ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Star Trek military

Quantumflux01

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 428

Report this Jun. 05 2010, 5:51 pm

Star Trek close quarter's combat has always been in my view lacking in military common sense. I think when it comes to war and infantry/personal combat the Star Trek producers/writers don't have a clue:

1. Grenades! There were no grenades! Grenades would have been deadly on space stations, especially around those airlocks and corridors!

2. Non-lethal weaponry: Okay Starfleet phasers have the stun setting. But what about flashbangs? Blind the enemy or deafen him then shoot him down!

3. Grenade launchers: There were no rifle mounted grenade launchers. Those (Starfleet, Klingon you name it) rifles would have looked so cool with rifle mounted grenade launchers.

4. Body armour: This for the life of me I've never understood. There's shields and deflectors to protect ships and tritanium which is 20 times harder than diamonds. Why wasn't there body armour that deflected or absorbed phaser blasts?

5. Combat knifes: No combat knifes! When it came to hand-to-hand combat Starfleet personal had to resort to their phaser rifles as clubs to stop some murderous Jem'Hader smashing their skull out! At the very least some sort of bayonet!

6. Rifle sights and optical scopes: Red dot sights at the very least folks!

7. Projectile weaponry: sure all those phasers were good. But I noticed that the damage they inflicted (aside from vapourizing someone) became alot more like the damage of a projectile weapon (like M16's and AK47's). But why not have railgun weapons; electromagnetically propelled project weaponry?


And now moving onto more tactical combat:

1. Fighters: Small nimble craft that are heavily armed and pack a punch. The Klingons and Federation had them, but the Romulans? Nope it was big ships, armed with disruptors! You'd think for such a logical and intelligent race they would have fighters of their own?

2. Anti ship missiles: Sort of like the Star Trek equivalent to Tomahawk missiles, but in this case cloaked and packing the punch of a few dozen photon torpedoes! Anti ship missiles are essential for softening up a space-faring enemy

3. Destroyers: ships designed to intercept fighters. Otherwise alot of photon torpedoes and phaser fire is wasted on those nimble and evasive fighters...

4. War of attrition: This is perhaps the best that those Star Trek writers came up with when it came to wars in Star Trek. Destroying shipyards, scouting raids and of course the economic war.

5. WMD's: Nukes are out. Pity. But there were a few planet buster type WMD's. Like putting trilithium into stars and causing them to go supernova! This I like. But metagenic weaponry? The writers could have been far imaginative: like some sort of corruption virus that turns people against each other!


Planetary combat (on the ground):

1. Hovertanks! They'd be so cool, THE Star Trek MBT (main battlefield tank). But no, there were no hovertanks.

2. CAS (Close Air Support) Were was it? You'd think there'd be specially designed fighters to attack enemy bases and conveys. But no that wasn't there.

3. Camouflage uniforms: This is simply unforgivable on the writers part! There were NO camouflage uniforms! That is simply essential combat equipment!

SLARAN

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 87

Report this Jun. 05 2010, 9:40 pm

Quote (Quantumflux01 @ June 05 2010, 5:51 pm)
Star Trek close quarter's combat has always been in my view lacking in military common sense. I think when it comes to war and infantry/personal combat the Star Trek producers/writers don't have a clue:

1. Grenades! There were no grenades! Grenades would have been deadly on space stations, especially around those airlocks and corridors!

2. Non-lethal weaponry: Okay Starfleet phasers have the stun setting. But what about flashbangs? Blind the enemy or deafen him then shoot him down!

3. Grenade launchers: There were no rifle mounted grenade launchers. Those (Starfleet, Klingon you name it) rifles would have looked so cool with rifle mounted grenade launchers.

4. Body armour: This for the life of me I've never understood. There's shields and deflectors to protect ships and tritanium which is 20 times harder than diamonds. Why wasn't there body armour that deflected or absorbed phaser blasts?

5. Combat knifes: No combat knifes! When it came to hand-to-hand combat Starfleet personal had to resort to their phaser rifles as clubs to stop some murderous Jem'Hader smashing their skull out! At the very least some sort of bayonet!

