StarDestroyer.Net BBS

dunno. if you have the resources to build the weapons from today and the know-how, they'd probably win.

Also, 'Commercial vessel' includes ships that positively dwarf any warship ever built so they'd have a lot of tonnage/volume to play with.

A modern freighter armed with anti ship missiles or even a battery of modern 5 inch guns will do a number on the typical wooden or iron armored ships of the era.

Batman wrote:Also, 'Commercial vessel' includes ships that positively dwarf any warship ever built so they'd have a lot of tonnage/volume to play with.

I was thinking that you'd want something that's more maneuverable, though - a big fishing boat or tanker would just be a big target and easy to hit with even the dumb cannons of the 1890's.

You'd have to get into range first. The range of a muzzle loading canon is only a few miles.

By the 1890s warships had naval guns broadly similar to, but inferior to, those in use in the World Wars- breech-loading guns, often with 12" or larger shells at the high end of battleships. A freighter armed with, oh, 5" guns would probably be sunk by an 1890s-era armored cruiser, at least a modern one, because the armored cruiser is designed to survive hits from those relatively small exploding shells, whereas the freighter is not.

Use guided antiship missiles and it's a different story.

The Romulan Republic wrote:Excuse me? Nero's one shot at them over Vulcan inflicted significant damage and killed the chief medical officer (hence McCoy taking over). Probably killed others as well. And yes, their's that line that they can't handle another shot.

Hm. You're right now that I think about it; it's simply that the hull appeared largely intact in exterior shots from later in the film. It wasn't a riddled burning wreck.

Ships in Star Trek often take some damage, and even crew casualties, before shield failure. And I strongly suspect it would have been a lot worse if the shields weren't up.

Simon_Jester wrote:By the 1890s warships had naval guns broadly similar to, but inferior to, those in use in the World Wars- breech-loading guns, often with 12" or larger shells at the high end of battleships. A freighter armed with, oh, 5" guns would probably be sunk by an 1890s-era armored cruiser, at least a modern one, because the armored cruiser is designed to survive hits from those relatively small exploding shells, whereas the freighter is not.

Use guided antiship missiles and it's a different story.

The Romulan Republic wrote:Excuse me? Nero's one shot at them over Vulcan inflicted significant damage and killed the chief medical officer (hence McCoy taking over). Probably killed others as well. And yes, their's that line that they can't handle another shot.

Hm. You're right now that I think about it; it's simply that the hull appeared largely intact in exterior shots from later in the film. It wasn't a riddled burning wreck.

Ships in Star Trek often take some damage, and even crew casualties, before shield failure. And I strongly suspect it would have been a lot worse if the shields weren't up.

The Narada was heavily modified from its original incarnation. If we project the same level of modification and access to military equipment onto a modern commercial vessel, vs 1890's military ones, what kind of chances would you give the 2015 ship?

I mean, even if we exclude huge ordinance like tomahawk missiles, what could drones armed with hellfires or even a helicopter armed with a couple of .50 cal machine guns, loaded with incendiary rounds, do to the historical ships?

biostem wrote:

Batman wrote:Also, 'Commercial vessel' includes ships that positively dwarf any warship ever built so they'd have a lot of tonnage/volume to play with.

I was thinking that you'd want something that's more maneuverable, though - a big fishing boat or tanker would just be a big target and easy to hit with even the dumb cannons of the 1890's.

Thing is, something 125 years from that wouldn't be using cannon. It'd just lob guided missiles at them from 50+ miles away.

Batman wrote:

biostem wrote:

Batman wrote:Also, 'Commercial vessel' includes ships that positively dwarf any warship ever built so they'd have a lot of tonnage/volume to play with.

I was thinking that you'd want something that's more maneuverable, though - a big fishing boat or tanker would just be a big target and easy to hit with even the dumb cannons of the 1890's.

Thing is, something 125 years from that wouldn't be using cannon. It's just lob guided missiles at them from 50+ miles away.

I'm trying to translate the situation of the Narada, which is a mining vessel that's been retrofitted to act as a warship, vs actual military vessels from 125 years before it, though.

And that's exactly what would happen-the retrofitted mining vessel would Harpoon your 1890s warship in the face.

