Mythbusters: 200GT Turbolasers, 100% Phaser Accuracy

[Darth Servo]

TOS examples? Remember the Pioneer 10 probe is considered "most difficult" to hit and the BOP missed at least twice.

One thing that I'm always curious about is why are alien ships used to refute the claim that Federation ships have 100% accuracy? It just seems lazy to me, and not to mention you're talking about a ship with a mostly fixed weapon system. It's not like a phaser array...

Because they're roughly on par tech-wise. Hell, in "Yesterday's Enterprise" the Klingons were beating the Feddies. Kind of difficult to rationalize that with the idea that Fed ships have flawless accuracy but their enemies do not.

Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi7hRUwJyac

Nice. But why the hell isn't that in Trek miss? Do the "enhanced" versions count as canon? Is the original version available?

BTW, its also yet another example refuting the old "warp strafing" idiocy. Chekhov reports its at warp 8 and near the end that the enemy ship was dropping to sublight. Anyone with functioning eyes can clearly see the ship is NOT traveling FTL.

[Lord Poe]

Nice. But why the hell isn't that in Trek miss? Do the "enhanced" versions count as canon? Is the original version available?

I just found it. I may have to make Trekmiss 3 one day!

BTW, its also yet another example refuting the old "warp strafing" idiocy. Chekhov reports its at warp 8 and near the end that the enemy ship was dropping to sublight. Anyone with functioning eyes can clearly see the ship is NOT traveling FTL.

It's strange; how does one "float" in one spot while in warp?

[Adrian Laguna]

The fact that he took charge of firing the shot personally shows he did it for sport. Now tell me, is it any fun if you let a computer do the aiming for you?

I made this exact argument a few days ago. There's actually a shot of a big reticule appearing around the probe on his screen.

Like I said, the computer is helping him get it in the ballpark. It is also not fun to have to do trigonometry in your head in order to be anywhere close to the target. It makes perfect sense both in and out of universe.

[Batman]

What trigonometry? The BoP was sitting right on top of the probe. Put the crosshairs on the target, fire, end of exercise.

[Stark]

I think he's saying the whole thing was manual, instead of the sight being connected to a computer that interprets your commands. For instance, the difference between

A) use sight to direct fire control, ship aligns to bring weapons to bear (the guns do appear to have a small amount of flexibility, but the ship probably rotates). This is 'manual' in that it's not all push-button, but still requires targeting skill (the only skill he could have demonstrated with a simple sight anyway)

and

B) 100% manual calculation of convergence point, relative velocities, range, time-to target, target motion, etc. Difficult to do with a periscope and no protractor.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Get this - the targeting computer for a fixed-weapon craft would be linked to the maneuver drive, in order to maintain the 'indicated aimpoint-actual aimpoint' connection. This is WW2 technology.

That's assuming the targeting computer was even used during that scene. Given what we've seen from other BoP operations, and the conversation, it's obvious that the BoP Captain was using manual targeting.

Again, there are much better examples of bad UFP accuracy then relying on these examples that can be easily explained. Why waste the time and energy?

[Terralthra]

You could say the same thing about the Trek side pointing to Luke and Han's shooting after escaping from the Death Star in ANH, when the battle at hand is Federation vs. the Empire.

The Empire is fighting the rebels, if the rebels all shoot completely terribly and the Empire doesn't, then the rebels wouldn't pose much of a challenge. Similarly, if the Klingons can't shoot very well, but the Federation can, then the Klingons would not be a viable threat to the UFP.

[Connor MacLeod]

Don't most of these "near perfect accuracy" claims typically occur at very short ranges (like what could qualify as "point blank"? I'd hardly be surprised at the fact they can hit anything from point blank range.

It would be the people who contend ST ships could always or almost alwasy hit any target out to tens or hundreds of thousands of kilometers out effortlessly that I would laugh at.

[Kamakazie Sith]

You could say the same thing about the Trek side pointing to Luke and Han's shooting after escaping from the Death Star in ANH, when the battle at hand is Federation vs. the Empire.

The Empire is fighting the rebels, if the rebels all shoot completely terribly and the Empire doesn't, then the rebels wouldn't pose much of a challenge. Similarly, if the Klingons can't shoot very well, but the Federation can, then the Klingons would not be a viable threat to the UFP.

Nobody is saying that the Klingon's have terrible accuracy though...

[Kamakazie Sith]

Because they're roughly on par tech-wise. Hell, in "Yesterday's Enterprise" the Klingons were beating the Feddies. Kind of difficult to rationalize that with the idea that Fed ships have flawless accuracy but their enemies do not.

You could explain that in many other ways as well. The K'vort's in "Yesterday's Enterprise" were also firing a lot faster than the E-D. Maybe they have more powerful weapons.

