"Omega Glory" correction for Wong

[DarkStar]

Someone recently quoted http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tec ... ns-ST.html
on ASVS. I didn't realize it until they posted the link at the bottom of their
quotation-mark-less quoting, so I replied to it. Then, I saw your page, and
figured you might want to make the appropriate corrections.


> We saw its [the phaser cannon's] anti-armour mode in "The Cage", and we
> heard dialogue suggestive of its anti-infantry capabilities in "The Omega
> Glory". In that episode, Captain Tracy told Kirk that his men drained four
> of their phasers in order to kill "thousands" of attacking Yangs (a
classic
> scenario for a defensive HMG). One might assume that he refers to regular
> hand phasers rather than heavy weapons like the stabilized gun in "The
Cage"
> or the large rifle in "Where No Man Has Gone Before", but that is a
bizarre
> and unjustifiable interpretation, for several reasons:
> 1.. No Visual Evidence: We never saw this battle or the drained phasers.

We saw the drained phasers. They were pistols. Enterprise personnel also
found drained phaser power packs, which were little things that would have
fit in the pistols. That is how they came to suspect Tracey.

> We know that heavier weapons do exist, and would be appropriate for a
> large-scale battle. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that they must
> have used hand phasers. It is questionable even to assume that they
probably
> used hand phasers; is Captain Tracy had a starship, he probably had access
> to the same kind of weapons that Captain Pike and Captain Kirk did, so why
> wouldn't he have used them?

When would he have had them beamed down, and who would have done the
beaming? His crew was dying of a plague, and if they were as honorable as
the Enterprise crew, they would not have beamed him heavy artillery on a
pre-warp world. Besides, it was only after his crew died that he started
learning of how old the people there were, and got his crazy idea of the
planet being a fountain of youth, and that he had to defend the village from
the Yangs.

> 2.. Human ergonomics: Handguns have an extremely limited effective range
> because of the limitations of a human being trying to aim a one-handed
> weapon. These limitations will be just as important in the 23rd century as
> they are today; as Khan Noonian Singh pointed out in "Space Seed", there
may
> have been technical advancement in the 23rd century, but man himself has
not
> changed at all. If thousands of primitives charged at men armed only with
> handguns, they would overrun the defenders in short order because the
> defenders' weaponry would be ineffective until the attackers are already
> within range for primitive weapons like spears and arrows.

Modern handguns have a very limited effective range, but that is a problem
with short barrels and slow projectiles. Two hands are better than one,
but if you're firing a beam weapon with a visible beam, you get instant
targeting feedback and can adjust your aim. You also don't have to worry
about the bullet dropping due to gravity. You'll do a lot better, and have
much better effective range, limited only by line of sight and steady hands.

Of course, Tracey was overrun eventually. The Yangs sacrificed hundreds to
draw him into the open, and then started pouring toward him in more
thousands. He said something like "and they came, and they came... we
killed thousands of them, and still they came!"

Between Tracey and the Enterprise party (minus one that Tracey vaporized,
including phaser), there were a maximum of four phaser pistols observed on
the planet. Tracey could only have used two at a time, so one or two
inexperienced Kohms were also firing. If each phaser killed 500 men (total
two thousand, satisfying "thousands"), that is not a bad day's work.

> 3.. Power Packs: Phaser power packs were found in the hands of dead
Yangs,
> but TOS-era hand phasers have integral fuel cells rather than removable
> ammunition clips, as we saw in "The Galileo Seven" where Scotty's phaser
> discharge procedure required the entire phaser rather than removable power
> packs. So if their hand phasers had integral fuel cells, then what were
> these phaser power packs used for? Obviously, for an entirely different
type
> of phaser, such as a sustained-fire weapon like that seen in "The Cage".

No, that doesn't hold water. The Cage weapon was powered from orbit.
Remember Spock on the Enterprise saying their circuits were heating?
Besides, if those little phaser handles were charging something that big,
I'd be impressed.

Also, Scotty's discharge move might not have been because the power packs
were integral. It could just as easily have been the only way he had handy
at the time to discharge them, since I doubt shuttles usually would have a
"plug your phaser in here" port.

