StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I always thought it was form UFP artillery, because artillery units in real world try stay out enemy weapon range and provide fire support for ground troopers. So fact design firing while retreating or while stand still make sense for artillery unit. Also punch that the rear firing phaser gave off able tosh an armed vehicle into to air could just easily tosh foot soldier into air and that could be good for them. That reason I rear firing phaser not a forward firing phaser.

What the fuck are you talking about.

It's the dune buggy from Nemesis.

I interest other theories why the dune buggy has heavy phase system in the back that give blast that has Armed vehicles go flying in air.

JasonB wrote:I interest other theories why the dune buggy has heavy phase system in the back that give blast that has Armed vehicles go flying in air.

Try to re-state this sentence in a manner that indicates you're aware that this is an English-speaking board.

I think I understand what you're suggesting, Jason, and the Argo still wouldn't make any sense as an artiller platform for a number of reasons.

1.The weapon is too low down in the vehicle. If you were building a line of sight artillery vehicle you would mount the weapon as high as possible so as to maximise your range.

2. The lack of any targeting equipment. When Starfleet ground personnel have used line of sight weapons at long range in the past they have generally used some kind of targeting equipment, anything from an eyepiece to just iron sights (the Worfzooka from Insurreection, the battles in DS9:Rocks and Shoals and AR-558, the phasers from First Contact, the TR-116 etc.). The Argo phaser cannon has nothing like that from what I can see.

3. If Starfleet were going to build a long range artillery vehicle they would probably use a weapon more like the TOS mortar than a line of sight phaser cannon.

It's just a self defense weapon really.

Azron_Stoma wrote:It's just a self defense weapon really.

That only works if your enemy is directly behind you.
There are reasons why you mount a limited firing rear arc cannon to your vehicles rear. The reason why is limited to the Archer a WII tank destroyer

Theory was the TD would reverse into position and fire off a few rounds before taking off since it was already aimed in the right direction for a quick escape.

Even this highly specific reason is not all that great a one because it's only an advantage during a very carefully specific instance. The Argo however does not even have this option, it looks more like a after market addition then a specified design due to how limited it's arch is. It would have been ten times easier to mount a 360 turret setup with the existing gun position remaining as is.

[quote="Nathaniel"]I think I understand what you're suggesting, Jason, and the Argo still wouldn't make any sense as an artiller platform for a number of reasons.

1.The weapon is too low down in the vehicle. If you were building a line of sight artillery vehicle you would mount the weapon as high as possible so as to maximise your range.

2. The lack of any targeting equipment. When Starfleet ground personnel have used line of sight weapons at long range in the past they have generally used some kind of targeting equipment, anything from an eyepiece to just iron sights (the Worfzooka from Insurreection, the battles in DS9:Rocks and Shoals and AR-558, the phasers from First Contact, the TR-116 etc.). The Argo phaser cannon has nothing like that from what I can see.


1. As we can see in this image tail gunner has the highest seat of any other seats
2. impossible to be sure it had it or not. Remember phaser rifle you can just flip up eyepiece who say that Worf done the same on that phaser cannon.
3. Long range artillery does not do much good against target if your sensors and commutation are jammed.

Mr Bean wrote: Theory was the TD would reverse into position and fire off a few rounds before taking off since it was already aimed in the right direction for a quick escape.

Even then; as far as I can tell the theory itself was only an excuse, the Valentine hull simply couldn't take the gun pointing forwards without being too cramped and nose heavy to be usable. The gun actually recoiled into the space the driver occupies as it is, so the driver has to jump into place before that quick getaway can occur! But this is what you get with war mobilization designs. Archer was only an interim vehicle until Sherman Fireflies appeared, and operated only by dedicated anti tank regiments of the Royal Artillery, never by tank or infantry regiments.

1.we can see in this image tail gunner has the highest seat of any other seats

Worf's seat being three inches higher than the others' is meaningless. It's still way too low. If you're not a complete retard you'd put it right at the top. Kind of like a tank, or a Humvee, or an APC, or an armored car, or just about every combat vehicle with a heavy weapon ever.

2. impossible to be sure it had it or not. Remember phaser rifle you can just flip up eyepiece who say that Worf done the same on that phaser cannon.

a) There is no sign of a sight on the gun. b) Why didn't Worf use it if it were there.

3. Long range artillery does not do much good against target if your sensors and commutation are jammed.

Think about this for a second. Communication jamming doesn't change gravity. Worst case scenario you can still use a relatively basic knowledge of ballistics to hit targets with your mortar if you can see them directly. Have you lost a lot of your effectiveness? Definitely, but you're still not at any disadvantage to the phaser because it can only hit targets that it can see in the very best case.

Mr Bean wrote:

Azron_Stoma wrote:It's just a self defense weapon really.

That only works if your enemy is directly behind you.

I never said it was a GOOD self defense weapon

I think this is another case where the out-of-universe explanation possibly makes the most sense. The rear-facing cannon was all that was needed for the one scene we saw the Argo buggy in, and the writers weren't thinking as much about this as we are.

Nathaniel wrote:

1.we can see in this image tail gunner has the highest seat of any other seats

Worf's seat being three inches higher than the others' is meaningless. It's still way too low. If you're not a complete retard you'd put it right at the top. Kind of like a tank, or a Humvee, or an APC, or an armored car, or just about every combat vehicle with a heavy weapon ever.

