StarDestroyer.Net BBS

It is much simpler to assume that Klingon ships simply rely heavily on their shields than Starfleet ships (as well they should, given those damn fool spindly necks).

Howedar wrote:It is much simpler to assume that Klingon ships simply rely heavily on their shields than Starfleet ships (as well they should, given those damn fool spindly necks).

Just like starfleet's damn fool spindly warp pylons?
Also, I forgot something Wong used the TM's properties for Tritanium in his armor analysis, I used iron in my example from The Day of the Dove, so I should have used iron in the TWOK example. I will rectify that mistake:

Ok, Wong gave a generous 5 cubic meters of armor vaporized (phaserized) every second. Assuming it was iron to compare apples and apples, that is a whimpy 293 GJ... barely 70 tons of TNT. Lets compare again
53.2 KT per shot for Day of the Dove.
0.070 KT per second of sustained burst in TWOK.
Almost three orders of magnitude!!! A difference of 760x!!!

Come on Howedar, see the light! So, you are saying Starfleet hulls are 760 times tougher than Klingon hulls? Are you mad? Did you read my slightly flawed but still applicable (and now fixed--so read it ) post? That much of a difference would require hugely superior shields in Klingon ships to make up the difference. Finally, Klingon hulls are considered tougher than starfleet's! In Enterprise the Klingon ship that fell into the gas giant had a thicker and tougher hull. In DS9 somebody is surprised when something blew a hole in some Klingon hull. I'm not much good with DS9 episodes I'm afraid, so I can't tell you much about this one, Alyeska may be able to if you wont take my word on it (no real reason for you to )
The only fitting explaination is SIF. With them down phasers can do really bad things to hulls, with them up they do far more limited damage. Most of the time they are up, and we see limited damage (Ever wonder why torpedoes cause so little visible damage to a powered hull? Even KT level events should rip huge holes into the paper thin hulls--they don't, guess why ).

seanrobertson wrote:

Ender wrote:Just playing DA here: Doesnt' Wayne have a page dedicated to how Spock is an idiot who can't be trusted as a source?

He does indeed

http://h4h.com/louis/spock.html

So isn't is a bit dishonest to say "Spock is wrong all those times, but right in this specific case"?

The Silence and I wrote:

Howedar wrote:It is much simpler to assume that Klingon ships simply rely heavily on their shields than Starfleet ships (as well they should, given those damn fool spindly necks).

Just like starfleet's damn fool spindly warp pylons?
Also, I forgot something Wong used the TM's properties for Tritanium in his armor analysis, I used iron in my example from The Day of the Dove, so I should have used iron in the TWOK example. I will rectify that mistake:

Ok, Wong gave a generous 5 cubic meters of armor vaporized (phaserized) every second. Assuming it was iron to compare apples and apples, that is a whimpy 293 GJ... barely 70 tons of TNT. Lets compare again
53.2 KT per shot for Day of the Dove.
0.070 KT per second of sustained burst in TWOK.
Almost three orders of magnitude!!! A difference of 760x!!!

Come on Howedar, see the light! So, you are saying Starfleet hulls are 760 times tougher than Klingon hulls? Are you mad? Did you read my slightly flawed but still applicable (and now fixed--so read it ) post? That much of a difference would require hugely superior shields in Klingon ships to make up the difference. Finally, Klingon hulls are considered tougher than starfleet's! In Enterprise the Klingon ship that fell into the gas giant had a thicker and tougher hull. In DS9 somebody is surprised when something blew a hole in some Klingon hull. I'm not much good with DS9 episodes I'm afraid, so I can't tell you much about this one, Alyeska may be able to if you wont take my word on it (no real reason for you to )
The only fitting explaination is SIF. With them down phasers can do really bad things to hulls, with them up they do far more limited damage. Most of the time they are up, and we see limited damage (Ever wonder why torpedoes cause so little visible damage to a powered hull? Even KT level events should rip huge holes into the paper thin hulls--they don't, guess why ).

Frankly, we don't even know if SIF existed in the TOS-TMP era. You're creating another variable for nothing. Perhaps the Klingon ship had some volatile materials aboard (IE torpedos, antimatter, or whatever).

Adding factors for no reason is a bad way to analyze.

The Klingon D-7 was a heavily damaged drifting ship they wanted to destroy. The E-Nil was a fully functional ship Khan wanted ALIVE!

So isn't is a bit dishonest to say "Spock is wrong all those times, but right in this specific case"?

No. All those other times, there was evidence to show HOW and WHY he was wrong. Such is not the case this time.

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:The Klingon D-7 was a heavily damaged drifting ship they wanted to destroy. The E-Nil was a fully functional ship Khan wanted ALIVE!

