Jump to content
News Ticker
  • IPB version 4.2 installed!

Recommended Posts

Since this subforum has been all but dead for months I'm going to give it a prod.  Might get nowhere, but hey-ho.

 

1) What did the poor old Jemmies ever do to Brian to deserve this?  I recognise that it's one of the relatively rare examples of a set-piece action with clear objectives on both sides, but surely a slightly more challenging test of their capabilities could have been found? Given the flat terrain on the approach to the Feds' position, and the complete lack of anything resembling a competently-designed weapon, you could replace either attackers or defenders with some of these guys and I expect they could have pulled it off.

 

2) I think Brian is badly underestimating the advantage provided by the CM's dropship (assuming they don't lose it through stupidity as orginally).  In both the Omaha and AR-558 scenarios he effectively uses it as another IFV parked on high ground.  In the former, a better question would have been to ask what a few dozen of the things hammering the flak towers of Berlin and dropping the IFVs in the back garden of the Fuhrerbunker could have achieved - completely bypassing occupied Europe.  In the latter case, don't wait for the Jemmies to attack - strike first, and obliterate their camp with massed rocket fire while they're still organising.  In either case, the ultimate objective is achieved without the action being discussed even being necessary.

 

3) Finally, a minor nitpick about Omaha. The US did have close air support, tanks and artillery.  The aircraft were mostly busy inland, keeping German reinforcements away from the beaches, the tanks sank in rough seas, and the artillery was floating offshore - Admiral Kirk pushed the Enterprise as close in as he dared to provide the supplement the fire of the destroyers providing immediate support. It was the fire from those ships against the German bunkers (which had already withstood months of attack from heavy bombers and a pre-landing bombardment from battleships) that knocked out enough of them to allow the infantry to advance off the beach.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. What flat terrain? The man-size boulders were everywhere an APC would want to be.

2. The Aliens guys are easy pickings. Even stipulating to Young's unsubstantiated claim that the cave is transporter-repellant, the guys outside can be beamed up without resistance.

2A. Brian seems confused about where "outside" is.

3. Nay nay, sir. By Brian's logic in this video in which Starfleet does not possess what is not seen in this episode ("if there was more to bring, Defiant would have brought it" ... which is true, just not in the way he thinks, given the references to being spread thin that he ignores), Omaha must have been representative of all American standard equipment in WW2, meaning we didn't have artillery or close support aircraft. :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. What flat terrain? The man-size boulders were everywhere an APC would want to be.

 

IIRC the boulders were only only at the ends of the valley, with a flat, open section in the middle.

 

 

2. The Aliens guys are easy pickings. Even stipulating to Young's unsubstantiated claim that the cave is transporter-repellant, the guys outside can be beamed up without resistance.

 

When has this tactic ever been used in the half-century, 500+ hour history of Star Trek? I can think of Insurrection and that's it.

 

Even if this is possible against more than medieval pesantry, it is very highly unlikely to be possible against the CM, given their stated use of EW and the fact that transporters get jammed if you so much as look sideways at them.

 

 

3. Nay nay, sir. By Brian's logic in this video in which Starfleet does not possess what is not seen in this episode ("if there was more to bring, Defiant would have brought it" ... which is true, just not in the way he thinks, given the references to being spread thin that he ignores), Omaha must have been representative of all American standard equipment in WW2, meaning we didn't have artillery or close support aircraft. :-P

 

While I concede that no specifically US-operated CAS was present, and that the Enterprise was the most important ship in the inshore squadron, most of the destroyers of the western task force were US.

 

As for the abysmal state of the force at AR-558, we are not talking about mere equipment shortages, we are talking about a complete lack of everything that makes a modern military a military - helmets, rifles, machine guns, mortars, grenades.  It's the equivalent of a firebase in Afghanistan having nothing but handguns and MP5s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: 1. There is no significant flat terrain observed in the episode. I would think it difficult to maneuver a Smart car a significant distance. There is just talk of a ravine that is traversable whereas the mountains to the east and west are not, but there is no comparison provided to what we see.

 

Re: 2. There are several occasions of people being beamed up either with their weapons being deactivated or not materialized with them, or even behind a forcefield around the pad or directly to the brig. Do you need a list?

 

Also, "we got sonic, electronic ballbreakers" does not strike me as a devastating proof of profound EW/ECM. In the film Vasquez seems dumbfounded that the aliens don't show up on IR at one point, and yet a basic tricorder can be used to mask the user's IR signature.

 

http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWground-tricord.html

 

Re: 3. The force being so battered and not having assorted gear like personal forcefields could be ever so slightly related, wouldn't you think? Reese was down to his grey undershirt. It isn't clear if he was in a Starfleet standard uniform or the "flak jacket" soldier-wear prior to that, but it was a mixed company of engineers and defenders and I presume he was a defender.

 

As Bashir noted, these people needed more than a few food replicators and medical supplies. That hardly supports Brian's suggestions that they'd received additional resupply on prior occasions or that the Defiant (a vessel hardly known for its cargo capability) was bringing all the standard toys Starfleet had to offer.

 

Hell, Young even tries comparing the Jem'Hadar subspace anti-personnel mines with claymore mines (i.e. among our larger mines for clearing an area) rather than the overgrown levitating toe-poppers they seem to be. Heaven forbid an episode of a modern TV war program show small mines ... we'd be told our modern weaponry isn't that impressive.

 

 

Also, he mischaracterizes the capture of Damar in the cellar as a trying-to-kill-them event when it wasn't (until their execution was later ordered), meaning that a perfectly functional and effective Jem'Hadar flash-bang should not be compared to a real grenade.

