Alyeska wrote:If we assume Shuttlecraft weaponry is reasonably powerful enough to penetrate its own shielding, this should be sufficent to in the very least damage an unshielded tie.
TIEs are fragile craft. Shuttle craft phasers should be able to destroy it easily if they can hit it.
*Federation ship mounted phaser beams, the typical weapon system of a shuttlecraft, have astounding accuracy(almost 100% if I'm not mistaken). I give victory to the Federation shuttlecraft.
* Just to fend off the inevitable objections, I repeat: Federation, ship mounted and phaser beam. This discards examples of torpedoes, pulse phasers, hand phasers and other races.
Alyeska wrote:If we assume Shuttlecraft weaponry is reasonably powerful enough to penetrate its own shielding, this should be sufficent to in the very least damage an unshielded tie.
TIEs are fragile craft. Shuttle craft phasers should be able to destroy it easily if they can hit it.
*Federation ship mounted phaser beams, the typical weapon system of a shuttlecraft, have astounding accuracy(almost 100% if I'm not mistaken). I give victory to the Federation shuttlecraft.
You've no idea how accuracy is recorded, do you?
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
Robert Walper wrote:
*Federation ship mounted phaser beams, the typical weapon system of a shuttlecraft, have astounding accuracy(almost 100% if I'm not mistaken). I give victory to the Federation shuttlecraft.
You've no idea how accuracy is recorded, do you?
*cues up "Yakety Sax"*
I believe in a sign of Zeta.
[BOTM|WG|JL|Mecha Maniacs|Pax Cybertronia|Veteran of the Psychic Wars|Eva Expert]
"And besides, who cares if a monster destroys Australia?"
evilcat4000 wrote:
TIEs are fragile craft. Shuttle craft phasers should be able to destroy it easily if they can hit it.
*Federation ship mounted phaser beams, the typical weapon system of a shuttlecraft, have astounding accuracy(almost 100% if I'm not mistaken). I give victory to the Federation shuttlecraft.
Robert Walper wrote:
*Federation ship mounted phaser beams, the typical weapon system of a shuttlecraft, have astounding accuracy(almost 100% if I'm not mistaken). I give victory to the Federation shuttlecraft.
You've no idea how accuracy is recorded, do you?
Please enlighten me.
Allow me to illustrate your problem, in the hopes you use that grey matter.
If I lay prone, five feet from a target with a .20 loaded with squirrel shot, and get 100%(A damn easy feat), am I automatically a world class sniper? I have 100% accuracy by your means of measurement.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
SirNitram wrote:
Allow me to illustrate your problem, in the hopes you use that grey matter.
If I lay prone, five feet from a target with a .20 loaded with squirrel shot, and get 100%(A damn easy feat), am I automatically a world class sniper? I have 100% accuracy by your means of measurement.
How is this relevent to the fact the the weapon system I've specified has an astounding level of accuracy during witnessed combat situations?
SirNitram wrote:
Allow me to illustrate your problem, in the hopes you use that grey matter.
If I lay prone, five feet from a target with a .20 loaded with squirrel shot, and get 100%(A damn easy feat), am I automatically a world class sniper? I have 100% accuracy by your means of measurement.
How is this relevent to the fact the the weapon system I've specified has an astounding level of accuracy during witnessed combat situations?
the accuracy decreases at a range. the fact that a shuttle has incredible accuracy close up does not mean it has incredible accuracy at a long distance.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
SirNitram wrote:
Allow me to illustrate your problem, in the hopes you use that grey matter.
If I lay prone, five feet from a target with a .20 loaded with squirrel shot, and get 100%(A damn easy feat), am I automatically a world class sniper? I have 100% accuracy by your means of measurement.
How is this relevent to the fact the the weapon system I've specified has an astounding level of accuracy during witnessed combat situations?
The point goes sailing over your pointed head. Ugh, your ignorance reviles me sometimes.
In smaller words:
Accuracy is not a mere percent! It is a percent, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS! Moreover, you cannot simply say COMBAT CONDITIONS and expect it to be infinitely repeatable under all combat conditions!
If I have accuracy in combat to fifty meters, should I have the same at two thousand? By your moronic argument I should.