I might add that, for all we know, the Klingons DO use steel as their hull material, and a great portion of the rest of the weight is made up by internal stores, leading to an even lower estimate than the one earlier provided, on the requirement to vapourize such a ship (and even then the image showed it only partially vapourized). After all, the Klingons could easily prefer lightweight, high-powered ships which don't use dense super-materials, and instead rely entirely on shields for their defence. It in fact fits their design philosophy, for that matter.

The reliability of the scene with the F-104 is that we know the strongest nuclear devices carried by the F-104--and Spock did state that it was a missile warhead that could be nuclear, not merely a nuclear device.

Howedar wrote:It is much simpler to assume that Klingon ships simply rely heavily on their shields than Starfleet ships (as well they should, given those damn fool spindly necks).

How do we know those spindly necks aren't the keel, and the strongest part of the ship?

Frank Hipper wrote:

Howedar wrote:It is much simpler to assume that Klingon ships simply rely heavily on their shields than Starfleet ships (as well they should, given those damn fool spindly necks).

How do we know those spindly necks aren't the keel, and the strongest part of the ship?

Well, the entire neck couldn't be, since it needs to contain at least, say, a maintainence tube with, say, a passageway and a turbolift shaft, and some power conduits and service umbilicals and so on--but the rest of it easily could be and probably should be structural material/and/or/armour.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

Frank Hipper wrote:How do we know those spindly necks aren't the keel, and the strongest part of the ship?

Well, the entire neck couldn't be, since it needs to contain at least, say, a maintainence tube with, say, a passageway and a turbolift shaft, and some power conduits and service umbilicals and so on--but the rest of it easily could be and probably should be structural material/and/or/armour.

I was thinking along the lines that the neck incorporates a keel, possibly a hollow structure like the geodetic fuselage of a Vickers Welligton.

It is possible. It would be more efficient if the neck simply weren't there, though. The Klingons would end up with a smaller, cheaper, more maneuverable, more durable ship.

Howedar wrote:

Frankly, we don't even know if SIF existed in the TOS-TMP era. You're creating another variable for nothing. Perhaps the Klingon ship had some volatile materials aboard (IE torpedos, antimatter, or whatever).

Adding factors for no reason is a bad way to analyze.

1) If the Enterprise nil lacked SIF's then it was made out of Starwars level stuff. Think about it, if the spindly Ent-nil did not need SIF, then why oh why would the Ent-D need it to stay in one piece while sitting still?

2) "Volatile materials" did you read my post before? The Klingon ship was by and large phaserized. It did not blow up with a titanic explosion from the dozens of torpedoes and other antimatter sources onboard... it was NDF'd away!!!!!!

What factors have I added? The Ent-nil needed SIF, therefore it had them. THe Klingon ship glowed for a bit then slowly vanished, therefore it was NDF'd away. Easy, simple, I gave screenshots of the latter, do you need a cap of the Ent-nil so I can point out its spindlyness--thus showing its need for SIF?

GAT wrote:

The Klingon D-7 was a heavily damaged drifting ship they wanted to destroy. The E-Nil was a fully functional ship Khan wanted ALIVE!

Is there a point to this? A damaged (SIF lacking) hulk of metal should be no easier to NDF than a powered, undamaged (Having SIF) hulk of the same metal in the same quantity. I quess you realize this, as you then say Khan wanted Kirk alive, and thus reduced phaser power (I take it you are implying this). Yet you fail to mention that Kirk most certainly did not want Khan alive, yet his phasers were no more effective against the Reliant than vice versa.

The Dutchess of Zeon wrote:

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:
The Klingon D-7 was a heavily damaged drifting ship they wanted to destroy. The E-Nil was a fully functional ship Khan wanted ALIVE!


I might add that, for all we know, the Klingons DO use steel as their hull material, and a great portion of the rest of the weight is made up by internal stores, leading to an even lower estimate than the one earlier provided, on the requirement to vapourize such a ship (and even then the image showed it only partially vapourized). After all, the Klingons could easily prefer lightweight, high-powered ships which don't use dense super-materials, and instead rely entirely on shields for their defence. It in fact fits their design philosophy, for that matter.

I see what you are saying, however I have a few small points:
1) In the ENT episode Sleeping Dogs, season 1 a small Klingon ship becomes trapped in a gas giant's atmosphere, slowly sinking furthur into the crushing depths. Well guess what, the Ent crew point out they can't send shuttles or the Ent because the hull cannot survive that pressure--even polarized. Yet the Klingon hull was even then only beginning to deform, and was stated to have a really thick, strong, Klingon hull.
2) The difference I calculated--with possibly innacurate mass numbers I will readily concede--is one of 760 times!! Are you going to just assume phasers are 760 times more effective against Klingon hulls than Federation hulls? Or could that staggereing difference perhaps be lessened by the presence of SIF? Just think about it.