 

Ah well ... I suppose I might as well stop and do a proper blog write-up of everything wrong with his analysis like some of the others of late. Should I mention that the self-proclaimed gun guy who called others pansies for not having unsecured firearms hung about didn't even get gun lingo right inasmuch as calling a phaser power pack a "clip" rather than a magazine? Or give him grief for not recognizing that clearing defenders from a position you wish to capture will sometimes result in close-quarters combat in which a long gun the other guys can grab (especially a pump-action shotgun or similar non-semi-auto+ weapon) is often not considered the best thing to have? Oh, but of course, no one could ever run out of flash-bangs, right? Every war has to look like recent US battles, where an extremely well-supplied force spanks a poorer one and there is never hand-to-hand (except when there was, even in Iraq).

 

Nah, I don't wanna embarrass the guy. I just think it important for folks to realize that his analyses are not very good except as a functional demonstration of his biases.

 

After all, the same guy who claimed I am a cherry-picker for having the Leia arm-shot on a page (marked as a "brief note" "placeholder" for an analysis of Star Wars ground combat) ... and who then falsely claimed I was referencing that in the present to discount more impressive shots ... and who complains about others not recognizing SW weapon settings does the exact same thing he pretends to decry here, pointing to Jem'Hadar shots against personnel in this episode as evidence against anti-armor capability. He doesn't even reference the fact that Jem'Hadar rifles can go full-auto. Instead, he declares there are unknown, unobserved, unstated limitations on these and phaser weapons because they are "small arms".

 

In other words, for Star Wars the answer is always unseen settings. For Star Trek, the answer is always "lol fail".

 

Similarly, he assumes the Aliens guys have unobserved things (paraphrasing, 'we didn't see any mines but we can assume they have them'), but for the Trek guys his default is the reverse ... if it isn't seen, they don't have it, and he explicitly notes the "Cage" cannon (and would presumably include similar smaller devices like the Cardassian device from "Civil Defense" or even the tripod phaser drill from Voyager).

 

For all his efforts to proclaim that he thinks Starfleet guys are smart, he works hard to portray them otherwise. If you really think they are smart, then here they are savagely undersupplied. The two ideas cannot both be held as true.

 

In any case, I think he would do better to focus on other franchises, perhaps even those that are under-explored, if this hobby is even advisable for him at all. Ignoring his misunderstanding of the AR-558 terrain he came up with a decent modern battle plan, to his credit, but other than the armed flying vehicle (for aslong as it lasts) it would be completely useless against 24th Century militaries.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: 1. There is no significant flat terrain observed in the episode. I would think it difficult to maneuver a Smart car a significant distance. There is just talk of a ravine that is traversable whereas the mountains to the east and west are not, but there is no comparison provided to what we see.

 

Fair enough, that takes the IFV out.  Doesn't change the outcome in the slightest.

 

 

Re: 2. There are several occasions of people being beamed up either with their weapons being deactivated or not materialized with them, or even behind a forcefield around the pad or directly to the brig. Do you need a list?

 

Very well - provide examples of the transporter being used tactically to remove enemy combatants from the battlefield.

 

 

Also, "we got sonic, electronic ballbreakers" does not strike me as a devastating proof of profound EW/ECM. In the film Vasquez seems dumbfounded that the aliens don't show up on IR at one point, and yet a basic tricorder can be used to mask the user's IR signature.

 

It's not the most technically precise briefing I've ever heard, but it's clear that the CM do have EW capabilities.

 

 

Re: 3. The force being so battered and not having assorted gear like personal forcefields could be ever so slightly related, wouldn't you think? Reese was down to his grey undershirt. It isn't clear if he was in a Starfleet standard uniform or the "flak jacket" soldier-wear prior to that, but it was a mixed company of engineers and defenders and I presume he was a defender.

 

I'm not talking about them not having all the bells and whistles.  I'm talking about them lacking the absolute fundamentals.  I repeat: it's the equivalent of a firebase in Afghanistan having nothing but handguns and MP5s.

 

 

As Bashir noted, these people needed more than a few food replicators and medical supplies. That hardly supports Brian's suggestions that they'd received additional resupply on prior occasions or that the Defiant (a vessel hardly known for its cargo capability) was bringing all the standard toys Starfleet had to offer.

 

"These people's physical and mental health is precarious at best. They need more than a few food replicators and medical supplies. They need to be shipped out of here."

 

Bashir didn't give a fuck about the presence or absence of equipment or weapons, and you're being a dishonest little shit to imply otherwise.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After all, the same guy who claimed I am a cherry-picker for having the Leia arm-shot on a page (marked as a "brief note" "placeholder" for an analysis of Star Wars ground combat) ... and who then falsely claimed I was referencing that in the present to discount more impressive shots ... and who complains about others not recognizing SW weapon settings does the exact same thing he pretends to decry here, pointing to Jem'Hadar shots against personnel in this episode as evidence against anti-armor capability. He doesn't even reference the fact that Jem'Hadar rifles can go full-auto. Instead, he declares there are unknown, unobserved, unstated limitations on these and phaser weapons because they are "small arms".

 

In other words, for Star Wars the answer is always unseen settings. For Star Trek, the answer is always "lol fail".

I made this point in an email the other day because indeed, phasers and blasters do not over penetrate human bodies on lower settings either, but we know both are capable of much greater effect. 

 

And may I ask where he called you a cherry picker for this? I have in the past (in context to this page) because after-all, you did say you'd "rather use bullets" and never hinted that the E-11 may possess much firepower in other scenes thus hinting to a range of power settings on blasters (grapefruit sized craters in Bespin walls and torso sized holes in metal grates, for examples). That page certainly implied that you considered blasters (or at least stormtrooper carbines) to be less powerful than modern firearms to anybody who has read it, which is demonstrably false by quite a large margin. If this is not what you wanted people to think that you had meant to conclude, then perhaps you should have been a little clearer when writing that particular "place-holder".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well somebodies claws are out today, meow!

Sorry, nerd-on-nerd dorktalk isn't hot enough to be a proverbial catfight nor as interesting to watch as actual feline pawicuffs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, that takes the IFV out. Doesn't change the outcome in the slightest.

On that last bit we agree, but for different reasons.

 

Very well - provide examples of the transporter being used tactically to remove enemy combatants from the battlefield.