6. Rifle sights and optical scopes: Red dot sights at the very least folks!

7. Projectile weaponry: sure all those phasers were good. But I noticed that the damage they inflicted (aside from vapourizing someone) became alot more like the damage of a projectile weapon (like M16's and AK47's). But why not have railgun weapons; electromagnetically propelled project weaponry?


And now moving onto more tactical combat:

8. Fighters: Small nimble craft that are heavily armed and pack a punch. The Klingons and Federation had them, but the Romulans? Nope it was big ships, armed with disruptors! You'd think for such a logical and intelligent race they would have fighters of their own?

9. Anti ship missiles: Sort of like the Star Trek equivalent to Tomahawk missiles, but in this case cloaked and packing the punch of a few dozen photon torpedoes! Anti ship missiles are essential for softening up a space-faring enemy

10. Destroyers: ships designed to intercept fighters. Otherwise alot of photon torpedoes and phaser fire is wasted on those nimble and evasive fighters...

11. War of attrition: This is perhaps the best that those Star Trek writers came up with when it came to wars in Star Trek. Destroying shipyards, scouting raids and of course the economic war.

12. WMD's: Nukes are out. Pity. But there were a few planet buster type WMD's. Like putting trilithium into stars and causing them to go supernova! This I like. But metagenic weaponry? The writers could have been far imaginative: like some sort of corruption virus that turns people against each other!


Planetary combat (on the ground):

13. Hovertanks! They'd be so cool, THE Star Trek MBT (main battlefield tank). But no, there were no hovertanks.

14. CAS (Close Air Support) Were was it? You'd think there'd be specially designed fighters to attack enemy bases and conveys. But no that wasn't there.

15. Camouflage uniforms: This is simply unforgivable on the writers part! There were NO camouflage uniforms! That is simply essential combat equipment!


1 and 2: Star Trek Enterprise had stun grenades.

3: In Star Trek Insurrection Worf use a similar type weapon.

4: In the TOS movies we see security personnel with some type of body armor.Reason why no metallic body armor is because it would be to heavy.Worf created a short lived personal shield using his Communicator once.Maybe the reason why personal shields aren't regularly used is they are not that good against phaser or disrupter fire as well as short usage time.

5: In a DS9 episode were they were trying to hold a captured Dominion instillation their was a Starfleet officer who had a Knife if I remember correctly.

6: Phaser Rifles do have some sort of display.

7: In a DS9 episode we saw that a gun that used bullets was shown to have been made.

8: Maybe Romulans don't think they are worth using because they are not effective enough to justify their cost to build as well as the risk to the pilots.Remans have them thou.

9: Missile weapons were originally used by Enterprise NX-01 but later replaced by more powerful Torpedoes.

10: Defiant Class ships are fast,manuverable,well armed,well armored and can be considered a destroyer (Star Trek video games say they are destroyers)

11: They have done surprise attacks,raids,and such before.They prefer not to have a war of attrition because such wars last longer and usually more lives are lost so they prefer to have big space battles in hope to end wars sooner.

12: They don't want to destroy planets or make them unsuitable for life.Their are many bio weapons in Star Trek.

13: Why have hover tanks when Shuttlecrafts can do anything a hover tank can do and better?

14: Shuttlecrafts can do such a thing we just don't see it in the show because writers prefer to show space battles.You don't think that in a war that lasted years such things didn't happen just because we don't actually see it do you?

15: True their should be camo uniforms used but considering that we don't see much of situations that it would be used in I am not surprised we haven't seen them.

Batteryman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 669

Report this Jun. 06 2010, 6:58 am

Slaran wrote:

1 and 2: Star Trek Enterprise had stun grenades.

