Just do what I do. Use the movies as the benchmark. Because the movies get the budget to show all the damage that happens to a ship.
Yesterday's enterprise vs. the actual TNG
- Thread starter Agent23
- Start date
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Galaxy is hardly a joy boat, at least once it was actually properly introduced into service and had its kinks worked out. Look at the Dominion War: we saw a Defiant being lost, we saw Excelsiors, Akiras etc. being lost... we never saw, or heard, of a Galaxy class starship being lost beyond the loss of USS Odyssey - and that one happened in rather exceptional circumstances (and also, it was the "peacenik Galaxy" version which, if you go by TNG, tended to explode if you looked at it funny. Yet it still lasted a good time under fire despite its shields being completely useless).
War refit Galaxies? We never saw any being lost, despite - as I noted - seeing Excelsiors and Akiras being destroyed. Even against weapons platforms at Chin'Toka, USS Galaxy did not seem to be in danger of being destroyed despite suffering heavy damage. In fact, we know for a fact that she survived the war, despite being at the leading edge of the battlefleet when weapons platforms activated. And going back to earlier operations, during the Operation Return, we see Galaxy class starships taking a lazy stroll through the battlefield, with no regard whatsoever to the mass of the enemy ships surrounding them - apparently, War Galaxies considered massive Dominion fleet in that battle to be a "target rich environment" rather than any sort of an existential threat. You have Galaxies just strolling through the middle of the enemy fleet, and apparently literally nothing Dominion has can stop them. No wonder they decided to design that massive battleship.
And speaking of the Dominion battleship, that is why it was such a shock to USS Valiant: it was the first time that Dominion (or anyone other than Romulans, really) had something significantly more powerful than a Galaxy class starship.
Not to mention the later Galaxy variant that showed up in Star Trek Picard. The USS Ross.
The Ross is a Beast.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
Galaxies were the type of heavy, expensive ship you do not push to the very front of the battle line, like modern carriers and pre WWII dreadnaughts.
Most of the heavy lifting, raiding, and screening/escort stuff is done by the smaller and more numerous ships that can be replaced easily.
A modern carrier for instance is massively expensive, and has a lot of escorts to protect it, so the Galaxy probably has the same role in the line(wall) of battle.
That looks like a total structural modification, and it basically breaks with the design evolution we saw in the E and in voyager and DS9.
I mean, on some level it looks kinda cool I guess, but the saucer looks silly, especial with those holes.
What weird fanfiction have you two been reading?I'm doing my best to pretend that show doesn't exist, though.
Trek ended after Season 5 of ENT.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Watch the episode. USS Galaxy was literally on top of the weapons platforms when they activated. Seeing how fleet was destroying the platforms, that means that yes, she was on the leading edge of the fleet.
And considering how vulnerable fighters / torpedo boats are to being destroyed by larger ships, I'd say you are using the wrong model here. You should go back to Age of Sail if you want to understand Star Trek battle tactics, such as that exist at all. And in the Age of Sail, frigates were used for scouting and pre-combat action, but once the battle was joined they would actually be screened by the ships of the line: a situation we actually see in the Star Trek, and complete opposite of what you are suggesting here.
Sure. But I was talking specifically about battles here. Raiding and escort is done by smaller ships: we see Defiant do an escort duty at least one time, and ships doing patrol mostly seem to be Mirandas, Centaurs etc.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Carrier_Group_tactics#Fleet_formationWatch the episode. USS Galaxy was literally on top of the weapons platforms when they activated. Seeing how fleet was destroying the platforms, that means that yes, she was on the leading edge of the fleet.
And considering how vulnerable fighters / torpedo boats are to being destroyed by larger ships, I'd say you are using the wrong model here. You should go back to Age of Sail if you want to understand Star Trek battle tactics, such as that exist at all. And in the Age of Sail, frigates were used for scouting and pre-combat action, but once the battle was joined they would actually be screened by the ships of the line: a situation we actually see in the Star Trek, and complete opposite of what you are suggesting here.
Sure. But I was talking specifically about battles here. Raiding and escort is done by smaller ships: we see Defiant do an escort duty at least one time, and ships doing patrol mostly seem to be Mirandas, Centaurs etc.
In this case the Galaxy class is probably the HVU equivalent.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
I'm describing how Galaxy class ships were actually used in the series. And it fits far better with Age-of-Sail line tactics I had described than it does with whatever carrier-inspired tactics you think they should be using.