Generally speaking, such a thing wouldn't work against entrenched enemies of the same tech level because they'd have defenses, as seen in Insurrection and other occasions of shielded or inhibitor/scrambler-equipped parties. Still, the best example, stretching "battlefield" but covering the general idea:

 

"A Matter of Honor"(TNG2) ... the aggressive Klingon captain is removed from his bridge to prevent a battle. (They thought they were getting Riker, but Riker knew they weren't).

 

Other instances involving ending a fight:

 

Star Trek: Insurrection features a tag & bag using drones and marker darts to counter transport inhibitors in use by 'Federation insurgents'. I don't include this with the above example simply because there was a small exchange between two ground teams at one point.

"Datalore"(TNG1) ... Lore and his phaser beam are removed from the ship.

"Return to Grace"(DSN4) ... the enemy crew was beamed out with their own transporters after a boarding raid. Presumably the Groumall's transporters couldn't pull it off, or there was only a small window available into the engineering area, et cetera.

"Live Fast and Prosper"(VOY6) ... Voyager attempts to beam the enemy crew off their ship to conclude a firefight.

"False Profits"(VOY3) ... Voyager attempts to capture opponents during a technobabble conflict.

"Endgame" ... Adm. Janeway, once located, is captured by the Borg while engaged in psychological warfare of a sort.

 

I suppose I could also reference Star Trek V in which Kirk pre-emptively orders McCoy and Spock beamed up almost before the doctor can protest, thereby avoiding a debate surely worse than any war, but Bones probably gave him such hell for that afterward that it wasn't worth it. ;-)

 

It's not the most technically precise briefing I've ever heard, but it's clear that the CM do have EW capabilities.

And this after I have already demonstrated that a tricorder can do more ECM than the Aliens guys have apparently ever seen before.

 

But let's confirm here that you are basing the existence of electronic warfare and ECM solely on just "sonic, electronic ballbreakers", and then compare that to this:

 

"These people's physical and mental health is precarious at best. They need more than a few food replicators and medical supplies. They need to be shipped out of here."

 

Bashir didn't give a fuck about the presence or absence of equipment or weapons, and you're being a dishonest little shit to imply otherwise.

So again, "sonic, electronic ballbreakers" is your proof of ECM, but I am supposedly a dishonest little shit for pointing out that the only listing of supplies we are given doesn't support Brian's grandiose claims? Perhaps *you* can tell us what other supplies were brought. They didn't appear to even bring fresh uniforms, for crying out loud.

 

Heck, we saw photon grenades in TOS and heard reference in Voyager, yet they are not seen here. Per Brian's claims, though, that the absence of a phaser cannon here means they don't exist, then photon grenades must not exist anymore.

 

That's laughable.

 

Again, Bashir's list does not support Brian's unfounded and counter-canonical contentions of the compound having been resupplied multiple times and that Defiant must have brought all of the toys available for ground warfare. If I am somehow a dishonest little shit, then you must make the same claim for him, and yourself on the ECM topic. But you probably aren't honest enough to do that, nor man enough to apologize for your false insult.

 

Laughable, indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made this point in an email the other day because indeed, phasers and blasters do not over penetrate human bodies on lower settings either, but we know both are capable of much greater effect.

Very good. 

 

And may I ask where he called you a cherry picker for this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=D9mzhSntoM8

 

And I believe also in his "Q&A 15: Mike DiCenso" video he later deleted, but I'd have to check.

 

I have in the past (in context to this page) because after-all, you did say you'd "rather use bullets"

A bullet would have done more damage than that shot. He'd have done better to stun her. Of course, my opponents just whined and made personal attacks out of it, rather than explain it as an ill-timed shoot-to-wound 3-for-1 strategy or suggest the fabric offered resistance. I later made this point after Dooku's armorweave cloak hit the canon.

 

But my foes would rather sling insults than think.

 

and never hinted that the E-11 may possess much firepower in other scenes

Get real. Blasters can kill. Do you really expect people to believe I was trying to hide this fact from my readers? Seriously?

 

Good grief.

 

That page certainly implied that you considered blasters (or at least stormtrooper carbines) to be less powerful than modern firearms to anybody who has read it, which is demonstrably false by quite a large margin. If this is not what you wanted people to think that you had meant to conclude, then perhaps you should have been a little clearer when writing that particular "place-holder".

My meaning was plain enough to anyone not hoping to twist it.

 

http://weblog.st-v-sw.net/2014/07/st-v-swnet-past-and-future.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"A Matter of Honor"(TNG2) ... the aggressive Klingon captain is removed from his bridge to prevent a battle. (They thought they were getting Riker, but Riker knew they weren't).

 

Required tagging.

 

"Datalore"(TNG1) ... Lore and his phaser beam are removed from the ship.

 

Was thrown into the transporter, not beamed up

 

"Return to Grace"(DSN4) ... the enemy crew was beamed out with their own transporters after a boarding raid. Presumably the Groumall's transporters couldn't pull it off, or there was only a small window available into the engineering area, et cetera.

 

Point, but required capturing the enemy ship first.

 

"Live Fast and Prosper"(VOY6) ... Voyager attempts to beam the enemy crew off their ship to conclude a firefight.

 

Attempts.  I.e. fails to.

 

"False Profits"(VOY3) ... Voyager attempts to capture opponents during a technobabble conflict.

 

Attempts.  I.e. fails to.

 

"Endgame" ... Adm. Janeway, once located, is captured by the Borg while engaged in psychological warfare of a sort.

 

Fair enough.

 

So we have a grand total of three - Insurrection, Return to Grace and Endgame, one of which required capturing the enemy ship in a bording action first and one of which was up against a bunch of medieval peasants.  Translation: it cannot be considered an effective tactic, because it's hardly ever used.

 

So again, "sonic, electronic ballbreakers" is your proof of ECM, but I am supposedly a dishonest little shit for pointing out that the only listing of supplies we are given doesn't support Brian's grandiose claims? Perhaps *you* can tell us what other supplies were brought. They didn't appear to even bring fresh uniforms, for crying out loud.

