Starfleet vs UNSC Ground Troops

Battlegrinder said:
Any conclusion to the effect of "whatever we saw on the actual show never would have really happened in the real star trek" is wrong by default, no matter who says it.
Click to expand...

Do you know what a portrayal is? The show is portraying what happens, it is not the actual events themselves--although we can assume a strong level of accuracy. Captain Picard for example, is portrayed by Patrick Stewart. The actual Picard does not look like Patrick Stewart exactly, but rather the two bear a strong resemblance to one another. One would think this is obvious, with Patrick Stewart being an English actor depicting a French Starfleet captain. Or to bring up LotR again, Frodo Baggins is portrayed by Elijah Woods, he doesn't actually LOOK like Elijah Woods.

I'm not just making shit up either. I'm using the TM based on the writer's guide that helped keep continuity within the show (not to mention what happens in the show). And while yes, it was sold at a profit, that does not change the fact that it was a creation of passion--same as the show itself. Moore telling us the obvious; that these are not entirely accurate portrayals of how firefights would happen, reinforces this rather obvious position of reality. The whole "we need to treat this as a documentary and religious dogma" was established by a few early nerds online to lock people into an unrealistic point of view.
 
Battlegrinder said:
And that simply cannot be true, because such a capability would have been used on numerous occasions and never was. For example, AR-588, where the plot literally would not function if it was possible for phasers to lay down a continuous barrage of lethal fire into an extremely narrow (a few meters at most) chokepoint, even if it required constant fire from multiple phasers to do it it would have still been a better plan than just firing off single shots and letting it degenerate into a melee.
Click to expand...
We have to conclude against a thing that actually happened in the show.
Battlegrinder said:
Any conclusion to the effect of "whatever we saw on the actual show never would have really happened in the real star trek" is wrong by default, no matter who says it.
Click to expand...
Also, you're not allowed to come to conclusions against what happened on the show.

The irony here is thick enough to mine.

ShadowArxxy said:
No, this is completely incorrect. I checked the scene before my prior post to make sure I had the dialogue correct and rechecked it again just now. Burnham doesn't say anything at all while she's actually looking at the weapons collection; she looks at the display cases, then turns around and faces Lorca before speaking. Her back is to the weapons, and her exact words, are "These are some of the deadliest weapons in the galaxy."
Click to expand...
So you snipped the part where you were wrong about the grenades existing, the bit that, y'know, the entire post is about to nitpick an error I made in the direction the character was facing that has no bearing on the actual point that grenades are in the frame? I'm disappointed in you.
 
Bear Ribs said:
We have to conclude against a thing that actually happened in the show.
Also, you're not allowed to come to conclusions against what happened on the show.

The irony here is thick enough to mine.
Click to expand...

There is a significant difference between "this one line is wrong" and "every firefight ever seen on the show, along with numerous other plot points, are wrong".

At best, the conclusion you are drawing from the dislogue is faulty. If wide beam kill exists, the fact it's never used in combat suggests it must have downsides that make it unusable in such cases, perhaps the "wide beam" is only a bit wider than normal, enough to possibly tag a few people standing close together, or the beam disperses heavily at distance so it's only useful at point blank range.

But whatever conclusion you draw, it has to align to the fact that in dozens of engagements, no one on any side has just thumbed a button and then zapped the entire opposing side with a wide beam kill shot, even when it would instantly ended the fight and saved everyone's lives.
 
Battlegrinder said:
There is a significant difference between "this one line is wrong" and "every firefight ever seen on the show, along with numerous other plot points, are wrong".

At best, the conclusion you are drawing from the dislogue is faulty. If wide beam kill exists, the fact it's never used in combat suggests it must have downsides that make it unusable in such cases, perhaps the "wide beam" is only a bit wider than normal, enough to possibly tag a few people standing close together, or the beam disperses heavily at distance so it's only useful at point blank range.

But whatever conclusion you draw, it has to align to the fact that in dozens of engagements, no one on any side has just thumbed a button and then zapped the entire opposing side with a wide beam kill shot, even when it would instantly ended the fight and saved everyone's lives.
Click to expand...

Actually, we can see that when they're using the stun setting, there is a vast drop in combat range. The widebeam stun only extends out to a few meters and stops. While a high level setting probably has a longer range it's going to have significantly shorter ranges than what we see with the typical phaser setting. The wider the beam, the shorter the length of the beam. It is also of course, probably really dangerous to simply fire a widebeam like that into combat. That's why most combat uses of it seem limited to stun.

EDIT
Actually, we also know that widebeam isn't just a one or the other thing. The width of the beam is controlled by one of the buttons on the phaser. So you could actually widen the damage in return for shortening the length of the beam.

