StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Ok after seeing Brian Young's vid on the subject we can say 3 things about warp strafing

1. it's possible
2. it's not instawin
3. it has rather low ROF

Now we know all of Brian's examples were from the TOS era and even then there's not that many example's, while Brian did explain some reasons why warp strafing isn't used more often. How ever there's some situations where it would seemed to be benefitial but wasn't used, for example when the Klingon or Dominion fleets attacked DS9 (which by it's very nature is both essentially immobile and an STL-target), but when you consider that warp strafing (or any strafing for that matter) is akin to trying to hit a target from a fast speeding car, things come more clear IMHO.

Brian said in the vid he though the ROF when strafing at warp speeds was about 1 shot per minute, now something that wasn't addressed was accuracity after all we do know that Star Trek ships have less then 100% accuracity even when sublight.

Now draw mentally a circle around the target profile (meaning the part of the target you can see) so that the centre of the ship is at the centre of the circle, now your 1 shot is gonna land somewhere within this circle it may or may not hit the ship, now the faster you are the larger the circle is gonna be thus making it harder to hit your intended target, also the harder the target is to detect (due to EMC or what ever) the larger the circle is gonna be as you won't have the time to adjust your aim that much.

Now we know that every missed shot means 1 minute more for the target to predict your course and blanket it with shots, now when something with heavy shields like say a space station it's gonna take several shots to down the shields anyway and you might have to hit specific weak points due to how strong the shields are. Not all tech advance at the same rate so it's possible that advances on EMC have made warp strafing impractical against most enemies after all the STL target needs only to blanket your course with weapons fire (it's actually how real life AA-guns work mostly) while you must actually hit (not mention that missing your intended target you might hit something you don't want to hit).

Ok that's my thoughts for now, feel free to post any corrections or comments (though I'd prefer positive feedback to flames).

Any time you have a great enough speed advantage, "strafing" of some sort might be possible. The problem I have with literally strafing at high warp is the very short amount of time that you're in range.

If your relative speed is thousands of times lightspeed, you only have thousandths of a second to discharge your weapons before you're out of range again (assuming a light-second range). For missile weapons like photon torpedos, that isn't a huge problem, but beams like phasers deliver damage over time, so they need to stay on the target to be effective. A phaser burst typically lasts for several frames of video, far too long to be completed in a warp speed fly-by. That's why I've always figured that the attacker has to at least briefly match speeds with the target during a "warp strafe".

Glad this topic was finally opened up. I felt bad about crowding the other topic with this discussion.

Ted C wrote:Any time you have a great enough speed advantage, "strafing" of some sort might be possible. The problem I have with literally strafing at high warp is the very short amount of time that you're in range.

That's been something I have an issue with as well. Given that we always see a human deciding when to push the "fire" button, I find it hard to believe that a human would react fast enough to hit fire within the amount of time necessary to accurately hit a target.

In many ways, the days of TOS were better for both warp strafing and space combat in general. Because of the limitations of effects, ships really weren't seen in the same shot. As a result, the ranges ships fought at could actually look like and feel like ships battling over hundreds of thousands of kilometers.

Ultimately, you have to ask whether the Klingon or Dominion fleets would have benefited more from a warp strafing attack on DS9. If you're a fleet bringing massive ships into a battle, you can coordinate your attacks to either A, muster your fleet for one massive assault in one pass, or B, spread the fleet out and create a constant barrage on the station over time while the rest of the ships turned around and came back. Either way will probably cause you to have less weapons on target over time than coming in at sublight, but your ships are not going to be blowing up left and right, which is what we see on screen. Both groups lost a considerable number of ships in those attacks. At warp, if they were hit at all, they would have only taken maybe one hit, and a damaged ship could retire to recharge their shields and come back in the fight if need be.

Perhaps a more relevant question would be why fleets don't fire torpedoes at warp to hit a stationary target like DS9. We know torpedoes can be modified for considerably long range, as we've seen them used to transport a person at warp 9. We know they fire torpedoes at warp to hit other ships at warp. Clearly the torpedo doesn't slow to sublight when it drops out of the tube. So what would the effect be of a warped torpedo hitting a stationary target? Would you get more range out of the torpedo (I can't see how you wouldn't). If so, you could just lob torpedoes at a stationary target like DS9 from out of DS9's effective range to shoot back.



Slightly off Topic: Brian (not brain) addressed in his follow up video my objections to the ST:TMP example and I wanted to quickly address that. Brian stated that the Enterprise was going Warp 1, so it was still an example of warp strafing. I still see a few problems with this, besides the weirdness of that scene by and large.

