Phaser auto-target capabilities?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-31 08:33pm

Darth Fanboy wrote:I wouldnt doubt that The Feds use some kind of auto targeting, they are very proficient at sometime applying and even overapplying technology to perform certain tasks. However, despite the accuracy, does it make the Feds efficient at ground combat? If they could apply the tech that makes their phasers so accurate to powerful and more practical ground weaponry then maybe we could take them seriously.

The auto-targeting makes their existing weapons more effective. They could have more effective weapons period based on the technology we have observed, but they don't use them.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-31 09:59pm

When Seven of Nine and Janeway were playing that phaser-racket ball on the holodeck, were the auto-aim features on or off? On the one hand, it wouldn't be very sporting of them to use the auto-aim in a game like that, but they were maintaining a pretty high accuracy.

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2003-01-31 10:06pm

Probbly on auto aim, Seven of Nine had never fired a phaser before in her life and Janeway probably saw little or no combat as an officer

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-31 10:08pm

Darth Fanboy wrote:Probbly on auto aim, Seven of Nine had never fired a phaser before in her life and Janeway probably saw little or no combat as an officer

Actually, Janeway served in combat during the Cardassian-UFP border dispute.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2003-02-01 01:09am

You are making several mistakes with your assumptions. First you are assuming that they are skilled at firing their weapons without sights. This takes years of practice and is not very good for combat situations in which you hold the weapon in various angles. Second, you compare a weapon with no sights to a weapon that has sights. Third, you do no realize how insanely difficult it is to achieve a 77% accuracy out to 50 meters with absolutely no sights on a weapon.

OMG you are nuts. Where did you see them hitting anywhere close to shots at 50 meters with high accuracy? It is actually incredibly EASY to aim a weapon with a natural tracer like a phaser because you can see where the beam is going. Bullets do not have these.

In certain episodes, we actually see the feddies doing target practice on the holodeck. This is probably standard practice for most officers. Hell they even compete with each other in it.

And my explination fits the facts, unlike your opinion. Fact is we see off axis shots. Fact is we see high levels of accuracy without use of sights. Fact is we have dialogue that clearly indicates auto target capabilities. Those are all canon facts and nothing you have said can over ride them. And my non-canon TM quote SUPPORTS these facts which further gives them standing.

You have absolutely NO PROOF of any sort of auto targeting capability of phasers. Off axis firing only indicates that they are capable of fireing off axis. How the hell do you explain the numerous MISSES of STATIONARY TARGETS that we see all thoughout the TNG, DS9, and VOY series'?

Hell one of the "Greatest warriors" in the federation (word) missed a ferengi he was firing at by a meter and a half. And HE was just standing there! He ducked, but even if he didnt it still wouldve missed him by a few feet. What a wonderful tareting system.

"high" and I use the term loosely levels of accuracy "without sights" indicates taht there MUST be auto targeting? WTF kind of logic is that? Modern pistols, when set up properly are "highly accurate" at most ranges we've seen the feds fight at despite the fact that they do not have sights. I also fail to see how a phaser rifle (WHICH DOES HAVE A SIGHT BTW) would be any more difficult to aim then a moddern m16 rifle which has an effective range of 200 metersThat is 4 times the vaunted "50 meters" range you spoke of.

Most of everything in the tech manual is complete bullshit. And I find it funny that in ALL THE YEARS of trek we NEVER SEE anyone mentioning changing settings on the "auto targeting" of phasers, even though we see them change the power settings numerous times and technoblunder their way through the entire run of all 3 post TOS series'. You are attributing tech to the feds that is utterly beyond their capabilities. You would have us believe that they pack scanning equipment, which would be required in order to have an auto targeting system; a processor with a sophisticated AI able to distinguish friend from foe, despite the fact that the feds are a multi race conglomorate and that many times federation members species will be the "bad guys"; AND the power cell and components of the phaser itself all in that one small package? Give me a BREAK. If they could do that, why the hell are their tricorders so bulky?

