chooses the latter..."
And soon after, as lives were in danger, she uses her powers to save people from a reactor overload.
OH, and this is interesting... can anyone confirm if this data is useable to debate ST weapons power?
"Torpedoes are often depicted as being easy to modify to suit specific situations. Despite the stated maximum yield, torpedoes can apparently be made far more destructive with relatively little effort. In Star Trek: Voyager, Tuvok and Kim modify a normal photon torpedo with a gravimetric charge, similar to that of Borg technology, and increase its destructive yield to 54 isotons. Kim comments that 50 isotons would have been sufficient to destroy a small planet. Moments later, Janeway instructs them to increase its yield even further, to 80 isotons. It is not specified exactly how they modified the warhead, but it only requires a few hours to complete the work and uses materials readily available on Voyager."[/QUOTE]
Forgot Amanda chose to be a Q. Considering her upbringing, if any Q were to act it whould be her.
As for torpedo modifications, Warsies will probably
A)Laugh and claim their own weakest weapons are still giga-bajiga superly duperly times stronger than that.
B)Ignore the info or
C)Act out of character and accept it as fact.
-
Looking back on the Federation's laws, I recalled the Omega Directive as well as the system shutdown and lockout it causes at the detection of Omega. Did anyone besides me wonder if the directive will still initiate these actions if the ship was in a battle situation?
-
[QUOTE=Nexarc;2355551]Looking back on the Federation's laws, I recalled the Omega Directive as well as the system shutdown and lockout it causes at the detection of Omega. Did anyone besides me wonder if the directive will still initiate these actions if the ship was in a battle situation?[/QUOTE]
No - the commanding officer can override the Omega Directive at his discretion.