It is worth mentioning here that Wah Chang designed the phasers with power
packs in mind. The handles were removable power packs. The only time we
actually see handles without phasers is Omega Glory. There's a good
article on racprops.com, but I can't get it to pull up right now. You might
want to try it, though: www.racprops.com/issue1/firstphasers/pg5.php

> 4.. Yang Bodies: The bodies of dead Yangs were left on the battlefield
> after the massacre. Early TOS-era hand phasers did not appear to have as
> many attenuation settings as later models. They appeared to have only two
> settings: stun and kill. Moreover, those are the only settings we ever
heard
> mentioned by any of the characters on the show. Since the Yangs' bodies
did
> not disappear, this strongly suggests that a weapon other than a hand
phaser
> was used.

Yeah, but we also saw a phaser on widebeam in "Enemy Within". Widebeam
plus kill could equal bodies. Or maybe he stunned them a long long time.

(See also "heating rocks" . . . that's gotta be a setting in between stun
and kill.)

> It's logically obvious that Captain Tracy must have used large weapons on

No, it is logically obvious that he didn't, because he never had the chance
to get anything bigger than what he had, which was a simple pistol. If he
had the opportunity to gear up, I would have expected him to get some photon
grenades, too, but they aren't mentioned either.

[TheDarkling]

Seems in order .

Im not sure you will get a response unless someone disagrees with you, this is a very pro Wars crowd.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

I doubt phasers can fire 500 shots. They could use heavier weaponry, though not that wierd cannon.



And did it say how many guns they had?

[Guest]

Hey Dorkstar, howabout browsing the board before posting a new thread?

http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46

[Howedar]

Settle down, child.

[Guest]

I doubt phasers can fire 500 shots. They could use heavier weaponry, though not that wierd cannon.



And did it say how many guns they had?

Phasers are continous beam weapon. They aren't like modern day weapons with a quantitative number. The number of shots that a single phaser can shoot depends on the beam intensity and duration of each shot. A phaser set on maximum will only have one shot if you fire the phaser until it runs out power, or if you set it on stun and use short burst, you could have many more shots. Since Tracy is still alive, you have to assume he manage to keep himself far enough from the Yangs to avoid being hit with a spear or arrow. And given there were thousands coming, it would be quite a feet to stop a wave of attackers with just pistols. As for phasers killing people but not disintegrating them, in the "The Conscience of the King", Kodos the Executioner was hit by phaser and died, but his body was still intact. He even lived a few seconds after being hit. So, that's not out of the question. What really gets me is Mike's assumption the thousands of dead Yangs were due to heavy artillery and not the hand phasers without any proof that such artillery was used. (and even some proof that says otherwise). If thousands can be killed by just a hand pistol, then anything more would be overkill, which is why we seldom see Star Fleet personnel armed with anything more given the roll that landing parties usually play.

[Zoink]

Regarding the Yang's attack:

Wouldn't four WW2-era machine guns have produced similar results? Can you imagine the result if Napolean attacked with 20,000 infantry against an enemy position consisting of 4 WW2-era machine guns? Thousands would die because Napolean's tactics weren't devised to combat machine guns.

Replace all those musketmen with a few squads of determined WW2-era infantry (suitably armed), and those machine guns don't look nearly as impressive.

So, does the fact that these futuristic weapons defeated thousands of "primitive barbarians" really mean they're awsome weapons of destruction?

[Shadow]

Regarding the Yang's attack:

Wouldn't four WW2-era machine guns have produced similar results? Can you imagine the result if Napolean attacked with 20,000 infantry against an enemy position consisting of 4 WW2-era machine guns? Thousands would die because Napolean's tactics weren't devised to combat machine guns.

Replace all those musketmen with a few squads of determined WW2-era infantry (suitably armed), and those machine guns don't look nearly as impressive.

So, does the fact that these futuristic weapons defeated thousands of "primitive barbarians" really mean they're awsome weapons of destruction?

They would only have one clip each, so they would have been quickly overrun.

[Zoink]

They would only have one clip each, so they would have been quickly overrun.

A machine gun is usually a belt-fed weapon with hundreds/thousands of rounds, specifically designed for mowing down troops in Napolean-like formation.

[IDMR]

They would only have one clip each, so they would have been quickly overrun.

Here is a little hint, my shadowy friend, heavy machine guns of that era do not have 'clips'. Here is yet another. In a little conflict called the First World War, their predecessor were used to great effect against precisely that form of enemies.

[Brian Young]

The problem with handguns does not completely come from "short barrels and slow projectiles." It is as Michael said about the problems with trying to aim a one-handed weapon. You can use two hands, but the second one only helps steady the first. Only one hand can actually grip the gun. It takes much more skill to use a handgun than a rifle or shotgun.