Simon_Jester wrote:By the 1890s warships had naval guns broadly similar to, but inferior to, those in use in the World Wars- breech-loading guns, often with 12" or larger shells at the high end of battleships. A freighter armed with, oh, 5" guns would probably be sunk by an 1890s-era armored cruiser, at least a modern one, because the armored cruiser is designed to survive hits from those relatively small exploding shells, whereas the freighter is not.

I'd contend the modern freighter would run out of ammo before the 1890s armored cruiser was even able to open fire. And that the result of said fire would be the 1890s ship sunk or a flaming wreck. And that even if this didn't happen a typical large modern freighter is outright faster then a typical 1890s cruiser so return to point one, the modern lame ship would be able to expend all munitions with no risk to itself what so ever assuming competent ship handling.

And that's an awful lot less then a 150 year disparity in technology, 2015 vs 1865 would be an utterly different class of fail. We've built multiple amphibious armored vehicles that could probably destroy an 1865 ironclad with a single load of ammo.

biostem wrote: I mean, even if we exclude huge ordinance like tomahawk missiles, what could drones armed with hellfires or even a helicopter armed with a couple of .50 cal machine guns, loaded with incendiary rounds, do to the historical ships?

Hellfire can penetrate any piece of armor ever floated on a warship with a 50% overkill margin. We use it to kill snipers in the modern era. This is why battleships are not even a vague memory to serious naval discussion, and I've suggested here before you'd need one to be in the +400,000 ton range to be credible. .50cal incendiaries from a helicopter would defeat any 1860s warship, you'd start so many fires they'd just never be able to control them with the primitive pumping of the time and eventually the ship would burn to the magazine and blowup. 1860s stuff couldn't flood magazines. An 1890s ship could put up some defense against this, but hell if it matters, if we gave a damn nothing would stop a SH-60 from dropping a 2000lb laser guided bomb on the enemy. Also 20-30mm autocannon bolt on mounts exist for every naval helicopter of serious note.

The whole outmatched thing in new Trek was utterly reasonable. Personally I did get a bit of a Borg vibe off the future ship, but that doesn't mean much. If physics is consistent in Trek for different powers then that requires nothing more then parallel development, not technology cloning. The Borg shouldn't do what they do because 'Borg' but simply because its what technology favors. Military science is not some mindless circle jerk no matter what simple minded authors wish to make it out as. Certainly advances do simulate countermeasures, but core research remains the biggest driver behind it all. You build something better because it works better, and because you can make a clear economic argument that this is an advantage. It doesn't matter what the enemy does, unless it makes your own plan ineffective. The job of the enemy isn't to be met on equal terms in some honorable combat BS, its to BE KILLED AND DIE.

Sea Skimmer wrote:I'd contend the modern freighter would run out of ammo before the 1890s armored cruiser was even able to open fire. And that the result of said fire would be the 1890s ship sunk or a flaming wreck. And that even if this didn't happen a typical large modern freighter is outright faster then a typical 1890s cruiser so return to point one, the modern lame ship would be able to expend all munitions with no risk to itself what so ever assuming competent ship handling.

Hm, to be fair, I think I was thinking more in terms of World War One era weapons, which would make the engagement somewhat less stupidly unfair, although I suppose that modern extremely rapid fire 4" and 5" guns might just dump so much high-precision fire on a target that its superstructure gets annihilated regardless of whether it is mostly armored to a thickness that would otherwise be immune. Go back from there to 1890 and you lose turbine propulsion, have lower gun elevation, and in general you're looking at ships designed to engage at a few thousand yards rather than ten thousand.

And that's an awful lot less then a 150 year disparity in technology, 2015 vs 1865 would be an utterly different class of fail. We've built multiple amphibious armored vehicles that could probably destroy an 1865 ironclad with a single load of ammo.

This is true. Also, missiles of any kind make this comically unfair- it's mostly just that cannons are the least significant of all modern weapons, and the ones that a ship from 100 years ago or so would be least unable to cope with (double negative there is deliberate).

Hm, come to think of it, Narada is pretty clearly a missile ship. And we never see it take much in the way of fire, at least not until it starts taking massive damage from the red matter going off inside the hull. Maybe the ship doesn't actually have durability commensurate with its firepower?

