Photon grenades and Fed Tanks??

Augustus Caesar · Post by **Augustus Caesar** » 2005-10-13 10:11am

++http://www.strek-v-swars.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=742

I know the debates at that site are frowned upon, but this topic of a Fed Army going toe-to-toe with a modern army without the usual toys(transporters, orbital support) is getting a bit outlandish. Newland is claiming that we can "estimate" the capabilities of Fed Tanks never seen on screen and the usual "phasers can vape tanks" claims. I'm debating Roondar there on photon grenades, and he seems to be the most reasonable of them all, but it's a bit hard to convine him that the photon grenade appears to be nothing more than a very powerful flashbang.

Any ideas on how to disprove Newland's claim on Fed Tanks apart from the never seen in canon argument and that phasers are almighty?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-10-13 10:54am

How can you disprove a claim with absolutely no supporting evidence? Simply point out that it has absolutely no supporting evidence. Challenge him to provide examples of phasers blowing through the equivalent of three feet of RHA, which is far tougher than rock (but in turn, much less tough than modern tank armour).

Augustus Caesar · Post by **Augustus Caesar** » 2005-10-13 11:24am

I just got the "UFP wins it's wars, so it therefore has superior tech and tanks". The comparison between the Allies and Axis during WW2 apparently went clear over his head, even when some German weapons were lightyears ahead of anything the Allies had at the time. I never thought proving that something never seen to exist does not exist would be so problematic.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2005-10-13 12:11pm

Augustus Caesar wrote:I just got the "UFP wins it's wars, so it therefore has superior tech and tanks". The comparison between the Allies and Axis during WW2 apparently went clear over his head, even when some German weapons were lightyears ahead of anything the Allies had at the time. I never thought proving that something never seen to exist does not exist would be so problematic.

Federation tanks don't exist. You don't have to prove that they exist. Since they're saying they exist, they have to prove it exists.

Ask them for a quote, a screenshot, any canon evidence that a Federation tank does exist, and keep asking for it.

<edit>Ah yes, absence of proof does not mean proof of absence, in other words if something has not been proven false it is therefore true, but the converse of this is if something has not been proven true it is therefore false (logical equivalence). If they try using argument from ignorance on you, say that the logical equivalent is if something has not been proven true it is therefore false, and also say that you are not trying to prove that it is false you are just asking for them to prove it is true. The burden of proof is on them.</edit>

Brian

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2005-10-13 12:18pm

Sounds like a standard Trekkie dilema. You point out that The US Marines can destroy the federation because they have Armor support and the Federation has only infantry. Even with Transports, the Federation troops have to take over instantly and since transporters make a shimmering sound as people appear the marine, uless deaf can turn to point guns at the Feddies.

Hence Ahh Tanks

So they assume they have to make up tanks in order solve the dilema. Now in the SFB board game they do have GCV which are part of the marine detatchments of the 'troop' ships in the game. Sadly these are not part of the Trek canon and can't be used as evidence or otherwise.

So they are either left with unseen tanks or PHASORS ROXXS! TANKS SUXXS!

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2005-10-13 12:24pm

Isolder74 wrote:Sounds like a standard Trekkie dilema. You point out that The US Marines can destroy the federation because they have Armor support and the Federation has only infantry. Even with Transports, the Federation troops have to take over instantly and since transporters make a shimmering sound as people appear the marine, uless deaf can turn to point guns at the Feddies.

The counter-argument for that would be that they would just transport the marines into space or something. There was a thread awhile back UFP fleet versus modern Earth, and I believe the consensus was that UFP fleet could defeat modern Earth and use transporters at will.

But seriously, there is only one thing to do. Keep asking them for canon evidence of tanks, keep asking for a quote of tanks, and keep asking because it's impossible to form a counter argument to a claim that has no supporting evidence. They will obviously try and say you're using argument from ignorance, which at that point you remind them of the converse, and say they are trying to shift the burden of proof, then keep asking for evidence. If you keep asking for evidence and they keep evading, even the most thick-headed mod will relent, especially if they're making a completely false claim, at least they should. That's the only way to win IMO, short of resorting to flames, which are disallowed. I don't see the point in making a counter-argument like you're saying Isolder, because there's no proof of UFP tanks in the first place.

Brian

Augustus Caesar · Post by **Augustus Caesar** » 2005-10-13 12:33pm

Their counter argument is that if other AQ powers have tanks or ground vehicles and that the Federation has beaten them in war, the Federation must have tanks.

And the usual claims of vaporizing granite instantly translates into vaporizing RHA.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2005-10-13 12:34pm

brianeyci wrote:
Isolder74 wrote:Sounds like a standard Trekkie dilema. You point out that The US Marines can destroy the federation because they have Armor support and the Federation has only infantry. Even with Transports, the Federation troops have to take over instantly and since transporters make a shimmering sound as people appear the marine, uless deaf can turn to point guns at the Feddies.
The counter-argument for that would be that they would just transport the marines into space or something. There was a thread awhile back UFP fleet versus modern Earth, and I believe the consensus was that UFP fleet could defeat modern Earth and use transporters at will.