TOS had a grenade launcher in the epsiode with the Gorn

Dan NJ

tribblenator999

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3818

Report this Jun. 06 2010, 10:49 am

Quote (Quantumflux01 @ June 05 2010, 5:51 pm)

1. Enterprise and TOS featured theme
2. Enterprise had those too
3. Insurrection
4. TOS movies
5. the mirror universe had them
6. Nemesis had some type of scope
7. projectile weapon would've been expensive I suppose you need to mine additional materials for bullets. Phasers don't hurt the same as bullets, phasers on kill setting cook you/disrupt your cells
8. Dominion war there were fighters
9. photon torpedoes/quantum torpedoes are anti ship weapons.
10. Defiant class destroyers???
11. so you want bio weapons in trek?
12. shuttlecrafts do hover tank jobs and have more range
13. I suppose there wasn't a need for camoflauge uniforms because starfleet soldiers don't play guerilla commandos

do you watch star trek?

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Jun. 06 2010, 10:55 am

Since Star Trek isn't about "war" and "the millitary" at is core, none of this really bothers me.

Kor_Dahar_Master

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 129

Report this Jun. 06 2010, 12:52 pm

Quote (Quantumflux01 @ June 05 2010, 5:51 pm)
Star Trek close quarter's combat has always been in my view lacking in military common sense. I think when it comes to war and infantry/personal combat the Star Trek producers/writers don't have a clue:

1. Grenades! There were no grenades! Grenades would have been deadly on space stations, especially around those airlocks and corridors!

2. Non-lethal weaponry: Okay Starfleet phasers have the stun setting. But what about flashbangs? Blind the enemy or deafen him then shoot him down!

3. Grenade launchers: There were no rifle mounted grenade launchers. Those (Starfleet, Klingon you name it) rifles would have looked so cool with rifle mounted grenade launchers.

4. Body armour: This for the life of me I've never understood. There's shields and deflectors to protect ships and tritanium which is 20 times harder than diamonds. Why wasn't there body armour that deflected or absorbed phaser blasts?

5. Combat knifes: No combat knifes! When it came to hand-to-hand combat Starfleet personal had to resort to their phaser rifles as clubs to stop some murderous Jem'Hader smashing their skull out! At the very least some sort of bayonet!

6. Rifle sights and optical scopes: Red dot sights at the very least folks!

7. Projectile weaponry: sure all those phasers were good. But I noticed that the damage they inflicted (aside from vapourizing someone) became alot more like the damage of a projectile weapon (like M16's and AK47's). But why not have railgun weapons; electromagnetically propelled project weaponry?


And now moving onto more tactical combat:

1. Fighters: Small nimble craft that are heavily armed and pack a punch. The Klingons and Federation had them, but the Romulans? Nope it was big ships, armed with disruptors! You'd think for such a logical and intelligent race they would have fighters of their own?

2. Anti ship missiles: Sort of like the Star Trek equivalent to Tomahawk missiles, but in this case cloaked and packing the punch of a few dozen photon torpedoes! Anti ship missiles are essential for softening up a space-faring enemy

3. Destroyers: ships designed to intercept fighters. Otherwise alot of photon torpedoes and phaser fire is wasted on those nimble and evasive fighters...

4. War of attrition: This is perhaps the best that those Star Trek writers came up with when it came to wars in Star Trek. Destroying shipyards, scouting raids and of course the economic war.

5. WMD's: Nukes are out. Pity. But there were a few planet buster type WMD's. Like putting trilithium into stars and causing them to go supernova! This I like. But metagenic weaponry? The writers could have been far imaginative: like some sort of corruption virus that turns people against each other!


Planetary combat (on the ground):

1. Hovertanks! They'd be so cool, THE Star Trek MBT (main battlefield tank). But no, there were no hovertanks.

2. CAS (Close Air Support) Were was it? You'd think there'd be specially designed fighters to attack enemy bases and conveys. But no that wasn't there.

3. Camouflage uniforms: This is simply unforgivable on the writers part! There were NO camouflage uniforms! That is simply essential combat equipment!

1. They do need Grenades, but maybe not considering a phaser set right can cause a nice explosion or take out a room when set on wide beam..

2. Not every species is going to be disorientated by the same methods but are you forgetting the stun setting on wide beam?.