We get a shot of the Enterprise and the asteroid in the same frame when the torpedo is fired on the asteroid. The asteroid is not hurtling towards the Enterprise at anywhere near a speed that would indicate it is in real space. On the contrary, it seems the relative speeds between the Enterprise and the asteroid are pretty damn close. If we assume the Enterprise was EXACTLY at warp 1 (not 1.00001 or something), then the asteroid must be sublight, as Brian posits. But, the difference in relative speed between the two objects is so minute as to hardly be an example of warp "strafing". I don't see this example as proving anything than that the Enterprise can: A, fire torpedoes at warp, and B, hit a target traveling at a velocity and vector relatively close to the firing craft, both of which we knew.

Really, the whole scene is terrible for making greater conclusions than that. There was so much weirdness in that scene that contradicts most known warp effects. Brian rightly talks about how the hell an asteroid could be at warp with a ship anyway, and it's a good point, but it's also one that is clear that it is IS (in so far as being either .999999c or maybe even warp 1 if the Enterprise rounds it's decimal places) in this case, because of the exotic effects of the wormhole. Why did destroying a rock suddenly restore helm control to the Enterprise and allow them to drop out? Perhaps the explosion disrupted the wormhole. Regardless, I don't think it's an example of warp strafing. Given the relative close relative velocities of the two objects in question, I think a case could be made that Enterprise could have been slightly above warp 1, but rounded down to the nearest whole number when reporting it.

You get far better examples of more impressive relative velocity fights in warp to warp engagements in TNG. The Enterprise's battle with the Soliton wave, for example.

From what I recall, the big E would have dropped from Warp eventually anyway ('22.5 seconds before forward velocity slows to sublight speed' as per Cdr Decker), their problem was they'd collide with the asteroid before that happened.
I agree that's hardly an example of Warp strafing given the relative velocity of the asteroid WRT ENT was decidedly sublight. It's definitely an example of Warp combat, but that's never been in question.

Even if you remove human reaction time from the equation by having preprogrammed firing sequences (something Trek absolutely should be capable of doing), the fact remains that the engagement window is so short that it may simply not be possible to accurately acquire, lock onto and fire on a target before you're out of range again.

As for no long range torpedo volleys a possible problem might be reduced yield at longer ranges. We know Warp uses M/AM for fuel and we know photorps use M/AM for the warhead. If both draw on the same supply the longer the torpedo has to stay at Warp, the smaller it's yield is going to be (do we have any clue how the damned things are propelled to begin with)?

the thing with Space stations like DS9 is that they can put more power to shields then starships with similar reactor powers as they don't got engines (well apart from station keeping thrusters) to power so that power can be put to other uses.

that could easily explain why it's generally more efficient to drop to sublight and accept the casualities you get from attacking that way then to try to warp strafe the target and possibly give the enemy enough time to bring in enough warp capable ships to cause those casualities anyway.

Batman wrote: As for no long range torpedo volleys a possible problem might be reduced yield at longer ranges. We know Warp uses M/AM for fuel and we know photorps use M/AM for the warhead. If both draw on the same supply the longer the torpedo has to stay at Warp, the smaller it's yield is going to be (do we have any clue how the damned things are propelled to begin with)?

Most of the tech manuals mention a warp sustainer engine of some kind.

DS9 Tech Manual wrote: The warp sustainer engine benefits somewhat from the increased tankage in the form of increased range, to an upper limit of 4,050,000 kilometers, depending on maneuvering capability balanced against sustained powered flight time. This is only applicable to firings from starships at warp. In launches from Deep Space Nine, the initial velocity remains at high sublight and will never reach warp 1.

It goes on to say that the standard torpedo is effective against close-in threat vessels. This certainly is born out in DS9, as those attacks certainly seemed pretty close to the station.

Thing is, wouldn't the shear kinetic impact make up for any loss in effective yield, especially if you fire just before entering range of the station? Something like a torpedo traveling at or beyond lightspeed would likely make up for any lost explosive energy from the torpedo.

I have the TNG Tech Manual, thank you. I was talking about them saying anything about it in the actual episodes.
Besides, not only do Newtonian mechanics break down the moment you go past c (no, a torpedo going 3c will not have thrice the kinetic energy of one going c), there's the possibility the torpedoes use the same mass reduction shenanigans the ships do (not to mention the question of why they bother with the warhead to begin with given the yields they could get out of a high fractional c empty torpedo casing).

CaptJodan wrote:

Batman wrote: We know Warp uses M/AM for fuel and we know photorps use M/AM for the warhead. If both draw on the same supply the longer the torpedo has to stay at Warp, the smaller it's yield is going to be (do we have any clue how the damned things are propelled to begin with)?

Most of the tech manuals mention a warp sustainer engine of some kind.

The sustainer engine is explicitly mentioned in TNG "Half a Life".

CaptJodan wrote:Thing is, wouldn't the shear kinetic impact make up for any loss in effective yield, especially if you fire just before entering range of the station? Something like a torpedo traveling at or beyond lightspeed would likely make up for any lost explosive energy from the torpedo.

Presumably the "sustainer engine" is creating the same "mass lightening" effect as a starship's warp drive, so the torpedo's effective mass is very small, meaning it's kinetic energy is negligible, despite its speed.