If you wish to demonstrate amazing accuracy, you must consider the range, the speed of both parties, and then the percent of hits.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
SirNitram wrote:
Allow me to illustrate your problem, in the hopes you use that grey matter.
If I lay prone, five feet from a target with a .20 loaded with squirrel shot, and get 100%(A damn easy feat), am I automatically a world class sniper? I have 100% accuracy by your means of measurement.
How is this relevent to the fact the the weapon system I've specified has an astounding level of accuracy during witnessed combat situations?
Let me summarize your foolishness:
ROBERT WANKER: "They have astounding 100% accuracy!"
NITRAM: "You're measuring "accuracy" wrong. The facts you give do not prove that they have astounding accuracy."
ROBERT WANKER: "How does this change the fact that they have astounding accuracy?"
Do you honestly not see what you've done wrong?
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Robert Walper wrote:
*Federation ship mounted phaser beams, the typical weapon system of a shuttlecraft, have astounding accuracy(almost 100% if I'm not mistaken). I give victory to the Federation shuttlecraft.
You've no idea how accuracy is recorded, do you?
Please enlighten me.
Nitram already answered how accuracy is rated...but for your near 100%
Starfleet capitalships from the TNG+ era have shown very good accuracy, enough so that taking out fighter sized targets manuvering at range is realistic.
This has not been identified on the shuttles. They have less powerful computer systems with lower level sensors. The shuttles accuracy can not be accurately measured because we have never seen shuttles in proper fighter level combat.
The debate has effectively come down to the issue of how accurate the shuttle will be. If it can strike the Tie, it stands a fair chance of winning. If it can't strike the Tie and is outmanuevered, it will loose.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
But let's look at what the ass-tounding accuracy really shapes up to be.
Engagement range: With beam phasers, almost all incidents are sub-kilometer. A few from two kilometers or so. We'll record it at a kilometer of range for ease.
Relative velocity: The other ship is rarely 'zipping' by, often taking multiple seconds to clear a ship length. Because I have no clips on hand, we'll call it 100 m/s or so. If someone has better figures, go ahead.
Size of target: Usually enemy capital ships, things that are hundreds of meters long. 500 meters is a decent figure.
So, when shooting a kilometer to hit a 500 meter target that takes a few seconds to cover it's own length, they have near 100%.
WOWZEE!
An Abrams tank could do that by sitting on the top of the Enterprise. Some snipers could do the same. Stacked against actual competent space navies, though, this is pretty shitty.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
Which is completely irrelevent. The issue at hand has to do with shuttles missing with beam phasers. That video lacks examples in that regard.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Alyeska wrote:Starfleet capitalships from the TNG+ era have shown very good accuracy, enough so that taking out fighter sized targets manuvering at range is realistic.
Are you high or something? Did you just happen to miss the episode "Paradise Lost"? A battle upgraded Excelcior-class starship missed the 100m long Defiant multiple times at point-blank range. I hardly consider this good enough accuracy to hit starfighters. There are other examples as well, as I'm sure you are aware.
SirNitram wrote:But let's look at what the ass-tounding accuracy really shapes up to be.
Engagement range: With beam phasers, almost all incidents are sub-kilometer. A few from two kilometers or so. We'll record it at a kilometer of range for ease.
Relative velocity: The other ship is rarely 'zipping' by, often taking multiple seconds to clear a ship length. Because I have no clips on hand, we'll call it 100 m/s or so. If someone has better figures, go ahead.
Size of target: Usually enemy capital ships, things that are hundreds of meters long. 500 meters is a decent figure.
So, when shooting a kilometer to hit a 500 meter target that takes a few seconds to cover it's own length, they have near 100%.
WOWZEE!
An Abrams tank could do that by sitting on the top of the Enterprise. Some snipers could do the same. Stacked against actual competent space navies, though, this is pretty shitty.
Insurrection shows the E-E firing on pinpoint locations on a specific ship and retargeting and firing again in a very short span of time. The ability to hit subsystems accurately and refire so quickly and accurately indicate that Starfleet ships TNG+ era are more then capable to hit manuverable fighter level targets.
This however is completely irrelevent to the thread because we are dealing with shuttles which do not have the same resources or capabilities as the capitalships.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Alyeska wrote:Starfleet capitalships from the TNG+ era have shown very good accuracy, enough so that taking out fighter sized targets manuvering at range is realistic.