3. A phaser rifle can be set to high enough power levels to cause big explosions or disintigrate large quantities of material.

4. No armour is going to be effective against weapons with the sort of firepower settings we see in Trek.

5. Yes they need blades or some sort of close combat weaponry.

6. Phasers have auto targetting.

7. Because the phaser settings are more powerful and useful.


And now moving onto more tactical combat:

1. We do not see Romulan fighters but that does not mean they do no have them.

2. Photon torps and Quantum torps ARE anti-ship weapons.

3. Ships phasers are accurate enough to hit missiles so fighters are easy to hit even for large ships.

4. They did hit dominion ship yards the problem was that the dominion could rebuild them so fast it was better to just blitzkrieg.

5. Maybe but the tech level shown in trek is such that cures are found in most cases.

Planetary combat (on the ground):

1. Sounds cool but how effective would they be against ship that could melt them from orbit.

2. The Klingons did exactly that with BOP's in "Once more unto the breach".

3. Kind of pointless when weapons auto-target, but bright red, gold and blue i agree are poor colours to enter combat wearing.



Still in SW-ROTJ they had camoflage and also decided to drag along a big shiny gold robot that walked like it needed a major dump and another one that looked like a blue and white butt plug.

Quantumflux01

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 428

Report this Jun. 06 2010, 4:51 pm

Quote (Kor_Dahar_Master @ June 06 2010, 5:52 pm)
Quote (Quantumflux01 @ June 05 2010, 5:51 pm)
Star Trek close quarter's combat has always been in my view lacking in military common sense. I think when it comes to war and infantry/personal combat the Star Trek producers/writers don't have a clue:

1. Grenades! There were no grenades! Grenades would have been deadly on space stations, especially around those airlocks and corridors!

2. Non-lethal weaponry: Okay Starfleet phasers have the stun setting. But what about flashbangs? Blind the enemy or deafen him then shoot him down!

3. Grenade launchers: There were no rifle mounted grenade launchers. Those (Starfleet, Klingon you name it) rifles would have looked so cool with rifle mounted grenade launchers.

4. Body armour: This for the life of me I've never understood. There's shields and deflectors to protect ships and tritanium which is 20 times harder than diamonds. Why wasn't there body armour that deflected or absorbed phaser blasts?

5. Combat knifes: No combat knifes! When it came to hand-to-hand combat Starfleet personal had to resort to their phaser rifles as clubs to stop some murderous Jem'Hader smashing their skull out! At the very least some sort of bayonet!

6. Rifle sights and optical scopes: Red dot sights at the very least folks!

7. Projectile weaponry: sure all those phasers were good. But I noticed that the damage they inflicted (aside from vapourizing someone) became alot more like the damage of a projectile weapon (like M16's and AK47's). But why not have railgun weapons; electromagnetically propelled project weaponry?


And now moving onto more tactical combat:

1. Fighters: Small nimble craft that are heavily armed and pack a punch. The Klingons and Federation had them, but the Romulans? Nope it was big ships, armed with disruptors! You'd think for such a logical and intelligent race they would have fighters of their own?

2. Anti ship missiles: Sort of like the Star Trek equivalent to Tomahawk missiles, but in this case cloaked and packing the punch of a few dozen photon torpedoes! Anti ship missiles are essential for softening up a space-faring enemy

3. Destroyers: ships designed to intercept fighters. Otherwise alot of photon torpedoes and phaser fire is wasted on those nimble and evasive fighters...

4. War of attrition: This is perhaps the best that those Star Trek writers came up with when it came to wars in Star Trek. Destroying shipyards, scouting raids and of course the economic war.

5. WMD's: Nukes are out. Pity. But there were a few planet buster type WMD's. Like putting trilithium into stars and causing them to go supernova! This I like. But metagenic weaponry? The writers could have been far imaginative: like some sort of corruption virus that turns people against each other!


Planetary combat (on the ground):

1. Hovertanks! They'd be so cool, THE Star Trek MBT (main battlefield tank). But no, there were no hovertanks.

2. CAS (Close Air Support) Were was it? You'd think there'd be specially designed fighters to attack enemy bases and conveys. But no that wasn't there.