You have completely FAILED to prove your point Aleyska. The burden of proof is on you to show that they have auto targeting and you have completely failed to do so.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-02-01 10:20am

Admiral_K wrote:

You are making several mistakes with your assumptions. First you are assuming that they are skilled at firing their weapons without sights. This takes years of practice and is not very good for combat situations in which you hold the weapon in various angles. Second, you compare a weapon with no sights to a weapon that has sights. Third, you do no realize how insanely difficult it is to achieve a 77% accuracy out to 50 meters with absolutely no sights on a weapon.
OMG you are nuts. Where did you see them hitting anywhere close to shots at 50 meters with high accuracy? It is actually incredibly EASY to aim a weapon with a natural tracer like a phaser because you can see where the beam is going. Bullets do not have these.

In certain episodes, we actually see the feddies doing target practice on the holodeck. This is probably standard practice for most officers. Hell they even compete with each other in it.

If you are using a tracer to hit a target then that means it will first miss, then track on to the target. That is no the case. In DS9 Rocks and Shoals at a range of 50+ meters Starfleet personel scored a success rate of 77% while not using Sights. Also, could you bring up these target practices with rifles? I have yet to see one in DS9 ot TNG.

And my explination fits the facts, unlike your opinion. Fact is we see off axis shots. Fact is we see high levels of accuracy without use of sights. Fact is we have dialogue that clearly indicates auto target capabilities. Those are all canon facts and nothing you have said can over ride them. And my non-canon TM quote SUPPORTS these facts which further gives them standing.
You have absolutely NO PROOF of any sort of auto targeting capability of phasers. Off axis firing only indicates that they are capable of fireing off axis. How the hell do you explain the numerous MISSES of STATIONARY TARGETS that we see all thoughout the TNG, DS9, and VOY series'?

You are talking about the Type-2 hand phasers. I am talking about the Type-3 phaser rifles. Might want to stay up with the debate.

Hell one of the "Greatest warriors" in the federation (word) missed a ferengi he was firing at by a meter and a half. And HE was just standing there! He ducked, but even if he didnt it still wouldve missed him by a few feet. What a wonderful tareting system.

I have only been talking about Type-3 rifles.

"high" and I use the term loosely levels of accuracy "without sights" indicates taht there MUST be auto targeting? WTF kind of logic is that? Modern pistols, when set up properly are "highly accurate" at most ranges we've seen the feds fight at despite the fact that they do not have sights. I also fail to see how a phaser rifle (WHICH DOES HAVE A SIGHT BTW) would be any more difficult to aim then a moddern m16 rifle which has an effective range of 200 metersThat is 4 times the vaunted "50 meters" range you spoke of.

Yes, the Type-3 has sights, however in the DS9 episode Rocks and Shoals they were not used. When it comes to firing a modern rifle, you would be lucky to hit the side of a barn if you didn't have sights. I suggest you learn how modern assault rifles work. Also don't bother comparing ranges of modern rifles and the phasers, we all know the short commings.

Most of everything in the tech manual is complete bullshit. And I find it funny that in ALL THE YEARS of trek we NEVER SEE anyone mentioning changing settings on the "auto targeting" of phasers, even though we see them change the power settings numerous times and technoblunder their way through the entire run of all 3 post TOS series'. You are attributing tech to the feds that is utterly beyond their capabilities. You would have us believe that they pack scanning equipment, which would be required in order to have an auto targeting system; a processor with a sophisticated AI able to distinguish friend from foe, despite the fact that the feds are a multi race conglomorate and that many times federation members species will be the "bad guys"; AND the power cell and components of the phaser itself all in that one small package? Give me a BREAK. If they could do that, why the hell are their tricorders so bulky?

You are ignoring canon fact. You also completely ignored a quote that comes directly from Deep Space Nine in which the Type-3 is stated to have multiple target aquisition and gyrostabilization capabilities. Furthermore I did not use the TM alone. I use the TM to further support canon fact I already have. And when it comes to determining how the auto-targeting systems works, I don't have to. We have proof that such a system works. How it works and how the soldier operates, I don't know. But we know it exists.

You have completely FAILED to prove your point Aleyska. The burden of proof is on you to show that they have auto targeting and you have completely failed to do so.

I have met the burden of proof. You have ignored it. Most everyone else agrees with my analysis. You ingore canon evidence and you have tried side tracking the debate by bringing Type-2 hand phasers into this.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2003-02-01 12:48pm

You are talking about the Type-2 hand phasers. I am talking about the Type-3 phaser rifles. Might want to stay up with the debate.