 

Heck, we saw photon grenades in TOS and heard reference in Voyager, yet they are not seen here. Per Brian's claims, though, that the absence of a phaser cannon here means they don't exist, then photon grenades must not exist anymore.

 

Again, Bashir's list does not support Brian's unfounded and counter-canonical contentions of the compound having been resupplied multiple times and that Defiant must have brought all of the toys available for ground warfare. If I am somehow a dishonest little shit, then you must make the same claim for him, and yourself on the ECM topic. But you probably aren't honest enough to do that, nor man enough to apologize for your false insult.

 

So where are their mortars?  Where are their GPMGs?  Where are their grenades?  Where are their helmets?  These are not rare and unusual items for a light infantry company to have - they are fundamental to their role.  I will say it again, since you obviously didn't read it the first two times: this is the equivalent of a firebase in Afghanistan having nothing but handguns and MP5s.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all the ground combat tech I can think of from Trek (or the Federation, specifically).

 

Pistols

Rifles

Immobile cannon

Bazooka (only low firepower seen, but perhaps it has greater options / ordinances)

Photon grenades

Mortars

Shuttles

Sure, it's not as "un-represented" as described on SD.net's comparison, but still rather lacking compared to a few other franchises, where larger scale ground battles are more prevalent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was also the Argo dune buggy, and whatever a "hopper" is (from Nor the Battle to the Strong).

 

The Cardies have some form of APC or IFV described in The Darkness and The Light, and Garak mentioned mechanised infantry in The Wire (whether he was lying about its existence as well as being in it is unknown).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bullet would have done more damage than that shot. He'd have done better to stun her. Of course, my opponents just whined and made personal attacks out of it, rather than explain it as an ill-timed shoot-to-wound 3-for-1 strategy or suggest the fabric offered resistance. I later made this point after Dooku's armorweave cloak hit the canon.

 

But my foes would rather sling insults than think.

I agree, a bullet would have been more damaging. And FYI similar wounds are seen in the Clone Wars even when fabrics are not present. Check it out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Acvw6WXcqAM

 

Get real. Blasters can kill. Do you really expect people to believe I was trying to hide this fact from my readers? Seriously?

.... No. This was not my point at all. I had meant to point out that you did not make a distinction between shots which put penny sized holes in a fleshy target and those other shots (from the same guns) which blast torso sized holes or craters into walls and metals. You focussed solely on the examples of "blasters can kill" or Leia's arm, and omitted to point out that these other shots would not just kill a human target, but blow one to bits!

 

I'm sure you have seen my scaled comparisons before?

http://www.galacticempirewars.com/e-11-superheated-metal

 

http://www.galacticempirewars.com/dl-44-wall-fragmentation

 

Good grief.

You missed the point ;)

 

My meaning was plain enough to anyone not hoping to twist it.

Are you accusing me of twisting it? And hurling insults?

 

http://weblog.st-v-sw.net/2014/07/st-v-swnet-past-and-future.html

This one is a bit long for a casual read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Required tagging.

From behind cloak? Yep. Still counts as an enemy (or wannabe) being beamed up without resistance, your attempts to move the goalpost notwithstanding.

 

Was thrown into the transporter, not beamed up

Yep ... the transporter was used to end the fight, which still supports my point, hence the use of the supporting example.

 

Point, but required capturing the enemy ship first.

Wrong. They boarded to use the Klingon transporter but did not capture the ship until the transporter maneuver occurred.

  

Attempts.  I.e. fails to.

Irrelevant. You asked when the tactic had been used. That is a use of the same basic tactic.

 

Attempts. I.e. fails to.

Irrelevant. You asked when the tactic had been used. That is a use of the same basic tactic.

 

Translation: it cannot be considered an effective tactic, because it's hardly ever used.

So nukes are ineffective?

 

Point being, again, "Generally speaking, such a thing wouldn't work against entrenched enemies of the same tech level because they'd have defenses, as seen in Insurrection and other occasions of shielded or inhibitor/scrambler-equipped parties." You can include things like hyperonic radiation, special-mineral-containing-caves, and great depth as other defenses, none of which are relevant at AR-558.

 

So, Brian's entire video is nullified:

 

Beam them up and kill them. End of battle.

 

So where are their mortars?  Where are their GPMGs?  Where are their grenades?  Where are their helmets?  These are not rare and unusual items for a light infantry company to have - they are fundamental to their role.  I will say it again, since you obviously didn't read it the first two times: this is the equivalent of a firebase in Afghanistan having nothing but handguns and MP5s.

Do you not know what undersupplied means, or are you just not listening?

 

Grenades are fundamental to the company's role? So when these guys in Afghanistan run out, are they just supposed to surrender or evac? Or are they to keep fighting with what they have?

 

Obviously, we would prefer not to have 150 American soldiers and engineers dropped off for five months without resupply, with 100 of them dying in constant attack from a ruthless enemy and the rest wearing tatters. But you seem to be genuinely incapable of recognizing that over time, you're gonna run out of stuff, discard damaged items, et cetera. And if as an army you're part of a force that is spread thin, maybe you'll be stuck there until you don't have basic things like bullets.

 

So do you start sharpening sticks and digging in a bit deeper? Yeah, probably. God forbid someone film an episode of you with sticks. You'd be told your whole army is equipped with only those.

 

Hey wait, don't you fancy yourself a military historian? Right, so where are the Gatling guns, cannons, and similar fancy toys at Rorke's Drift? Hell, they didn't even have repeating rifles! And still they almost ran out of ammo. My goodness, they just sucked, didn't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had meant to point out that you did not make a distinction {...} focussed solely {...} omitted

"Brief note". "Placeholder for a future analysis". Shut up, seriously. You're just embarrassing yourself.

 

Are you accusing me of twisting it? And hurling insults?