The UFP could have perfect targeting, but still get their ass kicked for many other reasons.

BTW, its also yet another example refuting the old "warp strafing" idiocy. Chekhov reports its at warp 8 and near the end that the enemy ship was dropping to sublight. Anyone with functioning eyes can clearly see the ship is NOT traveling FTL.

I realize this is just a reality of debating sci-fi, but let's be honest. Have you seen a sci-fi TV series where FTL combat is taking place and is accurately reflected to do so?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Don't most of these "near perfect accuracy" claims typically occur at very short ranges (like what could qualify as "point blank"? I'd hardly be surprised at the fact they can hit anything from point blank range.

It would be the people who contend ST ships could always or almost alwasy hit any target out to tens or hundreds of thousands of kilometers out effortlessly that I would laugh at.

Exactly. They do, and they also occur against slow moving targets. Even if the SW side conceded this claim it's not that big of a deal.

[Darth Wong]

Don't most of these "near perfect accuracy" claims typically occur at very short ranges (like what could qualify as "point blank"? I'd hardly be surprised at the fact they can hit anything from point blank range.

It would be the people who contend ST ships could always or almost alwasy hit any target out to tens or hundreds of thousands of kilometers out effortlessly that I would laugh at.

Exactly. They do, and they also occur against slow moving targets. Even if the SW side conceded this claim it's not that big of a deal.

The problem is that it's a bait-and-switch. They're trying to claim that if ST omnidirectional phaser strips can always hit 100m long objects from short-range and moving in predictable patterns, then they'll effortlessly pick off SW ships and fighters of any size at any range.

[Darth Servo]

The Claim:

"Trekkies have NEEEVER claimed 100% accuracy for rek weapons!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

Keep in mind, the idiot making this "claim" is the same idiot who took months to figure out 'Darth Wong' and 'Admiral Kanos' were the same person.

[Stark]

That's assuming the targeting computer was even used during that scene. Given what we've seen from other BoP operations, and the conversation, it's obvious that the BoP Captain was using manual targeting.

So weapons with extremely limited flexibility are used 100% manually with nothing more complex than a scope? Does he manually dial in the range for convergence too?

'Manual' isn't a on-off proposition. Sure, he wasn't doing it the automated way, but saying he had absolutely no assistance whatsoever (when this would mean he'd need to be controlling a pile of things at once) when he points a sight at a target and pulls a trigger seems pretty unwarranted. He was testing his skill, sure, but I didn't see him whip out any range tables. If he was aiming manually, with the guns laid automatically in response to his use of the sight, that's still 'manual' and it's still 'hella hard'.

[Nephtys]

Wouldn't the end of ST:Nemesis pretty much blow this all out the window? That giant Reman medusa-ship was huge, and was getting missed at a few hundred meters with fire from phaser strips, torpedoes, and two other Romulan ships for something like five minutes.

[OmegaGuy]

I realize this is just a reality of debating sci-fi, but let's be honest. Have you seen a sci-fi TV series where FTL combat is taking place and is accurately reflected to do so?

Invader Zim

[Connor MacLeod]

Exactly. They do, and they also occur against slow moving targets. Even if the SW side conceded this claim it's not that big of a deal.

AS Mike noted, some dishonest folk can use it as a "bait and switch."

Moe than that howver I suspect people are rahter lazy where accuracy is concerned. I mean, think about it. Its got to be alot more than just counting hits and misses. You have to account for all the variables - taget speed and manuvering, target size/profile, countermeasures (if any), sensor quality, the local conditions (if any that might affect such), range, the detecting vessel's own velocity and manuverability probably play a role.

But tehre's mroe to it than just computers and sensors too. Tracking abilities and speed (turret rotation, turret mass, etc.) almost all probably play a role. I mean, your computers can be as accuate as you could hope but it can't mean crap if the turrets are too slow to track.

The fun part about the last one is is that one may be tempted to conclude that because a big heavy turret like a HTL has trouble tracking objects up close (say a fighter), that it might have trouble trackign at longer ranges - not so. Closer up, a big, massive turret has to cover a braoder arc to keep a target "in sight", than it does at longer ranges. The further away a ship is, the less it has to move to track it. Of course, longer ranges can also make precision a problem (you're focusing on a smaller taget the further away it is) but this is where other elements like profile/size, its mmobility, and the quality and kinds of sensors and computers used come in, and they're a separate issue.

You might wonder "why bother with big turrets then" and Mike has mentioned this before - recoil. You can't shoot out kilotons, megatons, or gigatons of energy without significant recoil, and a bigger turret can help offset this. Its a tradoff.

other circumstancese, like disabling vs destroying, can also play a role.