The title of the thread was auto-targeting of phasers. NO mention of the term RIFLE was made in the first post. If you choose to ignore this and assume I was talking only about the rifles then that is your mistake. Not to mention the fact that one of your key pieces of evidence of an off axis firing is seen NUMEROUS times on the hand phasers as well. If you are saying that hand phasers do not have auto targeting, then you can't use the off axis firing of the rifle as evidence that it has auto targeting capabilities. It means just what I said it means: that it

Yes, the Type-3 has sights, however in the DS9 episode Rocks and Shoals they were not used. When it comes to firing a modern rifle, you would be lucky to hit the side of a barn if you didn't have sights. I suggest you learn how modern assault rifles work. Also don't bother comparing ranges of modern rifles and the phasers, we all know the short commings.

And as YOU said a phaser rifle is quite different from a moddern rifle. First and foremost, the fact that you have a natural tracer that you can use to help guide you. With a rifle you have no such aid making it much harder to hit your target "without sights". You also still haven't proven that practice with a beam weapon such as a phaser could be used to overcome these deficiencies. IF it had auto aimin capabilites WHY EVEN HAVE SIGHTS??? The fact that they are there indicates that they must be aimed manually.

You are ignoring canon fact. You also completely ignored a quote that comes directly from Deep Space Nine in which the Type-3 is stated to have multiple target aquisition and gyrostabilization capabilities.

Sorry but multiple target acquisitiong doesn't mean that you have an auto aiming device. It merely means you are aware of the target. This could be in the form of a motion tracker, or some other combination of sensors that allows it to create a small "radar screen" of sorts detailing targets, their ranges, etc. No where does she say "Just point it at your enemy and it will aim for you". As far as gyrostabilization goes, I fail to see how this has ANYTHING to do with an auto aiming feature. Gyrostabilizers are used to reduce side to side rolling, and I assume that is what this does: helps steady the rifle in the hands of its user. If you had auto targeting combined with off axis firing as you claim, you wouldn't even need this.

Furthermore I did not use the TM alone. I use the TM to further support canon fact I already have. And when it comes to determining how the auto-targeting systems works, I don't have to. We have proof that such a system works. How it works and how the soldier operates, I don't know. But we know it exists.

No, we don't know that they exist. You've shown no proof and your points are ALL questionable. You have ONE cannon quote which is ambiguous at best, and numerous pieces of evidence that bode against you. You have a TM written by people makeing the same baseless assumptions that you are. After I started debating with you, I looked through the rest of the forum and found your posts on phaser rifles. And I see I'm not the only one who isn't buying into your theory.

I have met the burden of proof. You have ignored it. Most everyone else agrees with my analysis. You ingore canon evidence and you have tried side tracking the debate by bringing Type-2 hand phasers into this.

You have met the burden of proof? In whose eyes? I noticed in those other threads that very FEW people are actually agreeing with you, Mr. Wong chiefly among them. And I fail to see how I am side trackin the debate by "bringing in type 2 hand phasers" when the title of the subject line was "auto targeting of phasers". Sorry if you didn't read it and just assumed we were all talking about phaser rifles.

Also, In Star Trek insurection we have worf using a phaser bazooka of some type, yet he misses by quite a large degree. And I seriously doubt that someone like worf would miss on purpose... If auto targeting capabilities were found on phaser rifles, then SURELY they would be employed on the bazooka since it appeared to be a one shot and done weapon where accuracy would be highly important.

So let me ask you this, WHO exactly is agreeing with you?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-02-01 01:04pm

Admiral_K wrote:
You are talking about the Type-2 hand phasers. I am talking about the Type-3 phaser rifles. Might want to stay up with the debate.
The title of the thread was auto-targeting of phasers. NO mention of the term RIFLE was made in the first post. If you choose to ignore this and assume I was talking only about the rifles then that is your mistake. Not to mention the fact that one of your key pieces of evidence of an off axis firing is seen NUMEROUS times on the hand phasers as well. If you are saying that hand phasers do not have auto targeting, then you can't use the off axis firing of the rifle as evidence that it has auto targeting capabilities. It means just what I said it means: that it

Numerous people have already stated that Type-2s likely don't have auto targeting capabilities. Even I have stated this.

