359

 

Go back and read the thread in its entirety.

I did, and my statement is no less correct. You asserted that a tank could resist a phaser because a mudflap could resist a phaser. This is invalidated by a mudflap failing to resist a phaser. It doesn't matter what happened on the other side of the mudflap for that implication to be false.

 

To put it succinctly:

1) You stated that a mudflap did resist a phaser

2) You concluded that a tank could resist because a mudflap did

3) It was shown that a mudflap could not resist a phaser

     a) Thus a tank may or may not be able to resist a phaser

4) You assert that you never claimed a mudflap could resist a phaser, insisting that it is a lie

5) I show that you did in this statement: "Is a Sherman tougher than a packing crate? Or a mudflap? Yes or no?"

 

The above quote is a clear comparison of a tank to a mudflap with the tank being, obviously, stronger. Thus the only way for this to be a decisive argument is if it can be proven that a phaser can not penetrate a mudflap and by extension a tank. 

 

 

27 is indeed greater than 4 x 3.  It is considerable less than 4 x 3 x 12. Also, please correct whatever it was you meant to say in the last sentence.

Wow, I should probably not be typing at 1:30 am... I'll try that again.

 

2) Yes it is. The WW2 APC shell of the British 15"/42 Mk1 could penetrate up to 27" of armour at zero range, 16.5" at 10,000 yards.  HMS Ramillies used such shells to penetrate four metres of stone wall during the bombardment of Toulon

Shell can penetrate up to 27" of armor.

Shell can penetrate at least 4 meters of rock.

 

So:

27" armor ≥ 4 m rock, and by extension: 1 m rock ≤ 6.75" armor.

 

By that logic a weapon capable of penetrating 1 m of rock may have the ability to penetrate the 3" armor of a Sherman tank; since the Sherman's armor is equivalent to 0.44 m of rock.

 

Incidentally, because that's a stone wall, it is difficult to judge against natural and solid rock formations as stone wall tend to use mortar and are often not entirely rock on the inside. On the other hand, the shots may or may not have been able to penetrate more material, but unless it's twice as much (8 m) it hardly matters.

 

And again, this doesn't matter anyway as we are discussing phasers which don't penetrate via kinetic force.

 

 

There was no "cut tunnel".  There was an existing tunnel with a think sheet of rock over the entrance.  Brian's used the clip of Worf phasering that thin sheet several times.

Worf said nothing to that effect. The conversation went as follows:

 

Picard: "There's a lava tube beyond here that runs for seventy five metres, then it connects with another chamber. We need to get through here. This tube opens up beyond this crack. We could widen the opening, then we should be able to crawl through. Mister Worf."

Worf: "A phaser set to level sixteen should suffice."

 

What was stated is that there is a tiny opening into a lava tube and that they can widen it with a phaser. They proceed to do so. Then the camera moves to the other side of the hole they just cut. There we can see a nice missing section leading into the described lava tube.

 

 

 

And at Isandlwana a British force armed with modern weapons was wiped out by a native force with spears.

And at no point do I claim that they always do, but they can because of the weaponry they wield.

 

 

Indeed.  Emphasis on "dropping out".

So? Dropping out of the academy says very little of your combat knowledge or overall skills. Example: B'Elanna Torres, a successful starship engineer and academy dropout.

 

I said nothing of the sort liar.  I said that the fact that the vehicle was driving normally shows that there was no significant damage to the wheel - i.e. the phaser did no more than burst the tire.

Excuse me, but you did say that:

 

Is a Sherman tougher than a packing crate? Or a mudflap? Yes or no?

 

You were arguing that a phaser beam could not destroy a sherman as it could neither destroy a packing crate nor a mudflap.The only way this argument makes sense is if a phaser could not damage a mudflap. Because otherwise nothing would be proven.

 

This is what the argument comes across as. So either yes you did say that and the above accusation is uncalled for, or you mistakenly did not communicate your argument well and we can all overlook this simple miscommunication of ideas and proceed.

 

 

 

1) It's a fucking cave-in.

2) Yes it is. The WW2 APC shell of the British 15"/42 Mk1 could penetrate up to 27" of armour at zero range, 16.5" at 10,000 yards.  HMS Ramillies used such shells to penetrate four metres of stone wall during the bombardment of Toulon

1) As I remember it, 27 is greater than 4 times 3. As such this does not prove that the armor is stronger than a meter of granite, only that 6.75" or armor is at least equivalent to a meter of armor.

 

2)These are kinetic properties, not thermal, so they're not relevant anyway.

 

 

 

Watch the scene again then.  The area of the hole was about a square metre, but the tunnel they subsequently climed through was already there, and Worf just removed a thin layer of rock over the entrance.

Watch the next scene too. Then you can see as they climb through they do in fact pass from the cut tunnel to a slightly wider and natural one. The cut one is clearly over a meter in depth.

 

 

For the reasons I stated above - one is a native of a planet with 20th century technology and the other is merchant navy, not Starfleet.

I'm no gun expert, yet I can safely say that with modern weapons, even pre-modern, a small force could handily engage one armed with spears and such. In fact this happened pre-WWI in Africa when a group of British colonial forces wiped out a native fighting force.

 

And further still, Merik was initially in Star Fleet and did attend the academy for a short time before dropping out.

Yes.

 

But is it tougher than a meter of granite? No.

 

Incidentally the mud flap did not survive based on the amount of smoke coming from the back of the truck in VOY: "Future's End Part II". Not to mention the setting on the phaser is totally unknown.

Earth is considered geologically active, but it is not ready to just pop as far as I'm aware (and as I hope). A quick google search came up empty, but I don't think there's quite enough energy stored tectonically to blow up an entire planet.

 

A 9.0 richter scale earthquake releases a 'mere' 480 Mt (4.8*10^20 J) of energy, to reach the 10^38 J needed to mechanically blow up a planet would require the pent up and simultaneous release of 2.083*10^17 earthquakes of 9.0 magnitude.

 

Incidentally, certain starquakes may be able to tear apart a planet.

My thought is that the Rhydonium was used to initiate a chain reaction with the ship's reactor system. It wouldn't take a gigantic explosion to destabilize the reactor core if placed in the right spot.

But we have seen Venators explode before (ex: TCW: "Bound for Rescue"), and it was nothing like that. So that large explosion was a direct result of the Rhydonium, probably some secondary effect. Plus it was that same unique color, which does not result from reactor explosions.

 

I mean, wouldn't antimatter, hypermatter, or even fission or fusion explosives work better if they had them?

Maybe the republic would have detected the bomb much sooner if it was made from such energetic and exotic materials.

 

 

At 0:33 in the clip one of the republic frigates is taken out by a rather small piece.