Besides, why would Starfleet tactics have any resemblance to modern US carrier group tactics? They don't have any carriers to begin with.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
Maybe because Roddenberry was an actual WWII military pilot when most carrier group tactics were pioneered.
RDM IIRC was also a US naval officer for a while.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Rodenberry was an Army Air Force pilot, and after that served in the police force. There is no reason to assume that US Navy will have impacted his thinking.
Also, when you look at how Starfleet is actually portrayed, it fits Age of Sail Royal Navy far better than it does World War II US Navy. It sends out ships on long-term exploration missions, ships are expected to last for years out "in the wild" without access to drydocks, and most ships are essentially multirole combat and exploration vessels... Star Trek is literally Horatio Hornblower in space.
In fact, there is an entire book detailling importance of Age of Sail in genesis of Star Trek:
Review of Star Trek and the British Age of Sail: The Maritime Influence Throughout the Series and Films
⮌ SFRA Review, vol. 51, no. 1 Nonfiction Reviews download Review of Star Trek and the British Age of Sail: The Maritime Influence Throughout the Series and Films Russell Alexander Stepp Stefan Rabi…
sfrareview.org
Star Trek and the British Age of Sail
Clear all moorings, one-half impulse power and set course for a mare incognitum... A popular culture artifact of the New Frontier/Space Race era, Star Trek is often mistakenly viewed as a Space Western. However, the Western format is not what governs the worldbuilding of Star Trek, which was...
books.google.hr
And if you look through it, there are several instances in which Gene specifically mentions aspects of Age of Sail navies as inspirations for Starfleet. It is not the only inspiration (ranks are a mix of Age of Sail and modern-day RN and USN), but Age of Sail is the primary basis.
I'm doing my best to pretend that show doesn't exist, though.
Just pick and choose what you want from it.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
Yeah, sure, because starships work more like ships of the line from the age of sail than modern day ships with radar, sonar, missiles and the like...Rodenberry was an Army Air Force pilot, and after that served in the police force. There is no reason to assume that US Navy will have impacted his thinking.
Also, when you look at how Starfleet is actually portrayed, it fits Age of Sail Royal Navy far better than it does World War II US Navy. It sends out ships on long-term exploration missions, ships are expected to last for years out "in the wild" without access to drydocks, and most ships are essentially multirole combat and exploration vessels... Star Trek is literally Horatio Hornblower in space.
In fact, there is an entire book detailling importance of Age of Sail in genesis of Star Trek:
Review of Star Trek and the British Age of Sail: The Maritime Influence Throughout the Series and Films
⮌ SFRA Review, vol. 51, no. 1 Nonfiction Reviews download Review of Star Trek and the British Age of Sail: The Maritime Influence Throughout the Series and Films Russell Alexander Stepp Stefan Rabi…
Star Trek and the British Age of Sail
Clear all moorings, one-half impulse power and set course for a mare incognitum... A popular culture artifact of the New Frontier/Space Race era, Star Trek is often mistakenly viewed as a Space Western. However, the Western format is not what governs the worldbuilding of Star Trek, which was...books.google.hr
And if you look through it, there are several instances in which Gene specifically mentions aspects of Age of Sail navies as inspirations for Starfleet. It is not the only inspiration (ranks are a mix of Age of Sail and modern-day RN and USN), but Age of Sail is the primary basis.
You do realize that Roddenberry was dead when the later, more material seasons of TNG, DS9 and the later treks where we see lots of space combat were developed, right?
And in any case, if the mission of the space navy and it's ranks are copied partially from Age of Sail stuff, or rather, Horatio Hornblower, which was an inspiration, that doesn't mean that the other tech and combat doctrine are.
Hell, TOS: Balance of Terror is basically a WWII submarine movie.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
I pick and choose nothing.
Both Pukard and STD were awful crap that I could not stomach for more than 1-2 episodes.
I meant the technology. I can totally understand your feelings on the show. I share them.
The inspiration for Trek space combat is a mixture. The foundation for it was clearly laid in TOS: Balance of Terror, which was clearly inspired by "The Enemy Below" a WW2 based movie involving a Destroyer vs Submarine. That said, they clearly put their own spin on it and the technologies are different enough that to say it is a destroyer vs sub battle is doing the writer a disservice for their creativity.