But seriously, there is only one thing to do. Keep asking them for canon evidence of tanks, keep asking for a quote of tanks, and keep asking because it's impossible to form a counter argument to a claim that has no supporting evidence. They will obviously try and say you're using argument from ignorance, which at that point you remind them of the converse, and say they are trying to shift the burden of proof, then keep asking for evidence. If you keep asking for evidence and they keep evading, even the most thick-headed mod will relent, especially if they're making a completely false claim, at least they should. That's the only way to win IMO, short of resorting to flames, which are disallowed. I don't see the point in making a counter-argument like you're saying Isolder, because there's no proof of UFP tanks in the first place.

Brian

That's kind of the point I was trying to make. The false delemia of unseen tanks is if no take then Infantry must have a magic bullet or something. The counter to your point is most cases it seems eisier to beam something in then it is to beam the same thing out of an area.

Anyway. when has a trek power ever beamed an enemy force into space?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-10-13 12:45pm

Augustus Caesar wrote:Their counter argument is that if other AQ powers have tanks or ground vehicles and that the Federation has beaten them in war, the Federation must have tanks.

Who says the other AQ powers have tanks or ground vehicles? Where was the armour support during "Nor the Battle to the Strong" or "Siege of AR-588"? If they were destroyed, where were the wrecked vehicles?

And the usual claims of vaporizing granite instantly translates into vaporizing RHA.

Anyone who thinks RHA is just as easy to fracture as granite is a blithering idiot. That's all there is to it.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2005-10-13 12:51pm

I'll add that this 'klingon ground assault vehicle' appears non-canonically in the Star Trek Away Team game. As depicted there, it's about the worst ground vehicle I can imagine.

Augustus Caesar · Post by **Augustus Caesar** » 2005-10-13 01:06pm

Anyone who thinks RHA is just as easy to fracture as granite is a blithering idiot. That's all there is to it.

Roondar is equating phasers as some sort of super shaped charge weapon concentrating tons of TNT at one point, therefore breaking through tank armor.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2005-10-13 01:17pm

The only treck ground vechical we've heard of, see anywhere in canon are the Hoppers(VTOL style Shuttlecraft... Which are VTOL themselves so... Eh call them mil-speced shuttlecraft)

Agian and agian hammer that point in, We've never seen any Federation groundcraft ever in canon. If he mentions books or games make sure Paramount's policy of saying that nothing except the shows and movies is canon. Everything else they simple aprove of not check over. Meaning that authors are free to write what they wish and go where they want.

Hence their lack of canon status.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2005-10-13 01:35pm

Isolder74 wrote:That's kind of the point I was trying to make. The false delemia of unseen tanks is if no take then Infantry must have a magic bullet or something. The counter to your point is most cases it seems eisier to beam something in then it is to beam the same thing out of an area.

Anyway. when has a trek power ever beamed an enemy force into space?

Well they don't do this most of the time, probably because of humanitarian reasons. They've tried to beam people out in tactical situations, for example in VOY "Future's End", but were blocked by scattering fields. Probably they wouldn't have beamed them into space, but if the Bill Gates wannabe was something dangerous that could die in space like a tank, space would be better than a transporter room.

With the entanglement theory, for example B'Elanna's "skeletal lock", there's canon proof that it's easier to beam SOMETHING OUT than to beam something in, if you are not worried about missing a few atoms and killing the guy.

Supposedly a desperate enough Federation Commander would resort to ignoring humanitarian sanctions. They did that enough by violating the Prime Directive.

Brian

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2005-10-13 01:47pm

But wait! They've got the Argo! A dune buggy that can only shoot backwards has got to count for something, right?

Augustus Caesar · Post by **Augustus Caesar** » 2005-10-13 03:20pm

Are gigawatt figures for phasers valid? I've never actually done the math for them, and I'm quite sure they work by CR and not DET.

Typhonis 1 · Post by **Typhonis 1** » 2005-10-13 05:58pm

Actually Feddies transporting in have to worry about grenades most of all......funny whine lob a grenade at it... giuven how tightly packed together they are you can expect casualties .

More fun how common is tear gas in an armies arsenal? I sure as heck don`t see the Federation wearing anything like a gas mask....just a though Caesar.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2005-10-13 07:29pm

Remember, hand phasers have outputs in the gigawatts. Can't you just see that onscreen?????

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2005-10-13 08:59pm

The Federation doesn't need any tanks to win wars. All they have to do is sit in orbit and blast all beligerents from space. Federation sensors can detect individual humans inside cave systems, I doubt enemy tanks could hide anywhere. Federation star-ship phasers would most definitely blow a tank to smithereens, unlike hand-phasers and photon granades.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2005-10-13 09:28pm

Amusingly, their debators seem to constantly confuse the capabilities of hand- and starship-phasers. They have to create the niche requirement for armoured vehicles so they can fill them with their wanktastic Federation imagination tanks.