That may be a useful solution to our dilemma of phaser interactions. A phaser set to a narrow beam is likely to penetrate its target, vaporize part of them, and keep on going. Meanwhile, a phaser set to a wider beam is more likely to cause a more even NDF effect, while but at the cost of range. That would explain how a phaser will blow up rock in one scene and in the other, neatly disintegrate it.
 
Friendly Reminder - Rule 2f: Stay on Topic
You know, I wouldn't be surprised if my great-grandfather's WWI unit could kick the shit out of whatever the hell ST film producers think ground combat is like.

They'd have trench coats, gas masks, and bayonetted Winchester model 1897s. There's a reason why a 12-gauge pump action shotgun sometimes gets called a "Street Sweeper".
 
The Original Sixth said:
That damaged the shuttlepod wasn't the P-51s, it was the anti-aircraft fire.

When the shuttlepod was hit, it took damage and it was enough to force the shuttlepod to return to Enterprise. I repeat, it was enough to make the shuttlepod, flee to space. Coincidentally? WWII anti-air consisted mostly of 90mm cannons.

en.wikipedia.org

90 mm gun M1/M2/M3 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

An unshielded, outdated shuttlepod from the 22nd century is about as durable as a UNSC tank, from what I can see.
Click to expand...

That's an absurd interpretation.

UNSC tanks take direct hits from hypervelocity smoothbore 90mm cannons, versus your 22nd century shuttlepod which is brought down in flames from proximity detonations of 90mm anti-aircraft shells. In other words, your vaunted shuttlepod is in fact only marginally more durable than completely unarmored WWII aircraft, while also being just as slow and vulnerable as a WWII heavy bomber.
 
ShadowArxxy said:
That's an absurd interpretation.

UNSC tanks take direct hits from hypervelocity smoothbore 90mm cannons, versus your 22nd century shuttlepod which is brought down in flames from proximity detonations of 90mm anti-aircraft shells. In other words, your vaunted shuttlepod is in fact only marginally more durable than completely unarmored WWII aircraft, while also being just as slow and vulnerable as a WWII heavy bomber.
Click to expand...

The shuttlepod never went down. :ROFLMAO:

The shuttlepod was damaged after several direct hits by anti-aircraft shells. It then returned to Enterprise and was able to safely dock. They then pulled the 50 cal that had embedded themselves in the hull of the ship. Maybe at least watch the episode or read the script before you open your trap. :LOL:

And that was a 22nd century shuttlepod. It's about 200 years out of date.
 
"Our ship is awesome because it was only badly damaged by weapons two centuries out of date" is not a very compelling argument. It's like gloating about how awesome a tank is because it's armor mostly withstood being shot at by revolutionary war era black power cannons.

Also, it's not very likely that the shuttle withstood direct hits from AA shells, because WW2 era AA shells are proximity fused and detonate when they are near a target, they shouldn’t ever directly hit a target. Incidentally this tracks much better to the shuttlepod's hull being insufficiently sturdy to withstand M2 browning machine guns.
 
Last edited:
Battlegrinder said:
"Our ship is awesome because it was only badly damaged by weapons two centuries out of date" is not a very compelling argument. It's like gloating about how awesome a tank is because it's armor mostly withstood being shot at by revolutionary war era black power cannons.
Click to expand...

The shuttlepod is also two centuries out of date.

Also, it's not very likely that the shuttle withstood direct hits from AA shells, because WW2 era AA shells are proximity fused and detonate when they are near a target, they shouldn’t ever directly hit a target. Incidentally this tracks much better to the shuttlepod's hull being insufficiently sturdy to withstand M2 browning machine guns.
Click to expand...

The shuttlepod was hit with direct and indirect fire from the flake. Try again.
 
The Original Sixth said:
The shuttlepod was damaged after several direct hits by anti-aircraft shells. It then returned to Enterprise and was able to safely dock. They then pulled the 50 cal that had embedded themselves in the hull of the ship. Maybe at least watch the episode or read the script before you open your trap. :LOL:
Click to expand...

Challenge accepted. Cue Enterprise, Season 4, Episode 1. . .

. . . the shuttlepod didn't take any direct hits. You see it rocking from proximity detonations close to the hull, a control panel beeps and Maywether exclaims "Starboard injector!" (implying they've taken damage to that component), and Trip replies, "Get us out of here!" Cuts to an external view of the shuttlepod continuing to be rocked by close proximity detonations as it climbs up and out, then cuts to the title sequence.
 
The Original Sixth said:
The shuttlepod is also two centuries out of date.
Click to expand...

And as I said before, since later shuttles have shields, nav deflectors, and SIF to protect them while the shuttlepod must rely only it's hull, there is no reason to just assume newer craft are built be far tougher, since they don't need to be heavily built like the shuttlepod was. You're just assuming that since they're newer, they must automatically be better, for....some reason.