No, but it is intensely stupid to try to give a guy grief over missed items on a page that explicitly and repeatedly makes plain that it is not an attempt to be complete in any way, especially after that is pointed out to you yet again. It's like showing somebody the addition chapter of your forthcoming math book only to have the guy keep whining that he doesn't see subtraction, division, algebra, et cetera. And it is named as a chapter, with heading. And you tell him it is just one chapter. And he still doesn't get it.

 

I have enjoyed seeing the same sort of people do the same stupid thing over the years, but wow ... just wow. Only a few keep going after the parts they missed are pointed out.

 

You're wrong. Let it go.

 

http://weblog.st-v-sw.net/2014/07/st-v-swnet-past-and-future.html

This one is a bit long for a casual read.

This tl;dr response is as bad as the reading comprehension issue above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irrelevant. You asked when the tactic had been used. That is a use of the same basic tactic.

 

 I'm going to use this quote to cover my response to all the previous examples above.  I told you to "provide examples of the transporter being used tactically to remove enemy combatants from the battlefield."  The examples used fail that test.

 

So nukes are ineffective?

 

Yes, because in the wars fought by nuclear-armed powers their use would have either been useless or outright counterproductive in achieving that power's strategic aims.

 

Point being, again, "Generally speaking, such a thing wouldn't work against entrenched enemies of the same tech level because they'd have defenses, as seen in Insurrection and other occasions of shielded or inhibitor/scrambler-equipped parties." You can include things like hyperonic radiation, special-mineral-containing-caves, and great depth as other defenses, none of which are relevant at AR-558.

 

It doesn't work against enemies of any tech level.  We know this because despite all the times shields go down, and transporters can be used, they're not used to beam the opposing forces out, but to beam borders in.  Best of Both Worlds.  Rascals (shudders). The Way of the Warrior.  In BoBW the Borg knew exactly where Picard was because they beamed a drone in within a foot of him, but they still had to get that drone in to tag him and beam him out.

 

Do you not know what undersupplied means, or are you just not listening?

 

It means "the machine gun has run out of bullets" not "the machine gun doesn't exist".

 

Grenades are fundamental to the company's role? So when these guys in Afghanistan run out, are they just supposed to surrender or evac? Or are they to keep fighting with what they have?

 

Fine, assume they've run out of grenades. Why didn't the Defiant bring more?  The idea that the reason for this is that they're such rare and unusual items that they're not available is moronic.  Mortars?  GPMGs?  Helmets?  The fact that nobody was getting in Sisko's face about their absence shows that they don't exist.  They weren't short of the SMG-type IIIs and they weren't short of power packs, so why didn't they have any machine guns or helmets - the two most important items on a modern battlefield?

 

I say it a fourth time: this is the equivalent of a firebase in Afghanistan having nothing but handguns and MP5s.  Do you really think that if a Blackhawk had dropped into such a firebase on a resupply run no one would have let out a peep about the absence of the most important weapon in an infantryman's arsenalVargas blew up at Sisko because their tour had been extended by two months, and Larkin complained that they were badly understrength, but neither of them ever said a word about lacking vital equipment.

 

Hey wait, don't you fancy yourself a military historian? Right, so where are the Gatling guns, cannons, and similar fancy toys at Rorke's Drift? Hell, they didn't even have repeating rifles! And still they almost ran out of ammo. My goodness, they just sucked, didn't they?

 

They had all the equipment expected of an infantry company of the mid-late 19th century.  I'm not complaining about the AR-558 force's lack of tanks, IFVs, AVREs, ARRVs or heavy artillery, because they aren't standard equipment for a light infantry company.  The equipment I listed is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to use this quote to cover my response to all the previous examples above.  I told you to "provide examples of the transporter being used tactically to remove enemy combatants from the battlefield."  The examples used fail that test.

It doesn't work against enemies of any tech level.

"So we have a grand total of three - Insurrection, Return to Grace and Endgame {...} Translation: it cannot be considered an effective tactic, because it's hardly ever used."

 

So first you accept some examples but discount it as ineffective because it is rarely seen (which makes no sense), but now you try to ignore all examples and discount it as impossible.

 

Whatever, kiddo. My point was made. The Aliens guys are defenseless against a transporter-equipped foe.

 

Yes, because in the wars fought by nuclear-armed powers their use would have either been useless or outright counterproductive in achieving that power's strategic aims.

It was a rhetorical question; I was making the point that what is rarely seen is not ineffective.

 

We know this because despite all the times shields go down, and transporters can be used, they're not used to beam the opposing forces out, but to beam borders in.  Best of Both Worlds.  Rascals (shudders). The Way of the Warrior.  In BoBW the Borg knew exactly where Picard was because they beamed a drone in within a foot of him, but they still had to get that drone in to tag him and beam him out.

Actually, those don't support your point, either.

 

BoBW ... they wanted Picard. Everyone else was irrelevant. They didn't even try to assimilate anyone, or the ship.

Rascals ... the Ferengi wanted to capture the ship and use the crew for slave labor. I doubt the Klingon transporters could've beamed off the crew quickly enough to pull that off.

 

Also, remember the defense fields around the bridge in Star Trek II? Even with shields down it may not be easy to just bag people from the bridge of a ship of similar tech level. However, the Borg had an easier time of it (after assimilating a bunch of Feds in the interim) when they stole Janeway off the bridge in "Scorpion". And yet they were able to prevent Voyager from getting her back the same way. Meanwhile, it is generally possible to beam in to Borg vessels.

 

In other words, there appears to be a defense against enemy-transporter beamouts. Why they can't disallow all transport is a mystery, but presumably there is a difference between directions with the transporter. This thesis works for all of the bridge examples. It doesn't hold on shuttle examples, but then we wouldn't necessarily expect it to.

 

"Return to Grace"(DSN4) ... KBoP transporters had to be used

"Live Fast and Prosper"(VOY6) ... small vessel, but Voyager's transporters were damaged

"False Profits"(VOY3) ... shuttle, but environmental technobabble and active efforts stopped the beam

"Endgame" ... shuttle

 

So we have not only good examples of the tactic of beaming away potential or active combatants with no defense against the transporter, but we also have the framework of a good reason why it sometimes isn't seen.