Yes, the Type-3 has sights, however in the DS9 episode Rocks and Shoals they were not used. When it comes to firing a modern rifle, you would be lucky to hit the side of a barn if you didn't have sights. I suggest you learn how modern assault rifles work. Also don't bother comparing ranges of modern rifles and the phasers, we all know the short commings.
And as YOU said a phaser rifle is quite different from a moddern rifle. First and foremost, the fact that you have a natural tracer that you can use to help guide you. With a rifle you have no such aid making it much harder to hit your target "without sights". You also still haven't proven that practice with a beam weapon such as a phaser could be used to overcome these deficiencies. IF it had auto aimin capabilites WHY EVEN HAVE SIGHTS??? The fact that they are there indicates that they must be aimed manually.

I notice that you failed to quote my earlier statement on the Tracer issue. It already adresses your reposted statement on tracers. Go back and read it. You continue to claim that its possible to score accurately without sights. You do not know how a rifle works. And as to the flip up sight. I already adressed this issue many times. The back-up sight is there for obvious reasons. Why do modern assault rifles have back up iron sights even when they use scopes? Because if your primary system fails you need a backup that works. You claim they don't have auto aiming because they have sights but you ignore the fact that they usually don't use said sights.

You are ignoring canon fact. You also completely ignored a quote that comes directly from Deep Space Nine in which the Type-3 is stated to have multiple target aquisition and gyrostabilization capabilities.
Sorry but multiple target acquisitiong doesn't mean that you have an auto aiming device. It merely means you are aware of the target.

And what use is this when you have no sights?
http://www.phasers.net/2360/ds9tp3g.jpg
Please tell me how multiple target aquisition is helping O'Brien target the enemy when he isn't even using a sight.

This could be in the form of a motion tracker, or some other combination of sensors that allows it to create a small "radar screen" of sorts detailing targets, their ranges, etc. No where does she say "Just point it at your enemy and it will aim for you".

Which is useless with no heads up display. Rifles have auto targeting capabilities.

As far as gyrostabilization goes, I fail to see how this has ANYTHING to do with an auto aiming feature. Gyrostabilizers are used to reduce side to side rolling, and I assume that is what this does: helps steady the rifle in the hands of its user. If you had auto targeting combined with off axis firing as you claim, you wouldn't even need this.

You need such a system in events of quick firefights so that the user does not move the rifle so quickly that the weapon itself can't adjust.

No, we don't know that they exist. You've shown no proof and your points are ALL questionable. You have ONE cannon quote which is ambiguous at best, and numerous pieces of evidence that bode against you. You have a TM written by people makeing the same baseless assumptions that you are. After I started debating with you, I looked through the rest of the forum and found your posts on phaser rifles. And I see I'm not the only one who isn't buying into your theory.

Are you stupid or just a fucking idiot? I have repeatedly shown the evidence which you have completely ignored.

You have met the burden of proof? In whose eyes? I noticed in those other threads that very FEW people are actually agreeing with you, Mr. Wong chiefly among them. And I fail to see how I am side trackin the debate by "bringing in type 2 hand phasers" when the title of the subject line was "auto targeting of phasers". Sorry if you didn't read it and just assumed we were all talking about phaser rifles.

You are side tracking the debate because I have already stated Type-2s don't have auto aiming capabilities. You are side tracking the debate because you are making pointless nitpicks. Incidently I am more inclined to think Mike agreeing with me is better then your disagreeing with me.

Also, In Star Trek insurection we have worf using a phaser bazooka of some type, yet he misses by quite a large degree. And I seriously doubt that someone like worf would miss on purpose... If auto targeting capabilities were found on phaser rifles, then SURELY they would be employed on the bazooka since it appeared to be a one shot and done weapon where accuracy would be highly important.

Missed? So Worf didn't knock out any of the Sona? Oh, wait, he did.

So let me ask you this, WHO exactly is agreeing with you?