For a real life example, 200 years ago shore parties went ashore in small, study wooden boats. Today, we use boats like this one:
rigid-hull-inflatable-boat-004.jpg


Which are, despite our improved technology, not much tougher than a simple wood boat, because their design role doesn't call for it.

The Original Sixth said:
The shuttlepod was hit with direct and indirect fire from the flake. Try again.
Click to expand...

The dialogue and visuals don't establish anything about a them taking a direct hit from a flak shell.

EDIT: And just in the course of a normal engagement, a direct hit would be vanishingly unlikely, proximity fused shells were used for AAA precisely because scoring a hit on a small, distant, fast moving target like a plane was virtually impossible, particularly something like a shuttle here, which at the shown attitude is possibly crossing a gun's field of fire faster the than gun itself can physically traverse, and the radar guided, hydralically traversed AA guns that could more easily engage such a target would not become operational until after the war and were still only intended for use with proximity fused ammunition. It would be a miracle for the manually operated ones that were likely in use there to score a direct hit, and that's almost certainly what the pod was under from (if panzers are rolling though Ohio the US government probably has more urgent priorities).
 
Last edited:
stephen the barbarian said:
point of order, proximity fuzes were not used in flak guns, the germans used timed delay fuzes that were radar directed.
as time went by the timing was dialed in making the shell more effective.
this means that the 8.8mm guns were able to do that damage with their least precise shots.
Click to expand...

Given that this is the United States in a timeline where the Nazis took over with alien assistance, those are far more likely to be American 90mm flak guns, not German eighty-eights. The 90mm AA guns had proximity fuses and radar direction, and are the only flak guns in WWII that could plausibly fire flak with anything even broadly resembling the accuracy seen in the scene.
 
Bear Ribs said:
So you snipped the part where you were wrong about the grenades existing, the bit that, y'know, the entire post is about to nitpick an error I made in the direction the character was facing that has no bearing on the actual point that grenades are in the frame? I'm disappointed in you.
Click to expand...

The grenades only "exist" if you accept unofficial, non-canon evidence outside of the episode itself, i.e. the prop picture and captions that you found, and you're still completely wrong in claiming that she was "playing with them" (nothing even REMOTELY like that happens), then claiming that she "was looking right at them" (she's literally FACING THE OTHER WAY).

Your entire point is supposedly that she's clearly referencing these particular grenades when she says these are incredibly deadly weapons, except *that is not even remotely true*. She's clearly referencing the collection as a whole, especially since she said these are *some of the* deadliest weapons, something you repeatedly misquoted on top of your entirely made-up "playing with them" and "looking right at them".
 
ShadowArxxy said:
The grenades only "exist" if you accept unofficial, non-canon evidence outside of the episode itself, i.e. the prop picture and captions that you found, and you're still completely wrong in claiming that she was "playing with them" (nothing even REMOTELY like that happens), then claiming that she "was looking right at them" (she's literally FACING THE OTHER WAY).

Your entire point is supposedly that she's clearly referencing these particular grenades when she says these are incredibly deadly weapons, except *that is not even remotely true*. She's clearly referencing the collection as a whole, especially since she said these are *some of the* deadliest weapons, something you repeatedly misquoted on top of your entirely made-up "playing with them" and "looking right at them".
Click to expand...
No, my entire point is that the grenades exist. I've provided numerous examples of them existing and that's really all I cared about.

I mostly grew offended at Battlegrinder deciding he personally was the arbiter of everything and got to decide what was and was not canon, with AR-558 put as the holy of holies and everything else that wasn't present there from grenades to backpacks got to be discounted even if we see them on-set, and everything else gets to be chosen and curated by him so that the weakest possibly showing against his favored faction, with even canon feats discounted on the grounds that "they didn't use it at AR-558." He declares that you can't dismiss canon in one post and then dismisses it as "can't be true or they would have used it on AR-558" in the next. He literally claimed the Federation is incapable of CAS with a video of a shuttle providing close air support in the same post.

Whether or not Burnham was playing with them, and I accept my error there due to looking at the wrong character, is so far down the list of importance it effectively doesn't exist except for you to fixate on and chant "No you're wrong wrong wrong" rather than address the actual point.
 
On another note I wonder why Starfleet in this scenario wants the Forerunner facilities so badly that its willing to send in waves of redshirts to take them if need be. I mean I get why the UNSC would but they have experience with why Forerunner facilities are something you have to secure to ensure no flood is there
 
The Feddies believe they can control the Flood, and Section 31 is going to use them in targeted releases against the enemies of the Federation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top