 

And back to the point, none of this helps the Aliens guys, who are screwed.

 

It means "the machine gun has run out of bullets" not "the machine gun doesn't exist".

So they should just leave it there for decoration to be destroyed? That's a terrible idea.

 

Fine, assume they've run out of grenades. Why didn't the Defiant bring more?  The idea that the reason for this is that they're such rare and unusual items that they're not available is moronic. Mortars? GPMGs? Helmets? The fact that nobody was getting in Sisko's face about their absence shows that they don't exist. They weren't short of the SMG-type IIIs and they weren't short of power packs, so why didn't they have any machine guns or helmets - the two most important items on a modern battlefield?

1. The Defiant was not aware of the situation on AR-558. This is made plain in the episode.

2. Again, where are the new uniforms? You want helmets but these people didn't even get a change of clothes.

2A. Machine guns and helmets are not the most important items on the battlefield.

3. It is possible the Defiant could have provided more supplies after a proper needs assessment, but the ship was driven off.

4. It is moronic to declare that grenades ceased to exist for the duration of this episode. A frontier base had them a century prior, and they were referenced on both the Enterprise-D and Voyager.

 

Similarly, we don't see personal forcefields, newer-style phaser rifles, et cetera.

 

I say it a fourth time: this is the equivalent of a firebase in Afghanistan having nothing but handguns and MP5s.  Do you really think that if a Blackhawk had dropped into such a firebase on a resupply run no one would have let out a peep about the absence of the most important weapon in an infantryman's arsenal?

Once again, this isn't Afghanistan where our soldiers were generally equipped with all they needed (if even by having it shipped from home, e.g. body armor). You can keep trying to compare this to modern conflicts in which a well-supplied force fights a poorer one, but that is disingenuous. The Federation forces were spread thin and undersupplied. This is explicit.

 

They had all the equipment expected of an infantry company of the mid-late 19th century.

1. That was a forward base. They had guns and ammo, and that's about it. No cannon, no Gatling gun, nothing heavy even by their standards to defend the base. Not even a real helmet among them, just sun bonnets.

 

This brings us back to the point about helmets. See, modern combat helmets were a development of WW1 when trench warfare begat shrapnel weapons and the cloth or leather headwear distributed to troops was found wanting. The idea of a hard steel bowl on the head was a thousand years old, and metal in general millenia older, but steel helmets had fallen out of use in the Napoleonic era.

 

(Modern troops usually, but not always, wear them in combat. During Vietnam many soldiers opted for the boonie hat both on regular patrol and in combat. See the Vietnam combat and naval boarding exercise shots on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigerstripe )

 

So why did metal helmets fall out of favor for so long? Once you figure that out, then apply the same reasoning to defending against weapons like phasers. One can imagine a parallel.

 

2. Y'know, if I were to make your argument, I would say "the folks at AR-558 had all the equipment expected of an away team" or similar.

 

I'm not complaining about the AR-558 force's lack of tanks, IFVs, AVREs, ARRVs or heavy artillery, because they aren't standard equipment for a light infantry company.  The equipment I listed is.

Brian uses the absence of heavy artillery here to claim it doesn't exist. You are, or were, arguing against me pointing out how silly that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So first you accept some examples but discount it as ineffective because it is rarely seen (which makes no sense), but now you try to ignore all examples and discount it as impossible.

 

I've demonstrated that, while it is occassionally used, these example are very much the exception, and require very narrow circumstances.

 

Whatever, kiddo. My point was made. The Aliens guys are defenseless against a transporter-equipped foe.

 

Because...why?  Your say so?  Tough.  You not liking the fact that the CMs have EW and can therefore jam transporters doesn't change that fact.

 

It was a rhetorical question; I was making the point that what is rarely seen is not ineffective.

 

You may have intended it as rhetorical, but you still got an answer that proves you wrong.

 

BoBW ... they wanted Picard. Everyone else was irrelevant. They didn't even try to assimilate anyone, or the ship.

Rascals ... the Ferengi wanted to capture the ship and use the crew for slave labor. I doubt the Klingon transporters could've beamed off the crew quickly enough to pull that off.

 

So now you're the one claiming that in the precise circumstances that would support your argument, they weren't used because of <insert handwaving>.

 

1. The Defiant was not aware of the situation on AR-558. This is made plain in the episode.

 

2. Again, where are the new uniforms? You want helmets but these people didn't even get a change of clothes.

 

2A. Machine guns and helmets are not the most important items on the battlefield.

 

3. It is possible the Defiant could have provided more supplies after a proper needs assessment, but the ship was driven off.

 

4. It is moronic to declare that grenades ceased to exist for the duration of this episode. A frontier base had them a century prior, and they were referenced on both the Enterprise-D and Voyager.

 

1. So?  The force complained about their tour being extended and being understrength.  They said nothing about missing the most important items of the modern battlefield.

 

2. Clean uniforms are a luxury.  Helmets and GPMGs are a necessity. Helmets because blows to the head can kill that would at worst break a limb if striking any other part of the body.  GPMGs because they are the centre of all infantry tactics.  As a better man than either of us once said "if the MG goes down you are screwed".

 

3. No evidence for this exists.

 

4. That's the situation we see.  Don't like it?  Tough.

 

Similarly, we don't see personal forcefields, newer-style phaser rifles, et cetera.

 

Minor inconveniences compared to the absence of GPMGs and helmets.

 

Once again, this isn't Afghanistan

 

No, it isn't, either side in that confict would have wiped the floor with the Jemmies or the Feds.

 

1. That was a forward base. They had guns and ammo, and that's about it. No cannon, no Gatling gun, nothing heavy even by their standards to defend the base. Not even a real helmet among them, just sun bonnets.

They had all the equipment one would expect of a mid-late 19th century infantry company.

 

Brian uses the absence of heavy artillery here to claim it doesn't exist. You are, or were, arguing against me pointing out how silly that is.