Read the thread again.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-02-01 02:41pm

I still don't buy the 'High accuracy with ergonomically bad design = Autotargetting'. We see high accuracy with Type 2 hand phasers, but no one claims they have autotargetting for good reason. It's rather obvious we must fall back on assuming training includes lots of work with the Hand Phaser to get the accuracy we see, yet we must immediately assume because the Type 3 isn't a perfect design they must have computer aid?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-02-01 02:51pm

SirNitram wrote:I still don't buy the 'High accuracy with ergonomically bad design = Autotargetting'. We see high accuracy with Type 2 hand phasers, but no one claims they have autotargetting for good reason. It's rather obvious we must fall back on assuming training includes lots of work with the Hand Phaser to get the accuracy we see, yet we must immediately assume because the Type 3 isn't a perfect design they must have computer aid?

Part of it is size and firepower. Rifles have no demonstrated much more power then the hand units. Yet with all that space they have more capabilities. And yes, we have seen some high accuracy with hand phasers. However we have seen just as much low accuracy. Poe has severl instances of hand phasers being inaccurate.

As to the Type-2s firing off axis. This is actually an issue the art department adressed multiple times. The Type-2s shown in TNG were eventually replaced with the "Bannana" design in DS9 and Voyager because it was near impossible to line up the beam with the hand phaser itself. The earlier examples of off axis with the TNG era phasers are VFX mistakes.

Last of all, the accuracy with the Type-2s is usually at close range when holding a weapon in that general angle means your going to hit things relatively well.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2003-02-01 03:33pm

Numerous people have already stated that Type-2s likely don't have auto targeting capabilities. Even I have stated this.

Well excuse me if I haven't read absolutely everything you have written on the issue. Its not as if it has been organized for my easy reading

. I am only referring to what you ahve said in this debate.

You frequently mention that "off axis firing" is evidence of a targeting system. I pointed out that we see off axis firing on the hand phasers as well, which completely DISPROVES your claim if you are admitting that type 2 phasers don't have targeting systems.

I notice that you failed to quote my earlier statement on the Tracer issue. It already adresses your reposted statement on tracers. Go back and read it. You continue to claim that its possible to score accurately without sights. You do not know how a rifle works. And as to the flip up sight. I already adressed this issue many times. The back-up sight is there for obvious reasons. Why do modern assault rifles have back up iron sights even when they use scopes? Because if your primary system fails you need a backup that works. You claim they don't have auto aiming because they have sights but you ignore the fact that they usually don't use said sights.

I didn't fail to quote it. I found it irrelevant. I don't know how a rifle works? I know well enough how one works, but that is irrelevent because a phaser rifle IS NOT REALLY A FUCKING RIFLE. IT is a 2 handed beam emitter. And yes, with practice and knowing where your beam weapon fires it is very easy to hit a target even shooting from the hip. Try this for yourself, take out a laser pointer and "shoot from the hip" (which really is a misnomer for what we saw in Rocks n Sholls) aiming it at someting. IT aint that hard now is it?

Unlike bullets, phasers are not affected by the wind, gravity, etc. There is also NO KICKBACK from firing a phaser as opposed to an assualt riffle. What about all the misses we saw with these supposedly auto targeting phaser rifles? With off axis firing, they shouldve far more of their shots hit since the targeting computer SUPPOSEDLY would've been able to adjust and aim at various angles.

You think 77% accuracy is great with an AUTO TARGETING SYSTEM??? I dare say modern US smart weapons are more accurate than this.

And what use is this when you have no sights?
http://www.phasers.net/2360/ds9tp3g.jpg
Please tell me how multiple target aquisition is helping O'Brien target the enemy when he isn't even using a sight.

Just because Obrien CHOOSES not to make use of a HUD or a sight doesn't mean that they don't exist. He knows where all his enemies are as they are right in front of him. Most feds probably don't make full use of it because it may be too complicated for non military personell to understand. There are numerous controls on the top of the rifle, any of which could be part of controling the target acquisition system, adjusting for off axis firing, or.

We know that Cardassian rifles don't even have these "target acquisition" capablities. Yet the cardassian rifle we saw DIDNT HAVE SIGHTS EITHER. And yet we see cardassians using them in much the same respect as their federation counterparts. How the hell do they hit anything, if it is as difficult to hit with a phaser rifle as you claim? The answer: they probably TRAIN to do so.