From that point though we clearly see further inspiration for the types of battles in the movies. Star Trek II is especially relevant here. The long slow maneuvers punctuated by brief action and devastating hits at close range between USS Enterprise and USS Reliant are clearly meant to be reminiscent of an Age of Sail battle between two Frigates. But again, despite that inspiration, it has its own spin, with that spin being the explicit fact that space is a three dimensional playing field rather than the two dimensional one of the original inspiration. This is punctuated by the climax of the movie and Kirk using that difference to win the battle by outmaneuvering Khan in three dimensions.
The next big movie space battle is Star Trek VI, in the Battle of Khitomer. This goes back to our Destroyer vs Submarine roots in the battle between Enterprise and Chang's Bird of Prey. It's a close range battle due to the cloaking device*, and involves lots of waiting and only occasional shots.
TNG is rather sparce when it comes to entire episodes focused on space combat. The space combat we do see ends up being short snippets and tends to be much more quick and intense than back in TOS. However some of the action is clearly based on missile destroyers, with the USS Phoenix engaging in long range torpedo engagements with Cardassian ships in a clear homage to over-the-horizon long range missile engagements at light-second ranges.
DS9 is where we see so influence of aviation based combat start coming into Trek combat, especially with the arrival of the Defiant. Many of the battles in DS9 the ship movements are slower but clearly aviation based, with smaller ships often engaging in outright dogfighting with each other, while the larger ships tend more towards the style of combat we saw in TOS with a focus on slower, more ship-like maneuvers.
So... I'm counting at least four real world influences on ship to ship combat in Star Trek? At least? You cannot so easily boil it down to saying "they should act like ships of the line" or "they should act like WW2 navies". Trek has drawn from multiple influences and the writers have also tried hard to think through the implications of the setting and technology on how space combat would look and feel using those technologies. Star Trek space combat is Star Trek space combat and, at least before the Post-Modern Trek series, had a very distinct feel, tactics, and flow to it that made it highly distinctive and should be looked at on its own terms, rather than trying to force some real life system onto it.
------------------
* Something important to note, Starfleet tactical doctrine appears to focus on close knife fighting ranges in space not because of their weapons having short ranges, but due to the fact that their main peer opponents both made extensive use of cloaking devices that enabled them to choose the engagement range, and both of them preferred to uncloak in short range in order to maximize chance to hit while minimizing the firing arcs their targets could bring to bear. Further, we know tactical use of warp is feasible (see: the Picard Maneuver), thus even if engaging at exceptional ranges, short warp pulses can be used to bring fights in closer. Further of note, it is clear when facing opponents that do not use cloaking they have longer engagement ranges, as the aforementioned Picard maneuver assumes an engagement range of light-seconds (thus greater than 300k KM) to be effective and to make use of lightspeed lag.
From that point though we clearly see further inspiration for the types of battles in the movies. Star Trek II is especially relevant here. The long slow maneuvers punctuated by brief action and devastating hits at close range between USS Enterprise and USS Reliant are clearly meant to be reminiscent of an Age of Sail battle between two Frigates. But again, despite that inspiration, it has its own spin, with that spin being the explicit fact that space is a three dimensional playing field rather than the two dimensional one of the original inspiration. This is punctuated by the climax of the movie and Kirk using that difference to win the battle by outmaneuvering Khan in three dimensions.
The next big movie space battle is Star Trek VI, in the Battle of Khitomer. This goes back to our Destroyer vs Submarine roots in the battle between Enterprise and Chang's Bird of Prey. It's a close range battle due to the cloaking device*, and involves lots of waiting and only occasional shots.
TNG is rather sparce when it comes to entire episodes focused on space combat. The space combat we do see ends up being short snippets and tends to be much more quick and intense than back in TOS. However some of the action is clearly based on missile destroyers, with the USS Phoenix engaging in long range torpedo engagements with Cardassian ships in a clear homage to over-the-horizon long range missile engagements at light-second ranges.
DS9 is where we see so influence of aviation based combat start coming into Trek combat, especially with the arrival of the Defiant. Many of the battles in DS9 the ship movements are slower but clearly aviation based, with smaller ships often engaging in outright dogfighting with each other, while the larger ships tend more towards the style of combat we saw in TOS with a focus on slower, more ship-like maneuvers.