 

Newsflash: I'm not Brian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And with your last message, Seafort, (Edit: next-to-last ... I don't even know what your last one was about) you have again demonstrated that you are not to be taken seriously, your self-opinion notwithstanding. As you are now engaged in nothing more than senseless resistance-typing, it is best to stop wasting my time, and instead simply sum up.

 

A. On the concept of simply beaming up the Aliens guys, your counterarguments were:

 

1. No one does that in Trek.

 

I demonstrated that they do. You believe it won't happen because it is rare and requires narrow circumstances, and I agree on that last part . . . it is unusual in Trek for them to engage against foes against whom weaponization of the transporter is so easy.

 

As I said before, "Generally speaking, such a thing wouldn't work against entrenched enemies of the same tech level because they'd have defenses, as seen in Insurrection and other occasions of shielded or inhibitor/scrambler-equipped parties." You can include things like hyperonic radiation, special-mineral-containing-caves, and great depth as other defenses, none of which are relevant at AR-558.

 

So, Brian's entire video is nullified: the Jem'Hadar beam them up and kill them. End of battle.

 

As part of this discussion, we have also chanced upon a new thought regarding the canon and weaponized transporters, one that seems to neatly package all the instances thereof observed. I rather like that.

 

Meanwhile, as a corollary, you have also rather absurdly argued that nuclear weapons are ineffective against cities on the grounds that they are rarely used. I'm not certain what you should do about the embarrassment you should feel on that one, except to say that perhaps you should focus more on discussing than debating . . . the former is productive, the latter is often less so because it is so adversarial, and you seem to throw yourself into very strange places when being adversarial.

 

2. "Sonic, electronic ball-breakers" would prevent transporter use.

 

This is so absurd it isn't even worth responding to, and yet I did by pointing out that the sort of ECM allowed by a tricorder is well beyond what Vasquez, probably the best ball-breaker in Aliens, has ever observed. If they're shocked by IR masking and a tricorder does it with ease, then it makes little sense to presume that their ECM . . . such as it can even be claimed to exist given that we're simply talking about "sonic, electronic ball-breakers" . . . is going to do diddly-squat against ship's sensors.

 

B. On the topic of warfighting materiel at AR-558, we've had a conversation based on the fact that Brian uses whatever is missing from AR-558 as evidence of non-existence. You do the same in some cases though this varies from post to post, and seemingly more frequently at times. The basic topics are:

 

1. That AR-558, being explicitly referred to as a small part of a larger campaign where the Federation was explicitly spread thin, is not representative of a properly supplied force, but instead an undersupplied one.

 

a. You claim they are well-supplied based on the Defiant's resupply run. Brian also claims other such runs occurred off-screen.

 

This is odd, since many personnel aren't even fully dressed, or have tattered tactical uniforms. Further, the one explicit listing we have of what was brought doesn't support the notion that they were fully outfitted by the Defiant for continued fighting. This follows, since Sisko and the Defiant were explicitly unaware of the precarious situation on the planet.

 

b. You claim they are well-supplied because no one whined to the contrary.

 

There were a lot of things we didn't hear anyone complain about. None of the AR-558 personnel complained about their injuries, for instance, and only complained about being understrength in the context of fulfilling their mission. The disagreement here simply focuses on whether we should expect to hear them complain about everything, but obviously we shouldn't. These are hardened soldiers, not modern California sissies.

 

2. You argue that the Federation does not possess whatever we don't see here, even if it exists in other episodes before and after.

 

This is preposterous on its very face. By that reasoning, we might as well treat every episode as a separate continuity.

 

a. You argue that mounted machine guns and helmets are the most important items on the battlefield, and grenades are fundamental.

 

This is a very odd claim all by itself. While I would agree that they are highly desirable, the notion of a bunch of naked, unarmed, hungry people (if there are even people) with only helmets and hard-to-move weapons (with tossing-range explosives) strikes me as a rather unique doctrine.

 

This is also odd since I have provided well-known historical examples (to one who fancies himself a military historian, no less) of such expectations being unrealistic in similar circumstances.

 

Further, at least one side has the equivalent of a machine gun as a sidearm, and both have it as a rifle.

 

b. You seem to believe all war should be like modern US conflicts in which a vastly superior force operating in a fairly well-supplied fashion combats lesser foes.

 

Your example for comparison is about an Afghanistan base having only guns and ammo a la Rorke's Drift. But that simply isn't realistic against an equal or superior foe against whom you may become spread thin or otherwise encounter logistical difficulties.

 

This, incidentally, is why I am horrified at the direction of the US military toward overcomplicated, delicate toys rather than simple, robust ass-kicking.

 

c. Any inoperative item should have been left out exposed for you to count.

 

Again, this is a silly idea.

 

I think that covers the majority of things. Generally speaking your arguments are as well-presented as possible, to your credit, but even your best obfuscation efforts cannot hide the obvious flaws of fact and reason.

 

Now, I think we can all agree that we'd love to see a well-equipped, no-holds-barred ground battle between the Federation and an equal foe. Of course, it would've been a budget-buster, which is why it was studiously avoided. What we got instead was AR-558, and I'm okay with that. But pretending AR-558 was more than it was is just not proper, and pretending there was less there is just as bad.

Edited by DSG2k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A. On the concept of simply beaming up the Aliens guys, your counterarguments were:

 

1. No one does that in Trek.

 

I demonstrated that they do.

 

Except when they don't.  Even the Borg can't do it, even when they know precisely where their target is.

 

2. "Sonic, electronic ball-breakers" would prevent transporter use.

 

Indeed.  Not the most precise briefing, but a statement of the existence of EW capabilities nontheless. Given the vast array of examples of things that block transporters (including EM fields), we can be pretty confident that the CM's kit can do so as well.

 

1. That AR-558, being explicitly referred to as a small part of a larger campaign where the Federation was explicitly spread thin, is not representative of a properly supplied force, but instead an undersupplied one.