ALso, I've noticed that the sights on fed phaser rifle are not unlike those little sights that the Gem H'dar command units have on thier headsets. You know, the ones they use on their ships (since they don't have view screens).

here is a picture so you can't pretend to not know what I'm talking about:

IT is highly likely that this sight works in a similar fashion, and gives the user much more information than would be readily apparent, although probably not as much as the Gemy's headset.

Which is useless with no heads up display. Rifles have auto targeting capabilities.

Baseless assumptions

See previous statement on the flip up sight as a HUD.

Hell, how bout some more visual evidence?

You need such a system in events of quick firefights so that the user does not move the rifle so quickly that the weapon itself can't adjust.

Rediculous. Thats not what a gryostabilizer is for. It is clearly to help steady the rifle so the user can aim with it easier.

Are you stupid or just a fucking idiot? I have repeatedly shown the evidence which you have completely ignored.

Your evidence is flimsy. And I think it is clear who the idiot is.

Incidently I am more inclined to think Mike agreeing with me is better then your disagreeing with me.

Excuse me, but everything I've seen indicates to me that he DIS-AGREES with you. He certainly wasn't agreeing with you in his last post in your phaser rifle thread. But then, I don't think he is done with you yet either.

Missed? So Worf didn't knock out any of the Sona? Oh, wait, he did.

Yea he missed or the sona would've been vaporized. And please spare me with any notion that he was "trying to miss". You don't shoot a bazooka at someone hoping to just "knock them out".

So let me ask you this, WHO exactly is agreeing with you?
Read the thread again.

I did. I don't see too many people agreeing with you. Some said "nice work" but I think that is more related to your writing of the essay then them agreein with your "facts". I didnt see many people accepting your evidence or standing up to defend you despite the fact that many people (including some of the more prominent members of this forum) have been taking pot shots at you.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-02-01 03:46pm

The entire basis of your argument is that it is possible to fire accurately with the Type-3 rifle while not using the sights. That is flat out impossible and any claims you make otherwise are side stepping the issue. We have 77% accuracy ratings with the Type-3 against enemies at long range without use of sights and without use of "tracers". That is fact. Argue all you like, it is unreasonable and unrealistic to get such levels of accuracy without sights unless they have something else assisting them such as auto targeting capabilities.

I have given canon examples. I have shown were the TM supports this. You are trying clouding the issue and ignoring the facts.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-02-01 03:48pm

BTW, trying to claim they are very well trained in firing their weapon without sights because its part of Starfleet training doesn't fly.

Garak isn't part of Starfleet and is trained on Cardassian weapons.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-02-01 04:01pm

Yes but Garak is a man of many talents

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2003-02-01 04:10pm

You are really fucking reaching now...

I didnt say "Starfleet training" I said training. And I seriously doubt that the federation phaser "rifles" are all that different from cardassian ones. The both have a trigger, and they both can be made to shoot straight. IF what you say is true, then Garak with his "cardassian training" should be used to shooting a weapon WITHOUT AUTO TARGETING.

Point conceded. You are making this easy.

You still have not answered how cardassians manage to fire with weapons which have no sight on them, and do not have any of the "target acquisition" features of fed rifles.

And I don't know why this isn't getting through your WALL OF IGNORANCE but I'd bet that after a day of firing a beam weapon you'd become pretty damned accurate with it. I shouldn't have to keep re-stating why this is the case. There is no kickback, there is a visible tracer and after you get used to seeing where that tracer goes it is fairly easy to line up your shot in your head and be pretty damn accurate with it.

You just point, and shoot. Not unlike the remote control to my television set, which I rather often "shoot from the hip" with and yet I still manage to hit my TV.

Your WHOLE ARGUMENT is that because of your "experience as a marksman" that it would be IMPOSSIBLE regardless of training, to hit with these 2 handed beam emitters (not really rifles) at distances of 40-50 meters? As Mike said earlier, your appeal to your own experience is irrelevant.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2003-02-01 04:16pm

Furthermore, what evidence do you present that it is "flat out impossible" to score hits of "77%" accuracy. They were in a set up ambush! They knew exactly where the Gems were going to be. They probably had a marked kill zone and had taken a few practice shots prior to the Gem's showing up to help them figure out where to fire.

Its not "flat out impossible" just because you say it is.