So... I'm counting at least four real world influences on ship to ship combat in Star Trek? At least? You cannot so easily boil it down to saying "they should act like ships of the line" or "they should act like WW2 navies". Trek has drawn from multiple influences and the writers have also tried hard to think through the implications of the setting and technology on how space combat would look and feel using those technologies. Star Trek space combat is Star Trek space combat and, at least before the Post-Modern Trek series, had a very distinct feel, tactics, and flow to it that made it highly distinctive and should be looked at on its own terms, rather than trying to force some real life system onto it.
------------------
* Something important to note, Starfleet tactical doctrine appears to focus on close knife fighting ranges in space not because of their weapons having short ranges, but due to the fact that their main peer opponents both made extensive use of cloaking devices that enabled them to choose the engagement range, and both of them preferred to uncloak in short range in order to maximize chance to hit while minimizing the firing arcs their targets could bring to bear. Further, we know tactical use of warp is feasible (see: the Picard Maneuver), thus even if engaging at exceptional ranges, short warp pulses can be used to bring fights in closer. Further of note, it is clear when facing opponents that do not use cloaking they have longer engagement ranges, as the aforementioned Picard maneuver assumes an engagement range of light-seconds (thus greater than 300k KM) to be effective and to make use of lightspeed lag.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
When you look at tactics actually used, yes, they do. We do have few examples of long-range combat in Star Trek, and we know torpedoes can be guided, but by and large such long-range combat is avoided for various reasons, and what we see - especially in large engagements - are knifefights utilizing phasers and unguided torpedoes. It is actually kinda similar to aerial warfare during the Vietnam war, where US fighters technically had beyond-visual-range capability, but BVR missiles were so unreliable that they usually ended up engaging in knifefights anyway.
Star Trek space combat was largely codified by the Wrath of Khan movie. Later series followed that particular example, with only a few exceptions.
True. But even tactics have absolutely no resemblance to modern-day missile-centric naval warfare.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
Empty space is not the sea, but Trek space combat should follow the precepts of modern naval warfare more closely than something where the ships were heavily dependent on wind power for speed and direction.
It is a 3D space where sensors play a major role and ships are free to turn 360 degrees with phasers and torpedoes being far more flexible than the old black powder muzzle loaders.
The requirements of the fight necessitate that the war take place in an environment and the tech necessitate combat formations and doctrines that are closer to modern and steam-power naval warfare as opposed to age of sail stuff.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Look. I don't care what you or anybody else thinks they should do. What we see them doing is closing in and fighting battles well within the visual range vast majority of the time. Out-of-universe explanation is obvious. And seeing how we know that subspace fields can interfere with sensors, and that all ships project subspace fields, I think in-universe explanation is obvious as well. Drawing from that, Star Trek combat should be a mix of Age of Sail naval combat and pre-BVR-era air combat. Which is approximately what we see.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
Ok, Dude.It is idiotic to put your biggest and most valuable ships in the front, modern naval doctrine reflects this, Trek ships are not firing broadsides and are not limited by eyeball range.
The entire logic of your theory is flawed and Trek ships work in groupings more akin to modern fleets and battlegroups than to fleets of sailing ships reliable solely on wind.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Is it? You keep drawing comparisons with modern ships, but that comparison just doesn't work simply because Trek ships have next to nothing in common with modern ships.
Let's forget for the moment the fact that Star Trek ships generally don't use guided weapons and don't fight beyond visual range (despite being technically capable of both). Main difference here are shields. Modern warships that you are so focused on are tin cans. A good missile hit will tear open and disable a destroyer just as readily as it will a cruiser or a gunboat. No matter how valuable a ship is, a single good hit will disable it as a fighting unit. So what modern navies do is focus on active defense, and use less valuable ships as essentially ablative armor around their more valuable units (carrier battlegroups are basically that sort of logic).
In Star Trek, ships have shields, and in practice have very short effective engagement range which severely limits their ability to effect concentration of fire. This means that using smaller ships as ablative armor is dumb, because you cannot disable a large warship with few good hits. Main value of smaller ships here is to provide additional firepower. But this requires them to survive - which means that they will be deployed with, or even behind, larger ships. Of course, in practice we see ships simply mixed together pell-mell, but if you wanted some sort of actual battle formation, larger ships would be up front.
Closest actual comparison to situation in Star Trek (short effective range and absence of one-hit-KO weapons combined with self-propelled ships) would be battle of Vis, which saw steam-powered ironclads and ships of the line equipped with weapons not that more advanced from those of Napoleonic wars. And do you know what we see? Precisely what I described: most powerful warships positioned up front to protect their less powerful peers, and the battle eventually disintegrating into individual warship duels.