3. Camouflage uniforms: This is simply unforgivable on the writers part! There were NO camouflage uniforms! That is simply essential combat equipment!

1. They do need Grenades, but maybe not considering a phaser set right can cause a nice explosion or take out a room when set on wide beam..

2. Not every species is going to be disorientated by the same methods but are you forgetting the stun setting on wide beam?.

3. A phaser rifle can be set to high enough power levels to cause big explosions or disintigrate large quantities of material.

4. No armour is going to be effective against weapons with the sort of firepower settings we see in Trek.

5. Yes they need blades or some sort of close combat weaponry.

6. Phasers have auto targetting.

7. Because the phaser settings are more powerful and useful.


And now moving onto more tactical combat:

1. We do not see Romulan fighters but that does not mean they do no have them.

2. Photon torps and Quantum torps ARE anti-ship weapons.

3. Ships phasers are accurate enough to hit missiles so fighters are easy to hit even for large ships.

4. They did hit dominion ship yards the problem was that the dominion could rebuild them so fast it was better to just blitzkrieg.

5. Maybe but the tech level shown in trek is such that cures are found in most cases.

Planetary combat (on the ground):

1. Sounds cool but how effective would they be against ship that could melt them from orbit.

2. The Klingons did exactly that with BOP's in "Once more unto the breach".

3. Kind of pointless when weapons auto-target, but bright red, gold and blue i agree are poor colours to enter combat wearing.



Still in SW-ROTJ they had camoflage and also decided to drag along a big shiny gold robot that walked like it needed a major dump and another one that looked like a blue and white butt plug.

1. I'm talking about fragmentation grenades

2. Flashbangs will work with most creatures, any creature with an eyesight like a human's will be affected.

3. And that wastes alot of the phaser's battery power, or whatever powers it.

4. So why do ship shield's work?

5. Your right there.

6. What? Phasers beams home into an enemy? That DOES not happen, they go in a straight line.

7. Whatever, I stand by what I said, phasers may not work under special circumstances, whereas projectile weaponry would work and not only that wouldn't leave those huge tracer lines!

Tactical combat:

1. Agree with that point.

2. Direct combat weapons. Anti-ship missiles could be cloaked, they're sort of like ambush weapons, launch them ahead of a fleet just before a battle, then watch as they soften up the enemy ships. So anti-ship missiles are indirect combat weapons.

3. Evasive maneuvures, how big ships (take Enterprise) dodge phaser fire I do not know, besides phasers go at the speed of light, giving the distances and speeds involved, that is relatively easy for small ships (fighters) to dodge, harder to dodge when there are hundreds of phaser beams aimed at one fighter.

4. Blitzkrieg only works with overwhelming force and not when the enemy has clearly entrenched there positions.

5. Not everything can be cured... and sometimes enemy's only need to hold a planet and not occupy it. The point is, if the means are available, destroying a planet is easier and more worth than occupying one. Consider; most resources are extracted not from planets but from spacial phenomena.

Planetary combat:

1. They'd have shields and they'd be cloaked; it's not all about ships, firing from some arbitrary distance at a planet.

2. I'm thinking of mini-fighters; sort of like the 24th century aircraft (that can orbit a planet, but don't have warp but sub-warp speed ion/fusion drives), shuttlecrafts just aren't designed to carry such armaments.

3. If your point is correct then in the Bajoran occupation when Cardassians were looking for resistance cells, they'd have no problem spotting camouflaged resistance fighters, the resistance fighters couldn't lay down ambushes. No camouflage uniforms would work, besides they could have all sorts of gizmos to hide the wearer... This is Star Trek after all!

chr3335

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7914

Report this Jun. 07 2010, 12:55 am

Quote
2. Non-lethal weaponry: Okay Starfleet phasers have the stun setting. But what about flashbangs? Blind the enemy or deafen him then shoot him down!
 Guess they didn't feel they would need them.

