Page 2 of 2
Re: Why I think Argo had Rear-firing phaser
Posted: 2011-04-12 08:09am
by Rommel123
http://protagonist4hire.blogspot.com/20 ... -week.html
Explain above.
About Argo, it is light recon vehicle, basically designed for "bug in, collect (xy)/do recon/do something else, and then bug out" - type missions, which is exactly type of mission we see it in. It is not assault vehicle, and it is questionable if it was designed as combat vehicle in first place, althought it seems so.
Re: Why I think Argo had Rear-firing phaser
Posted: 2011-04-12 08:13am
by PeZook
Thing is, a weapon for self-defence is still better placed on top. Why? Because then a guy who's chasing you can't neuter your weapon by simply driving a bit to the side.
Re: Why I think Argo had Rear-firing phaser
Posted: 2011-04-12 08:27am
by Captain Seafort
PeZook wrote:Thing is, a weapon for self-defence is still better placed on top. Why? Because then a guy who's chasing you can't neuter your weapon by simply driving a bit to the side.
It would have to drive more than "a bit" to the side to get out of the line of fire. That phaser cannon looks to have something like a 30 degree angle of fire either side of the centreline. If they had enough of a speed advantage to get up alongside like that then I think their ability to stay out of the line of fire would be the least of your worries. Plus, of course, there's the issue of what putting it up on top would do to the centre of gravity.
Re: Why I think Argo had Rear-firing phaser
Posted: 2011-04-12 10:36am
by Enigma
Captain Seafort wrote:Enigma wrote:They had a shuttle with them, except they landed it and took the Argo instead. The shuttle has shields and phaser (AFAIK all shuttle have them), plus they are much faster than a buggy. They could have done the job with a fraction of the time needed and the locals could just piss off.
However, at the time they landed they didn't know there were unfriendly locals about, so the ease of simply driving to the nearest piece of android, hopping out, grabbing it and hopping back in beat having to land the shuttle every time, open the back door, get out and grab the piece, get back in, close the door and take off again.
As for it's use as a military vehicle, I don't quite understand the vitriol directed against it. Sure, there's no protection and the weapon placement isn't the greatest, but it would still be a useful (very) light recce vehicle. It's mobility and firepower are a vast improvement on shanks' pony and a rifle, it's got wheels not antigrav so it won't be affected by any of the thousand and one this that screw with the magic forcefields, and if it's intended to bug out if it runs into trouble then the weapon placement makes sense - it can keep people's heads down as they retreat and it keeps the centre of gravity low.
So the Enterprise did not find any locals nearby when they scanned the planet?
Using a shuttle still makes sense that they don't even need to get out. Scan, locate, beam and then on to the next signal. Scan, locate, beam, etc....
Re: Why I think Argo had Rear-firing phaser
Posted: 2011-04-19 03:03am
by aussiemuscle308
Mr Bean wrote:Azron_Stoma wrote:Even this highly specific reason is not all that great a one because it's only an advantage during a very carefully specific instance...
if you miss!
(gives the opposing tank opportunity to return fire)