Are you high or something? Did you just happen to miss the episode "Paradise Lost"? A battle upgraded Excelcior-class starship missed the 100m long Defiant multiple times at point-blank range. I hardly consider this good enough accuracy to hit starfighters. There are other examples as well, as I'm sure you are aware.
Incorrect. A battle upgraded Excelsior class starship scored 100% accracy against the Defiant.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
SirNitram wrote:But let's look at what the ass-tounding accuracy really shapes up to be.
Engagement range: With beam phasers, almost all incidents are sub-kilometer. A few from two kilometers or so. We'll record it at a kilometer of range for ease.
Relative velocity: The other ship is rarely 'zipping' by, often taking multiple seconds to clear a ship length. Because I have no clips on hand, we'll call it 100 m/s or so. If someone has better figures, go ahead.
Size of target: Usually enemy capital ships, things that are hundreds of meters long. 500 meters is a decent figure.
So, when shooting a kilometer to hit a 500 meter target that takes a few seconds to cover it's own length, they have near 100%.
WOWZEE!
An Abrams tank could do that by sitting on the top of the Enterprise. Some snipers could do the same. Stacked against actual competent space navies, though, this is pretty shitty.
Insurrection shows the E-E firing on pinpoint locations on a specific ship and retargeting and firing again in a very short span of time. The ability to hit subsystems accurately and refire so quickly and accurately indicate that Starfleet ships TNG+ era are more then capable to hit manuverable fighter level targets.
Size of these subsystems? Relative velocity of target and firer? Distance? Anything?
This however is completely irrelevent to the thread because we are dealing with shuttles which do not have the same resources or capabilities as the capitalships.
Obviously, but it'd still be nice if you had something beyond vagueness.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
Anyhow, for the sake of appeasement, I'll just drop the issue.
Yea, otherwise you'd have to admit you know nothing about the subject and concede defeat. Instead you'll pop up with this later. Fucking troll.
No, it's actually to do with lacking video evidence or even episode references to back up my assertions which I know exist but I do not have. I won't bother trying to assert my position without sufficient evidence to submit.
Alyeska wrote:
Incorrect. A battle upgraded Excelsior class starship scored 100% accracy against the Defiant.
Have you seen this episode recently? Poe's clip doesn't show the full battle, and while my memory MIGHT be failiing me, I seem to recall the Lakota making several missed phaser shots towards the Defiant as it banked at close range. I cannot verify this currently as Mike has my DS9 DVD's, but I am fairly sure of it.
Robert Walper wrote:
Damn, I don't have the codec for that video.
Anyhow, for the sake of appeasement, I'll just drop the issue.
Yea, otherwise you'd have to admit you know nothing about the subject and concede defeat. Instead you'll pop up with this later. Fucking troll.
No, it's actually to do with lacking video evidence or even episode references to back up my assertions which I know exist but I do not have. I won't bother trying to assert my position without sufficient evidence to submit.
Given the number of people in this forum with access to video clips, you could make the remarkable tactic by quoting the episode. Oh yea, you don't even have that, you just 'know it exists'. You probably can't even give the context of the combat, but you 'know it exists'.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
There is, of course, also the widely used excuse that grotesque examples of inaccuracy from OPFOR ships such as Borg or Klingon vessels can be disregarded because it's "not Federation". As if the Klingons would realistically stand a snowball's chance in hell against the Federation if they actually had such a huge tactical disadvantage in every battle.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
SirNitram wrote:Size of these subsystems? Relative velocity of target and firer? Distance? Anything?
Trek subsystems are typicaly not very large. Judging by known examples from various ships the largest systems are the exterior engines and the interior power generation. All other systems appear to be no larger then a turbo lift.
Relative velocity was in the hundreds of meters per second. Distance was aproximately 250-500 meters. The part that makes this exceptional is the ability to retarget and fire again accurately massively off angle from the first shot in a very short period of time. This is what is required to fire accurately and multiple times (because firing against a manevering small target will always mean lower accuracy). With this capability a ship can put enough shots against a manuevering target to down it in a short period of time. Even a mere 25% accuracy rating is more then sufficent to down multiple enemy strike craft.
Obviously, but it'd still be nice if you had something beyond vagueness.
My apoligies for not giving all the necessary information.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