I have been using firearms since I was 11 years old, and I know quite a bit about them. I am not a particularly good shot, but I have taken game animals. I am also experienced with a compound bow and won a marksmanship contest in the 10th grade (12 years ago) with it. But I am a lousy shot with a handgun.

True that short barrels and slow projectiles cause problems. You could mount my snub-nose .38 in a vise, and it would not be a precise weapon. One bullet goes over there, another over here, etc. But it is made for personal defense, not hunting or combat. I figure I coud hit someone squarely in the chest in the confines of my house with it. But I couldn't hit a snake in the yard with all 5 shots!

However, my dad has a Ruger .22 with a ~6 nch barrel that is fairly accurate. You could mount it in a vise and put 6 shots in a coke can from 40 paces I imagine. But I can't hit that same can once when you take the gun out of the vise.

But I can hit it with my shotgun consisently. Or my rifle. I could probably put a couple arrows out of 5 in it with my bow.

In other words, I can hit more consistently with a bow and arrow than I can with a handgun, and I know how to use both.

As far as having feedback on the path of the beam, that is a good point. But it isn't really much better than a laser sight on a handgun.

Perform an experiment. Take a laser pointer into a dim large room or outside at night. Pick a target a good distance away and take aim over the top of your laser pointer. Fire and see if you hit your mark. It is important to hit the exact point you were aiming at. Hitting the top of a tree that you were aiming at the base of does not count. I bet this will be difficult. Remember that you have to hit the target before they shoot you.

Now do the same thing but swing around quickly and try to hit a target in a snap shot before they shoot you.

Now try to do both of these shooting from the hip.

Then, to simulate a shotgun, try a standard flashlight. It is a common misconception that "shot" from a shotgun spreads so quickly that it will cover a hallway or a wall in the confines of a house. This is not true. If sawed-off, I don't know, but still doubt that. A regular flashlight will simulate the spread of shot. Take aim a few times, then try the snap shot, then try shooting from the hip.

Remember that you have to shoot them before they shoot you. And if you use a wide-beam flashlight you are cheating.

[Doomriser]

Brian is right. I tried aiming a laser pointer like a phaser. The pointer was flat and small and kinda reminded me of a Type I Phaser. If I held the button down, I could 'walk' my fire to the target. But with snapshots, I was always about 5 inches off the target at 20 yards.

With a pistol, there is a proper firing stance (rarely seen in the movies these days) where one hand controls most of the firearm while the other steadies it. Firing with a pistol yields dramatically different results than firing with a rifle. At 25 yards, it is extremely easy to hit any part of a paper target with a rifle, but with a pistol, you will often have to close in to half that distance just to have a chance! And aim tends to shift to the right and I think we see that in phasers as well.

BTW Brian, how are you interpreting the latest information regarding turbolaser nature as shown in the AOTC: ICS? I had heard you wrote something on that, but couldn't find a link.

[Brian Young]

I am glad you performed the experiment. I think it is a good one, not just because I came up with it.

I agree with your statements. Hitting a piece of regular notebook paper, or a paper plate is difficult with a handgun at 25-30 paces. OTOH, I can drill it consistently with my bow&arrows. Or at least, I could have when I was using it actively.

As far as the new information about the nature of turbolasers, I feel that it was forced by the evidence at hand. In real life, damage before contact was imperfect special effects. But it is still in the canon, and thus, valid evidence. In fact, I am the guy who originally noted the fact and made screenshots to prove it, back several years ago.
The explanation in ICS is the most consistent available with all of the evidence, and thus is the most valid theory.
My personal feelings are that I like pulse weapons better than beam weapons. But if turbolasers have to be beams, then that is what they are.
In the beginning, I guess much of this theory came from my own investigation into the nature and characteristics of turbolasers. But our findings don't always make us happy. Many of my B5 calculations give me wrinkled brows.
I have known Curtis for a long time, and we have been on a first-name basis for years. Many of the things you see in ICS came from discussions I've had with Curtis over the years, or things he discussed with Michael, or others, or a group of us all discussing together.
I was disappointed that some things didn't appear in the book, but I suspect that it was because of editing for space.
Another interesting note - everyone in the list of names accompanying mine are friends or at least aquaintances of mine. Curtis keeps good company. And so do I - almost every member of the Babtech staff is named there.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Did he run out of shots after chasing Kirk and shooting at him?