Quote
4. Body armour: This for the life of me I've never understood. There's shields and deflectors to protect ships and tritanium which is 20 times harder than diamonds. Why wasn't there body armour that deflected or absorbed phaser blasts?
 Because the federation hasn't really ever gotten in to close quarters combat for a while and didn't see the need for armour.
Quote
5. Combat knifes: No combat knifes! When it came to hand-to-hand combat Starfleet personal had to resort to their phaser rifles as clubs to stop some murderous Jem'Hader smashing their skull out! At the very least some sort of bayonet!
 Have them check out the Voyager episode "Macro".

Quote
7. Projectile weaponry: sure all those phasers were good. But I noticed that the damage they inflicted (aside from vapourizing someone) became alot more like the damage of a projectile weapon (like M16's and AK47's). But why not have railgun weapons; electromagnetically propelled project weaponry?
 Because projectile weapons just are not flashy enough.

Quote
1. Fighters: Small nimble craft that are heavily armed and pack a punch. The Klingons and Federation had them, but the Romulans? Nope it was big ships, armed with disruptors! You'd think for such a logical and intelligent race they would have fighters of their own?
 That would go against the socialistic mindset of the Federation besides they have fighters.

SLARAN

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 87

Report this Jun. 07 2010, 1:12 am

Quote (chr3335 @ June 07 2010, 12:55 am)
Quote
4. No armour is going to be effective against weapons with the sort of firepower settings we see in Trek.
?Except for thin packing crates which are always used for cover so sorry you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.


Those packing crates are made of strong materials that are capable of withstanding weapons fire not simple materials that are used today.Body armor that would be effective against phaser and other similar weapons would be heavy that is why such armor isn't used.Any type of armor Starfleet used was made of non metallic material that would offer some protection from blunt force and slashing attacks.

Quantumflux01

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 428

Report this Jun. 07 2010, 11:35 am

Quote (SLARAN @ June 07 2010, 6:12 am)
Quote (chr3335 @ June 07 2010, 12:55 am)
Quote
4. No armour is going to be effective against weapons with the sort of firepower settings we see in Trek.
?Except for thin packing crates which are always used for cover so sorry you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.


Those packing crates are made of strong materials that are capable of withstanding weapons fire not simple materials that are used today.Body armor that would be effective against phaser and other similar weapons would be heavy that is why such armor isn't used.Any type of armor Starfleet used was made of non metallic material that would offer some protection from blunt force and slashing attacks.

It's the 24th century! There could be flexible and light weight body armour; remember it's for deflecting energy, perhaps it could block projectiles as well?

Kor_Dahar_Master

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 129

Report this Jun. 07 2010, 11:54 am

Quote (chr3335 @ June 07 2010, 12:55 am)
¿Except for thin packing crates which are always used for cover so sorry you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

We see examples of them taking cover behind crates we also see them disintigrating things when its required. I do not find it unreasonable to have weapons set so they do not drill holes in the ships hull considering they are in space.

The Klingons also have armour but it is ineffective against phasers or disruptors.

Clearly you prefer to use a no limit fallacy instead of reason or a broarder view.

SLARAN

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 87

Report this Jun. 07 2010, 8:51 pm

Quote (Quantumflux01 @ June 07 2010, 11:35 am)
Quote (SLARAN @ June 07 2010, 6:12 am)
Quote (chr3335 @ June 07 2010, 12:55 am)
Quote
4. No armour is going to be effective against weapons with the sort of firepower settings we see in Trek.
?Except for thin packing crates which are always used for cover so sorry you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.


Those packing crates are made of strong materials that are capable of withstanding weapons fire not simple materials that are used today.Body armor that would be effective against phaser and other similar weapons would be heavy that is why such armor isn't used.Any type of armor Starfleet used was made of non metallic material that would offer some protection from blunt force and slashing attacks.

It's the 24th century! There could be flexible and light weight body armour; remember it's for deflecting energy, perhaps it could block projectiles as well?