Deathstalker · Post by **Deathstalker** » 2005-10-13 09:36pm

Adrian hit a bit upon it. Assuming both sides are AQ, if you control local space, you don't need tanks, as you can blast anything on the surface, and you are going to need to send infantry to clear out underground caves, structures and things that you don't want leveled. If you don't control local space, using a tank on the surface is suicide, as it will be quickly blasted. The odds of both sides not controling local space is very slim.

On the phasor issue, if phasors are so all powerful that they "vaporize" virtually anything as some trekkies claim, then why aren't ships "vaporized" upon getting hit after their shields fail?

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2005-10-13 10:10pm

You both would have a point, if starship sensors were not so easily jammed. Also there is a need for tanks -- for when you have to go into enemy territory and hold ground. If you have space superiority, you don't always want to blast the place to smitherines, and if they deploy transporter scramblers and sensor jammers, you'll need protection against small arms phasers. If you want to hold a hostile population, what better way than to rumble an overwhelming number of armored vehicles into the city? There's something about that prehistoric rumble that wheeled cars can't match, and tracks are more versatile anyway.

Brian

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2005-10-13 11:09pm

Trying to invade and occupy enemy cities is impractical at best. Just a few well-populated planets would be enough to tie down a vast, vast number of troops, as well as far too many starships to make it worthwhile. Guerilla warfare is going to be near-impossible to quell on a planetary or even national scale without resorting to unacceptably brutal tactics. Without enslavement, you can't force the citizens to work for you and contribute to your war effort.

There's really very litte to be gained from engaging in a costly occupation of a significantly colonized planet during a hot war; the most advantageous plan would be to simply cut off the planet from space by destroying spaceports and hangars (and the ships contained within) from orbit, and then leaving behind a network of armed satellites to shoot down any ships launched from the surface, jam communications to the planet, and alert the fleet to any significant enemy forces in the area while the fleet moves on to the next objective. Basically, it would be too time-consuming and costly to take advantage of any resources the planet has to offer us, so the important thing is simply denying them to the enemy.

Certainly, there need to be ground forces developed and prepared in the event that a key enemy installation needs to be captured and the information within taken (a la DS9 Siege at AR-338), or for similar circumstances, but the outright occupation of an entire planet is simply too great an effort for Starfleet to even hope to provide enough ships for, let alone prepare and maintain a costly huge force for the rare event that that should happen.

(AR-338 was pretty retarded; they should have taken a starship and simply spent a few minutes (or however long they could afford to wait) phasering the shit out of the area surrounding the land they wanted to hold, and then they should have left behind an armed satellite for the Fed forces to call on for support. They had control of the skies, they should have fucking well used it.)

Presumably, after the war is over, the enemy will either cede the planets that were neutralized (in which case those citizens will either return to enemy territory or become citizens of the Federation, and we shouldn't need to have troops occupying the place) or the treaty will call for them to remain in enemy hands and the citizens will simply stay there - good thing we didn't spend a lot of blood occupying that land!

"Holding ground" is a nice concept in a war taking place on the ground, but given the very limited space resources available to Star Trek powers, and the fact that a sufficiently industrialized colony (presumably, one that's worth spending blood and money trying to capture) should be able to self-manufacture a ground defense far easier than an invading space power could transport and land a sufficient number of troops to break, it's not terribly practical in a Star Trek interstellar war whose battlefield is not the planets, but the space surrounding them.

Edward Yee · Post by **Edward Yee** » 2005-10-14 12:12am

Here's one more thing -- the moral. Can we trust the goodie two-shoes Federation NOT to somehow lower themselves and reduce their own advantages "for a fair fight"?

I mean, the very image of them zapping "helpless" people (theoretically landlocked, even if the planet is aerospace-capable) from space... that can't be good for your standing!

(Just look how fucking well that worked in Vietnam. >_> But I'm saying, I think the "UFP > Earth" argument completely ignores that.)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-10-14 01:27am

If phasers had gigawatt output, it would be impossible to use them in a confined space against a door with a "toranium inlay" as seen in DS9 without causing far more destruction than we saw. In fact, at that range, at full power, Kira and Sisko should have been killed.

dragon · Post by **dragon** » 2005-10-14 02:17am

Deathstalker wrote:Adrian hit a bit upon it. Assuming both sides are AQ, if you control local space, you don't need tanks, as you can blast anything on the surface, and you are going to need to send infantry to clear out underground caves, structures and things that you don't want leveled. If you don't control local space, using a tank on the surface is suicide, as it will be quickly blasted. The odds of both sides not controling local space is very slim.

On the phasor issue, if phasors are so all powerful that they "vaporize" virtually anything as some trekkies claim, then why aren't ships "vaporized" upon getting hit after their shields fail?

Also we have seen the shuttle craft act as ground support in both Voyager and Ent. With yields sufficient to take out tanks. The only hand weapon seen in ST universe thaty might take out a modern tank is that Breen weapon quark was trying to sell. As well as that plasma weapon the creature from the 29th century was using on homefront. The video showed him blowing up a building and a tank assuming it wasn't propaganda.