The whole outmatched thing in new Trek was utterly reasonable. Personally I did get a bit of a Borg vibe off the future ship, but that doesn't mean much. If physics is consistent in Trek for different powers then that requires nothing more then parallel development, not technology cloning. The Borg shouldn't do what they do because 'Borg' but simply because its what technology favors.

Mmm... possibly true to a point. Although the Borg do some weird things with their technology, such as design it to infest other people's technology (and bodies). And build huge decentralized ships operated by a hive mind. So it wouldn't be entirely surprising if their technology bears little resemblance to anything anyone else builds.

Mmm... possibly true to a point. Although the Borg do some weird things with their technology, such as design it to infest other people's technology (and bodies). And build huge decentralized ships operated by a hive mind. So it wouldn't be entirely surprising if their technology bears little resemblance to anything anyone else builds.

Imagine if, using modern technology, we built huge 6 or 8-rotor drones, with multiple redundant power supplies, sensors, and weapons systems, or sent swarms of individual drones - such tactics would be somewhat similar to the Borg, where they don't rely on a single bridge, propulsion/power core, or weapons array...

Simon_Jester wrote:Hm, to be fair, I think I was thinking more in terms of World War One era weapons, which would make the engagement somewhat less stupidly unfair, although I suppose that modern extremely rapid fire 4" and 5" guns might just dump so much high-precision fire on a target that its superstructure gets annihilated regardless of whether it is mostly armored to a thickness that would otherwise be immune.

The high angle fire of modern 5in rounds and fusing would preforate the armor decks of 1890s cruisers until they burned or exploded. The armor is in the wrong place to matter. Also the 1890 ship would have no flash protection, no magazine doors and basically nothing to stop a burst on the battery deck from exploding ready ammo and then the main magazine. This did or almost did happen multiple times in the run up to and early part of WW1. Then people got smarter, but also began designing much different types of warship out of hand.

Go back from there to 1890 and you lose turbine propulsion, have lower gun elevation, and in general you're looking at ships designed to engage at a few thousand yards rather than ten thousand.

[/quote]

Modern WW1 vessels trounced 1890s era vessels over and over again in actual combat, so yeah. And this hardly unusual in the post US civil war military spectrum defined by scientific military advancement. Single decade differences are decisive, two decade differences are the gap between new and obsolete. The muzzle loading rifles of 1865 were utterly inferior to the Lebel 1886, and not very useful against the Chassepot of 1866. The only reason old stuff remains credible in the present day for full scale combat is extensive upgrade programs, often ones approaching the cumulative cost of new equipment but easier to sell politically, the limited scale of the threat and simply the fact that the issue isn't taken very seriously politically either. It is traded off against the likelihood of exceptionally high casualties should war actually occur.

Also a 1865 ship vs 1715 ship would go a largely similar way. The steam power and vastly heavier cannon of the newer ship would swiftly annihilate the older one, even totally ignoring armor. You have to go back a couple centuries before technology stopped shifting like that. It may stop shifting again in the future, but a realistic future does not include Star Trek structural/power/weapons technology.

I wonder if something like the Enterprise-E would be able to trounce the Narada.

I would think so, the E-E is a ship actually designed for combat (at least partly) is of the same era and technology and is built with that from the ground-up and not upgraded casually. Incidentally, did we ever see the Narada using shields at all? It seems to me the only reason it was successful was massive volleys of far more advanced missiles and catching the enemy unawares. The two ships that aren't destroyed in one volley (Kelvin and Enterprise) do seem to get more successful at shooting down the missiles (makes sense) and Nero tries his "come aboard and talk" routine rather than just firing again.

SO I would say that it's entirely possible that the Abrams Enterprise could probably engage and destroy Narada on it's own, if they knew what they were facing.

it also blew up 47 Klingon ships

the weapons disparity can't be that great over 100 years, especially with the Klingons - they must have had shields.

I'm quite sure that the Enterprise-E could handle the Narada.

Meanwhile in the 23rd century... Presumably, at least some of the Klingon ships had seen other Klingon ships destroyed and had time to prepare their defenses.