2. impossible to be sure it had it or not. Remember phaser rifle you can just flip up eyepiece who say that Worf done the same on that phaser cannon.

a) There is no sign of a sight on the gun. b) Why didn't Worf use it if it were there.

3. Long range artillery does not do much good against target if your sensors and commutation are jammed.

Think about this for a second. Communication jamming doesn't change gravity. Worst case scenario you can still use a relatively basic knowledge of ballistics to hit targets with your mortar if you can see them directly. Have you lost a lot of your effectiveness? Definitely, but you're still not at any disadvantage to the phaser because it can only hit targets that it can see in the very best case.

I think found theory little more sense then artillery theory. Remember Argo dune buggy c can control Argo shuttle-craft by remote controlled. Meaning people on Argo Dune buggy can use shuttle-craft it to attack ground target. Argo Dune Buggy spot enemy target and then the Argo shuttle-craft go for kill. Rear firing phaser used options firing while flee attack after being spotted.

Why not just remove the un-armoured buggy all together and put your people in the armoured and shielded spaceship with all its sensors and heavy firepower and elevated position. If ground observation of targets is so vital you can send in a vehicle/infantry and have the crew call them on their comm badges.

Also wasn't Data was using a tricorder to control the shuttle rather than the buggy.

and the writers weren't thinking as much about this as we are.

Or maybe the Federation being very critical of the idea of turning into a military organisation and yet faced with military situations retrofitted a civilian leisure design with a weapon mount in the only way they could without redesigning the entire vehicle to hold it.

It could be marginally useful as a mobile grenade launcher to support infantry. It would still have made more sense to put the gun on top, though, since then the buggy could hide behind a hill and only expose the weapon and gunner to enemy fire.

Then again, real life had seen such designs and worse. If you REALLY REALLY want an in-universe rationalization, you can easily go with this:

"We produced ten thousand of the damn things and turns out they're not that great. Let's scrap them."

"But hey they can drive and I'm getting a bit old and bald and tired of walking my away team everywhere, can the Enterprise have one?"

"Sure, Picard, whatever, go away."

I would go with the:

Its a retrofited design with a gun slapped on it and put on the flagship for field testing as part of the exploration mission rather than an actual combat vehicle.

The Weapon can simply be a means of blasting shit thats in the way or maybe even adjustable to mount different types of equipment like Sensors, equipment yada yada. In theory the Nebula works the same way with the sensor pod that was meant to be changeable to weapon pods etc. if needed. Argo might be a ground extension of that mindset.

Yeah, the only way the Argo even remotely makes sense is as a Jeep/Land Rover analogue, with a gun slapped on for fending off local over-aggressive wildlife. It just wound up being the only thing Enterprise had on hand at the moment, which was a definite case of the wrong tool for the job.

Then again, the Federation seems to be full of that.

Crayz9000 wrote:Yeah, the only way the Argo even remotely makes sense is as a Jeep/Land Rover analogue, with a gun slapped on for fending off local over-aggressive wildlife. It just wound up being the only thing Enterprise had on hand at the moment, which was a definite case of the wrong tool for the job.

Then again, the Federation seems to be full of that.

I don't understand why they couldn't just stick with the shuttle instead of using Argo.

The number of shuttles on a given ship is limited. It's really quite logical to give an away team that's expected to be on the ground for an extended period of time some kind of transportation (and heavy weapon support, if need be) that isn't dependent on one of the shuttles being available right that minute.

Simon_Jester wrote:The number of shuttles on a given ship is limited. It's really quite logical to give an away team that's expected to be on the ground for an extended period of time some kind of transportation (and heavy weapon support, if need be) that isn't dependent on one of the shuttles being available right that minute.

They had a shuttle with them, except they landed it and took the Argo instead. The shuttle has shields and phaser (AFAIK all shuttle have them), plus they are much faster than a buggy. They could have done the job with a fraction of the time needed and the locals could just piss off.

All right. Never mind then.

It probably would have made more sense if the shuttle had dropped them off and returned to the Enterprise.

A lot of things could have made a lot more sense in that movie if they had stopped to think about what they were writing.

Enigma wrote:They had a shuttle with them, except they landed it and took the Argo instead. The shuttle has shields and phaser (AFAIK all shuttle have them), plus they are much faster than a buggy. They could have done the job with a fraction of the time needed and the locals could just piss off.

However, at the time they landed they didn't know there were unfriendly locals about, so the ease of simply driving to the nearest piece of android, hopping out, grabbing it and hopping back in beat having to land the shuttle every time, open the back door, get out and grab the piece, get back in, close the door and take off again.

As for it's use as a military vehicle, I don't quite understand the vitriol directed against it. Sure, there's no protection and the weapon placement isn't the greatest, but it would still be a useful (very) light recce vehicle. It's mobility and firepower are a vast improvement on shanks' pony and a rifle, it's got wheels not antigrav so it won't be affected by any of the thousand and one this that screw with the magic forcefields, and if it's intended to bug out if it runs into trouble then the weapon placement makes sense - it can keep people's heads down as they retreat and it keeps the centre of gravity low.