 

a. You claim they are well-supplied based on the Defiant's resupply run. Brian also claims other such runs occurred off-screen.

This is odd, since many personnel aren't even fully dressed, or have tattered tactical uniforms.

 

They're not just undersupplied, they're appaulingly ill-equipped to the extent that a late 19th century infantry company (or a few hundred Zulu) could have beaten them.

 

b. You claim they are well-supplied because no one whined to the contrary.

 

Indeed.  A modern infantry company lacking the item around which all its tactics are based would complain about this fact.

 

2. You argue that the Federation does not possess whatever we don't see here, even if it exists in other episodes before and after.

 

We've never seen a Federation GPMG.  We last saw Federation artillery, mortars, body armour and helmets around a century prior to the Dominion war.  I conceded that they may have had grenades and exhausted them, with the proviso that if so it is extremely strange that the Defiant did not resupply them given that they are not rare, complicated items, nor do they take up a large amount of space.

 

a. You argue that mounted machine guns and helmets are the most important items on the battlefield, and grenades are fundamental.

 

This is a very odd claim all by itself.

 

Not to anyone with ever the most fundamental, academic, knowledge of modern (i.e. WW1 onwards) infantry combat.

 

Further, at least one side has the equivalent of a machine gun as a sidearm, and both have it as a rifle.

 

If you define "machine gun" as "a semi-automatic weapon with an effective range of at most a few dozen yards".

 

b. You seem to believe all war should be like modern US conflicts in which a vastly superior force operating in a fairly well-supplied fashion combats lesser foes.

 

Your example for comparison is about an Afghanistan base having only guns and ammo a la Rorke's Drift. But that simply isn't realistic against an equal or superior foe against whom you may become spread thin or otherwise encounter logistical difficulties.

 

In such a situation tours would become extended, uniforms would become battered, ammunition would have to be conserved, air cover could not be relied upon.  If they're so worn down that they don't even have machine guns, then they'd be reeling backwards accross their own territory, not going on the offensive and taking ground from the enemy as they were.

 

c. Any inoperative item should have been left out exposed for you to count.

 

Very convenient - "it's there, it's just hidden".  If we can't see it, and we never see it, then we have no evidence for its existence

 

Now, I think we can all agree that we'd love to see a well-equipped, no-holds-barred ground battle between the Federation and an equal foe. Of course, it would've been a budget-buster, which is why it was studiously avoided.

 

Agreed.  But the result is that under suspension of disbelief, what we saw at AR-558 is how the Federation equips a light infantry company. Not a starship crew being forced into ground combat by circumstances, but a unit organised and tasked by higher command to to engage in ground combat as its primary function.  The result is a force that would have had problems holding Rorke's Drift, let alone be capable of taking on any vaguely modern armed force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Edit: next-to-last ... I don't even know what your last one was about)

 

When I initially tried to post, the bloody forum told me I'd split your post into too many individual quote boxes, so I had to combine some responses to get it to let it through.  Through a bit of trial and error I think the limit is 10 individual quotes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(sigh) ... at least your tone is better. But it still looks like little more than resistance typing.

 

Even the Borg can't do it, even when they know precisely where their target is.

See, you're not even reading what I say. Did you not catch the Scorpion reference?

 

Here, let me help:

 

 

That is the Borg being unable to do it?

 

we can be pretty confident that the CM's kit can do so as well.

Ridiculous, as I demonstrated. We can be confident that Federation ECM capabilities far exceed that of the Aliens guys, who are clearly baffled by things which can be done with a tricorder (e.g. not even specialized equipment).

 

They're not just undersupplied, they're appaulingly ill-equipped to the extent that a late 19th century infantry company (or a few hundred Zulu) could have beaten them.

 

Wow. So at Rorke's Drift, 150 guys with hats and Martini-Henry single-shot rifles firing at perhaps 12 rounds per minute are superior than 46 people with semi- or full-auto phasers, now.

 

Are you trying for comedy or is it just a byproduct?

 

Not to anyone with ever the most fundamental, academic, knowledge of modern (i.e. WW1 onwards) infantry combat.

So we should just send over mounted machine guns, helmets, and grenades next time. No soldiers or rifles or sidearms or radios or choppers or air superiority.

 

Got it. Great plan, there.

 

If you define "machine gun" as "a semi-automatic weapon with an effective range of at most a few dozen yards".

LAFORGE: Those soldiers have formed a skirmishing line, I think you'd call it, and they're headed this way.

RIKER: Armed with ancient ball and powder muskets?

LAFORGE: That's what their weapons look like, sir.

DATA: Muskets are appropriate to the 1790 to 1800 French army uniform, sir. But it is hardly a weapon by our standards. A lead ball propelled by gunpowder. One hundred metres at best with any accuracy.

LAFORGE: Yeah, but against phasers? Just one of our hand phasers could finish off an entire regiment.

 

If they're so worn down that they don't even have machine guns, then they'd be reeling backwards accross their own territory, not going on the offensive and taking ground from the enemy as they were.

I am so glad you aren't in charge of anything. Where do you retreat to on AR-558? And when were they on the offensive there? Five months prior when they were better supplied? Why even bring that up except as an evasion?

 

Very convenient - "it's there, it's just hidden".

You're the one claiming that if you cannot see things at this one location then they don't exist, even when their existence is explicit in the canon. You even said "don't like it? Tough."

 

You are the one, in other words, attempting to prove a negative despite clear evidence of the positive.

 

Sorry if you think that a possible explanation that satisfies the facts is too convenient, but perhaps you would do better to stop arguing such an illogical position. Besides which, your argument that weapons without ammo should be left out for destruction is really goofy.

 

what we saw at AR-558 is how the Federation equips a light infantry company.

Yes, a savagely undersupplied one that is part of a force that is spread thin, as made explicit in the episode. Your resistance to this fact, however interesting inasmuch as it allows for a study in desperation, is ultimately futile and meaningless.

 

Now, unless you have something new and relevant to say in your next post, I am through having my time wasted with senseless resistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×