On the other hand, we also know that a Klingon "ship" could be one of the relatively small Birds of Prey, or even a shuttlecraft-equivalent. Think about those relatively small ships that appeared and attacked Kirk and crew when they landed on Q'on'os (Kronos? Are they spelling it phonetically now? I forget...). Khan was able to knock at least one of those out with a shoulder-fired weapon, even if it was one hell of a shoulder-fired weapon.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:I would think so, the E-E is a ship actually designed for combat (at least partly) is of the same era and technology and is built with that from the ground-up and not upgraded casually. Incidentally, did we ever see the Narada using shields at all? It seems to me the only reason it was successful was massive volleys of far more advanced missiles and catching the enemy unawares. The two ships that aren't destroyed in one volley (Kelvin and Enterprise) do seem to get more successful at shooting down the missiles (makes sense) and Nero tries his "come aboard and talk" routine rather than just firing again.

SO I would say that it's entirely possible that the Abrams Enterprise could probably engage and destroy Narada on it's own, if they knew what they were facing.

In the case of the Kelvin at least, Nero wanted information. He could've destroyed it more casually, but he wanted to know what the situation was that he found himself in. Ditto with Pike. I never got the impression that Nero stopped attacking either the Kelvin or the Enterprise because he had to.

Simon_Jester wrote:I'm quite sure that the Enterprise-E could handle the Narada.

Meanwhile in the 23rd century... Presumably, at least some of the Klingon ships had seen other Klingon ships destroyed and had time to prepare their defenses.

On the other hand, we also know that a Klingon "ship" could be one of the relatively small Birds of Prey, or even a shuttlecraft-equivalent. Think about those relatively small ships that appeared and attacked Kirk and crew when they landed on Q'on'os (Kronos? Are they spelling it phonetically now? I forget...). Khan was able to knock at least one of those out with a shoulder-fired weapon, even if it was one hell of a shoulder-fired weapon.

Outside canon (but attempting to explain it somewhat), the Narada is post-TNG but not by very far; more or less, it's roughly some years prior to STO's timeline, so yeah, it's more or less contemporaneous with the Sovereign class.

Yeah it's pretty clear in the movie that only reason Nero didn't blow up the Enterprise was that he indentified the ship and had something special in mind of for it

Elheru Aran wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:I'm quite sure that the Enterprise-E could handle the Narada.

Meanwhile in the 23rd century... Presumably, at least some of the Klingon ships had seen other Klingon ships destroyed and had time to prepare their defenses.

On the other hand, we also know that a Klingon "ship" could be one of the relatively small Birds of Prey, or even a shuttlecraft-equivalent. Think about those relatively small ships that appeared and attacked Kirk and crew when they landed on Q'on'os (Kronos? Are they spelling it phonetically now? I forget...). Khan was able to knock at least one of those out with a shoulder-fired weapon, even if it was one hell of a shoulder-fired weapon.

Outside canon (but attempting to explain it somewhat), the Narada is post-TNG but not by very far; more or less, it's roughly some years prior to STO's timeline, so yeah, it's more or less contemporaneous with the Sovereign class.

true and in the comics (though again non-canon) the Narada engaged and won a battle against a fleet of TNG era ships including the Enterprise-E

Lord Revan wrote:Yeah it's pretty clear in the movie that only reason Nero didn't blow up the Enterprise was that he indentified the ship and had something special in mind of for it

"Pretty clear" ?


"WAAAIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!"


=)

It was more than "pretty" clear ><

Simon_Jester wrote: On the other hand, we also know that a Klingon "ship" could be one of the relatively small Birds of Prey, or even a shuttlecraft-equivalent. Think about those relatively small ships that appeared and attacked Kirk and crew when they landed on Q'on'os (Kronos? Are they spelling it phonetically now? I forget...). Khan was able to knock at least one of those out with a shoulder-fired weapon, even if it was one hell of a shoulder-fired weapon.

"[...] and at 2300 hours last night there was an attack. 47 Klingon Warbirds destroyed by Romulans, Sir. It was reported that the Romulans were one ship, one massive ship. "


I think they're the D5 / D6 type, if the Kobyashi Maru scenario is to be believed ("3 Klingon warbirds ahead sir")