We know that in the TOS movies that Starfleet security personnel have some sort of armor but its protection again phasers and similar weapons is limited.Klingons and Cardassians also use body armor and it provides little protection from energy weapons.The only type of armor that would provide good protection would be heavy metallic armor of which isn't used because it is cumbersome.

Enterprise19

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1544

Report this Jun. 07 2010, 9:28 pm

Quote (Quantumflux01 @ June 05 2010, 5:51 pm)
Grenades! There were no grenades! Grenades would have been deadly on space stations, especially around those airlocks and corridors!

Non-lethal weaponry: Okay Starfleet phasers have the stun setting. But what about flashbangs? Blind the enemy or deafen him then shoot him down!

Rifle sights and optical scopes: Red dot sights at the very least folks!

Camouflage uniforms: This is simply unforgivable on the writers part! There were NO camouflage uniforms! That is simply essential combat equipment!

Ever heard of MACOs?

chr3335

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7914

Report this Jun. 11 2010, 8:08 pm

Quote (SLARAN @ June 06 2010, 2:12 am)
Quote (chr3335 @ June 07 2010, 12:55 am)
Quote
4. No armour is going to be effective against weapons with the sort of firepower settings we see in Trek.
?Except for thin packing crates which are always used for cover so sorry you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.


Those packing crates are made of strong materials that are capable of withstanding weapons fire not simple materials that are used today.Body armor that would be effective against phaser and other similar weapons would be heavy that is why such armor isn't used.Any type of armor Starfleet used was made of non metallic material that would offer some protection from blunt force and slashing attacks.

Do you even realize how stupid that is. ¿Your supply crates are made weapon proof stuff the crew is expected to move around on a regular basis and you say building a body armor out of the same material would be to heavy to move around it :laugh: ¿:laugh: ¿:laugh: ¿:laugh:

Quote
Star Fleet rifles did have pop-up sights I believe. Why do you need a red dot for a weapon that fires at the speed of light?
 Because they do not fire at the speed of light and no they do not have pop up sights on them.  Also grenades and flash bangs have an advantage in that you don't have to see your target to use them such as they are behind cover, around corners, or behind a closed door.

SLARAN

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 87

Report this Jun. 11 2010, 8:39 pm

Quote (chr3335 @ June 11 2010, 8:08 pm)
Quote (SLARAN @ June 06 2010, 2:12 am)
Quote (chr3335 @ June 07 2010, 12:55 am)
Quote
4. No armour is going to be effective against weapons with the sort of firepower settings we see in Trek.
?Except for thin packing crates which are always used for cover so sorry you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.


Those packing crates are made of strong materials that are capable of withstanding weapons fire not simple materials that are used today.Body armor that would be effective against phaser and other similar weapons would be heavy that is why such armor isn't used.Any type of armor Starfleet used was made of non metallic material that would offer some protection from blunt force and slashing attacks.

Do you even realize how stupid that is. ?Your supply crates are made weapon proof stuff the crew is expected to move around on a regular basis and you say building a body armor out of the same material would be to heavy to move around it :laugh: ?:laugh: ?:laugh: ?:laugh:

Quote
Star Fleet rifles did have pop-up sights I believe. Why do you need a red dot for a weapon that fires at the speed of light?
?Because they do not fire at the speed of light and no they do not have pop up sights on them. ?Also grenades and flash bangs have an advantage in that you don't have to see your target to use them such as they are behind cover, around corners, or behind a closed door.


Their you go applying todays packing crates to the ones in Star Trek.They are not the same.The ones in Star Trek are obviously made of strong materials because they can withstand weapons fire the same weapons that have the ability to blast through feet of solid rock and can vaporize/disintigrate.I would assume that those packing crates are heavy as would any armor that is made of said materials.The armor would have to cover the entire body (like the Breen suit) to be completely effective against phaser and other similar weapons fire and you think it wouldn't be heavy? If it was light weight it would be used by some if not all Star Trek powers.

http://www.coldnorth.com/owen....ers.jpg looks like a sight to me.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: 22123magic

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum