Cardassian Ship Technology

[Captain Seafort]

Look at the gun on the buggy from Nemesis.

You mean the cannon that was considerably larger than anything we've seen on a shuttle?

And also the armoured vehicles that Cardasians used also didn' offer any superior firepower to defeat the Bajorans.

Evidence? Not that you'll be able to prvide any, given that we never saw the vehicle, nor were given any details of its armament.

Exactly. We have an added complication that doesn't exist with the shuttle.

Wrong. We have an unknown. This could mean anything from using shields with ground-contact vehicles being impossible to there being to effect whatsoever.

From using the antigrav to the drive system that a shuttle uses whats the diffrence.

1) The antigrav would only have to lift the vehicle a foot or so off the ground, rather than hundreds or thousands of kilometres as with the shuttle.

2) Antigrav, once it has lifted the vehicle to that height, would not need to do any work, and so should have much lower power requirements.

And what happens when you want to move.

Either a) lower shields for the duration of the movement, or simply move - it depends on the limitations of the technology.

This also means that they're vulnerable to the world and his brother taking potshots at them.

What are you talking abaut?

Jesus fucking Christ...

A vehicle dozens of metres off the ground can be see (and shot at) by anyone within dozens of kilometres. A vehicle only a few metres off the ground, especially if it's behind cover, would only be visible (and vulnerable) at very close range.

Why? A shuttle can operate cm of the ground there by the profile will be similar to a ground based vehicle.

However, it would not be able to shoot back nearly as effectively, as its weapons are mounted very low on the hull (as befits an aircraft). A tank or APC would have its main weapon mounted on a turret.

You compared a shuttle to a blackhawk. How the hell is that similar.

Re-read the first sentence to quoted you idiot.

As the shuttle it has the ability to transport and deploy troops and than stick around to offer heavy firepower.

So does the Blackhawk, however, that's not its primary purpose - its primary purpose is as a transport.

The Hind's primary purpose is close air support with cannon, rockets and A/T missiles. It can also squeeze in an infantry section, but that's only secondary. It isn't big enough

You can't put better weapons on it.

You can certainly put heavier weapons on it if you choose to, as it doesn't need to achieve escape velocity.

You have problems with the shields.

You may have problems with shields, or you may not.

Indeed, the shield issue is something of a red herring, given that all the thing needs to withstand to be an effective infantry support vehicle is small-arms fire. A couple of inches of steel would suffice for that.

You have inferior mobility.

So? Air mobility and armour have different roles.

You are vulnerable to air attack.

This can be mitigated by top-mounted phasers, such as those that arm shuttles, but again, it's simply a matter of different roles.

[Captain Seafort]

I agree but also consider that most of the interesting stuff still happens in space. Considering the capability of self repair like Voyager has shown what need could they have from a planet short of building a new shipyard there and needing a rare resource? Is that even a problem? What resources are non-replicable in star trek? Providing a save haven aka a starbase? Once again what do they really need from a planet? Do we know that in the 24th century parts are still fabricated on a planet and then transported into space similar to the ISS? I had the impression they can do pretty much everything in appropriate space facilities and considering replicators the only ressource needed is energy.

Replicators aren't energy-to-matter devices - they require a source of raw matter to work. Moreover, to act as a staging post you need a vast area to house your troops - before D-Day the whole of southern England was turned into an armed camp, an area far larger than any starbase. Indeed, the necessity for planets to use as such staging areas is proven by several incidents in Trek - The Defector, Chain of Command, and Tears of the Prophets, for example, all of which involved the positioning or seizure of planetary bases as a key part of military strategy.

I agree with you altough - and this is only my personal opinion - I just think even considering concealment, jamming etc. if you consider the advanced sensor technology of star trek, which could analyse the chemical composition of my morning coffee from orbit (yes slight exaggeration to emphasis my point, so nitpickers go away...no I will not provide evidence since this is an ironical statement) I just think hiding big vehicles like tanks is not as easy as you think it is.

Theoretically that's true now, but in practice any sensor except the Mark 1 Eyeball has proven remarkably easy to fool. For example, in Kosovo, despite NATO's host of fancy sensors, including infrared, most of the Serb "tanks" destroyed turned out to wood-and-canvas dummies.

Now correct me if I am wrong because I do not probably know all the finer details of this treaty but the impression I always got from this situation was, some humans setteled on worlds they shouldn't have because the cardassians lay claim and some cardassians settled on worlds claimed by the UFP which they shouldn't have (a little similar to the near eastern situation maybe?) and the whole treaty was there to rectify the situation and enable a long lasting peace. Therefore some UFP people were told to pack their suitcases and vice versa...... . That indicates to me that the UFP is quite the peaceful organization but that doesn't mean they could not have steamrolled them and I think the CU knew that.

At least some of the UFP colonies had been there for decades or centuries - long before the Cardassian War. In any event, regardless of why the colonies were there, the Federation placed great store in placating the Cardies. Picard's appeal to Evek was based on the fact that a resumption of the war would lead to massive loss of life on both sides. If the true state of affairs had been "you'd be slaughtered, but we don't want to do that, and we'd lose people as well" you'd have thought one of them would have brought it up.

That is correct altough most species seems to be rather touchy when their homeworld is at stake. I am sure there are quite a few human colonies and see how protective they are about earth.

That applies to their homeworld being occupied just as much, if not moreso, to it being destroyed.

Shame altough I think they should really come up with something why they are all using phasers if a simple nowadays pistol/rifle whatever is that much better. Pointing out the the UFP is just weak, backwards and stupid is no satisfying answer since the same would apply to the romulans, klingons etc.

Easy - ammo is heavy. Phaser power packs, from what we've seen, allow far more shots and are far lighter. Plus they don't have to worry about where the brass comes out.

[mlsnoopy]

You mean the cannon that was considerably larger than anything we've seen on a shuttle?

You seen the inside of a phaser bank how its constructed do show me some pictures.

Evidence? Not that you'll be able to prvide any, given that we never saw the vehicle, nor were given any details of its armament.

That basicly means that it had none.

Wrong. We have an unknown. This could mean anything from using shields with ground-contact vehicles being impossible to there being to effect whatsoever.

Shield offers a far greater protection than any material. If a ground vehicle can't move and have a deployed shield it has inferior protection to a shuttle.

1) The antigrav would only have to lift the vehicle a foot or so off the ground, rather than hundreds or thousands of kilometres as with the shuttle.

2) Antigrav, once it has lifted the vehicle to that height, would not need to do any work, and so should have much lower power requirements.

Couse we know how anti-grav and mass lightening technologies work. We don't so you are basicly againe making a baseless claime.

A vehicle dozens of metres off the ground can be see (and shot at) by anyone within dozens of kilometres. A vehicle only a few metres off the ground, especially if it's behind cover, would only be visible (and vulnerable) at very close range.

I thought that was it.

Considering that a shuttle can also move close to the ground these is againe a baseless claime.

However, it would not be able to shoot back nearly as effectively, as its weapons are mounted very low on the hull (as befits an aircraft). A tank or APC would have its main weapon mounted on a turret.

Well it only needs to have its weapo mounted in the right place. As you saide that is not a problem.

Re-read the first sentence to quoted you idiot.

Name calling never a good signe.

You can certainly put heavier weapons on it if you choose to, as it doesn't need to achieve escape velocity.

Againe a baseless claime. Trek doesn't folow Newton physic.

You may have problems with shields, or you may not.

Indeed, the shield issue is something of a red herring, given that all the thing needs to withstand to be an effective infantry support vehicle is small-arms fire. A couple of inches of steel would suffice for that.

So you conceed that there is a problem with the shield.

given that all the thing needs to withstand to be an effective infantry support vehicle is small-arms fire. A couple of inches of steel would suffice for that.

Thats red herring.

So?

Advatages and disadvatages.

Air mobility and armour have different roles.

Considering how a shuttle can conbine these two roles its superior.

This can be mitigated by top-mounted phasers, such as those that arm shuttles, but again, it's simply a matter of different roles.

Without air superiority any ground based vehicle is a sitting duck.

[Captain Seafort]

You seen the inside of a phaser bank how its constructed do show me some pictures.

The phasers of a type-9 shuttle (they're the strips on the front of the nacelles):


The Argo buggy's canon:


About the same size, give or take.

That basicly means that it had none.

Wrong, idiot, it means that we don't know. It might have been unarmed. It might also have had a canon capable of one-shoting shuttles.

Shield offers a far greater protection than any material.

That depends on the capacity of the shield, the type of material, and what's being thrown at it. For example, 12" battleship armour plate of WW2 was far more effective against projectiles than the shields of a GCS.

Couse we know how anti-grav and mass lightening technologies work. We don't so you are basicly againe making a baseless claime.

On the contrary, both those statements are based on scientific fact. How anti-grav works is irrelevent.

Considering that a shuttle can also move close to the ground these is againe a baseless claime.

It can move close to the ground, but it isn't designed to do so - a tank is designed to move on the ground, and is therefore better suited to that environment.

Well it only needs to have its weapo mounted in the right place.

If you mount the shuttle's weapon on it's roof then you cripple its effectiveness as a ground-support aircraft.

Name calling never a good signe.

*yawns* Answer the point.

Againe a baseless claime. Trek doesn't folow Newton physic.

Of course it does. They have various methods of cheating to make various feats easier, but a more massive object remains more difficult to accelerate to a given velocity than a less massive object.

So you conceed that there is a problem with the shield.

We simply don't know enough about the mechanics of shields to know one way or the other, therefore I'm erring on the side of caution.

Thats red herring.

Bullshit. Go and get a dictionary and lean what the term means.

Considering how a shuttle can conbine these two roles its superior.

You can try and use it like that, but it's far better suited to the air support role. On the ground its weapons are in completely the wrong place.

Without air superiority any ground based vehicle is a sitting duck.

They're not quite sitting ducks, but they're certainly extremely vulnerable to air attack. How does this remove the need for ground vehicles?

[Atekimogus]

Replicators aren't energy-to-matter devices - they require a source of raw matter to work. Moreover, to act as a staging post you need a vast area to house your troops - before D-Day the whole of southern England was turned into an armed camp, an area far larger than any starbase. Indeed, the necessity for planets to use as such staging areas is proven by several incidents in Trek - The Defector, Chain of Command, and Tears of the Prophets, for example, all of which involved the positioning or seizure of planetary bases as a key part of military strategy.

That is actually a good argument I can accept. I thought a replicator is basically an energy to matter converter and not a matter x to matter y converter. Do you happen to know which raw material is used or if it does even matter?

Theoretically that's true now, but in practice any sensor except the Mark 1 Eyeball has proven remarkably easy to fool. For example, in Kosovo, despite NATO's host of fancy sensors, including infrared, most of the Serb "tanks" destroyed turned out to wood-and-canvas dummies.

I do not know that but since I served my term as mbt gunner all I know is that with a dated thermal imaging camera moving tanks and even individual soldiers are incredibly easy to spot. Sure you can lay a smoke screen etc.. but all those things are not necessarily available all of the time.

At least some of the UFP colonies had been there for decades or centuries - long before the Cardassian War. In any event, regardless of why the colonies were there, the Federation placed great store in placating the Cardies. Picard's appeal to Evek was based on the fact that a resumption of the war would lead to massive loss of life on both sides. If the true state of affairs had been "you'd be slaughtered, but we don't want to do that, and we'd lose people as well" you'd have thought one of them would have brought it up.

Captain Jellico or Maxwell might have as well brought it up imho.....but not Captain Picard 8) ! (Actually it would have been nice to see Jellico during the Dominion War and hear about Maxwell and if he was rehabilitated)

That applies to their homeworld being occupied just as much, if not moreso, to it being destroyed.

Well years of occupation may pass, a dead world will stay dead. I admit I would seek other, more subtle methods of resistance than just fighting till death......I am off studying the rules of acquisition, brb 8) .

Easy - ammo is heavy. Phaser power packs, from what we've seen, allow far more shots and are far lighter. Plus they don't have to worry about where the brass comes out.

Hm..you think this is worth the low performance we see onscreen? Also during this most interesting siege of AR-5whatever before the last assault the guy with the white tubes around his neck distributet fresh magazines for the rifles just you would do with normal slugthrowers. Since they fired only a few times before they were in close combat range one could ask why even bother?

[Captain Seafort]

That is actually a good argument I can accept. I thought a replicator is basically an energy to matter converter and not a matter x to matter y converter. Do you happen to know which raw material is used or if it does even matter?

Is that a pun?

Anyway, it seems that replicators are incapable of elemental transmutation, or even of producing certain alloys or compounds, so if you wanted (for example) a steel door, you'd need a supply of steel available to feed into your replicator.

I do not know that but since I served my term as mbt gunner all I know is that with a dated thermal imaging camera moving tanks and even individual soldiers are incredibly easy to spot. Sure you can lay a smoke screen etc.. but all those things are not necessarily available all of the time.

From what sort of range and in what sort of situation? Sure you'd be able to see the hotspots, but would you be able to figure out what those hotspots represented from hundreds of kilometres up?

Captain Jellico or Maxwell might have as well brought it up imho.....but not Captain Picard 8)!

What about Evek himself? He's pretty down-to-earth for a Cardassian - comes across as a professional solider rather than a stereotypical space-Nazi. I don't see him trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, least of all his own.

Well years of occupation may pass, a dead world will stay dead. I admit I would seek other, more subtle methods of resistance than just fighting till death...

That may be you're approach, but I'm sure you can accept that the Bajorans may see it differently.

Hm..you think this is worth the low performance we see onscreen?

Phasers don't have the "flatten buildings" settling that they're often credited with, but they seem to have a fairly consistent one-shot-kill (or at least incapacitate) capability, which for an infantry weapon is all you really need.

Also during this most interesting siege of AR-5whatever before the last assault the guy with the white tubes around his neck distributet fresh magazines for the rifles just you would do with normal slugthrowers. Since they fired only a few times before they were in close combat range one could ask why even bother?

We only saw them fire a few times, there's no way of telling just how long the battle continued. In any event, if there was ammo available and a major attack was imminent, I'd want it on the firing line just in case, not back in a dump.

[Atekimogus]

Is that a pun?

Anyway, it seems that replicators are incapable of elemental transmutation, or even of producing certain alloys or compounds, so if you wanted (for example) a steel door, you'd need a supply of steel available to feed into your replicator.

Well I must admit that this is a lot more low tech than I always thought.

From what sort of range and in what sort of situation? Sure you'd be able to see the hotspots, but would you be able to figure out what those hotspots represented from hundreds of kilometres up?

It depends on circumstances but I'd say about 2-4 kilometres. But than I was on a tank built in the 1980. In the end it probably boils down to what you think is more advanced at the time, sensors or the ability to hide. Considering cloaking devices etc. I am probably wrong but I still think the ability the federation has shown when conducting sensor scans, recon etc. is a huge advantage which is not so easily offset as many think.

What about Evek himself? He's pretty down-to-earth for a Cardassian - comes across as a professional solider rather than a stereotypical space-Nazi. I don't see him trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, least of all his own.

I will be 100% honest with you. My memory of Evek is scetchy at best! Wasn't this the episode with the space indians? I never liked this one and therefore have only seen it once quite a few years ago. I understand though that he was quite within his rights so if he was sure of himself that would be no surprise.

That may be you're approach, but I'm sure you can accept that the Bajorans may see it differently.

Of course, to each their own.

We only saw them fire a few times, there's no way of telling just how long the battle continued. In any event, if there was ammo available and a major attack was imminent, I'd want it on the firing line just in case, not back in a dump.

Sure sure, I just mentioned it because I thought it odd the even the first time I saw it.

[Captain Seafort]

It depends on circumstances but I'd say about 2-4 kilometres. But than I was on a tank built in the 1980. In the end it probably boils down to what you think is more advanced at the time, sensors or the ability to hide. Considering cloaking devices etc. I am probably wrong but I still think the ability the federation has shown when conducting sensor scans, recon etc. is a huge advantage which is not so easily offset as many think.

If it's based on technology, it can be beaten, often by far less advanced technology, as the Serbs showed.

[Bryan Moore]

They probably could, but it would be a repeat of the Kazon predator. Loads of weaker guns in a bulky and durable hull.

Great comparison. I was thinking the same thing. For it to have the same firepower, they'd just build a massive beast with tons of guns. I don't see them building anything nearly as elegant or sophisticated. They seem to have the blunt force idea rather than any precision.

[Coalition]

I agree but also consider that most of the interesting stuff still happens in space. Considering the capability of self repair like Voyager has shown what need could they have from a planet short of building a new shipyard there and needing a rare resource? Is that even a problem? What resources are non-replicable in star trek? Providing a save haven aka a starbase? Once again what do they really need from a planet? Do we know that in the 24th century parts are still fabricated on a planet and then transported into space similar to the ISS? I had the impression they can do pretty much everything in appropriate space facilities and considering replicators the only ressource needed is energy.

You might want to watch DS9, the station was basically a trading location, and before that the Cardassians used it as an ore processing station. Even if it was possible to replicate everything from energy, that means you need a lot of energy to start with (darn E=mc²). That means lots of hydrogen for the fusion reactors, antimatter (which has to be gotten somehow), or something else that can 'produce' lots of energy. So trade would still exist as it would take less energy to make something in a factory vs using energy.

Or in TNG do you remember the cargo holds in the Ent-D (such as when Amanda was on board)? Or the time Data was dreaming and saw the mouth on Troi's shoulder (and stabbed her/it) due to the weird parasites that were caused by the new construction process for the conduit? How about "The Most Toys" where they had to obtain some sort of 'cure' for a plague, and they could only get it from one person (even though they likely knew what it looked like in terms of the molecule).

There have been several episodes where they needed some plotonium, and could not replicate it.

[Atekimogus]

You might want to watch DS9, the station was basically a trading location, .......................not replicate it.

All you say is true but DS9 was not planetbased and that was the whole argument. If you need a planet as staging point or not.

[Mikey]

Irrelevant. Especially for the UFP, the end of a war would be taking and holding territory, not destroying it or rendering it unusable.

[mlsnoopy]

The phasers of a type-9 shuttle (they're the strips on the front of the nacelles):

I know how it looks from the out side. But how its made on the inside.

About the same size, give or take.

Realy?

Wrong, idiot, it means that we don't know. It might have been unarmed. It might also have had a canon capable of one-shoting shuttles.

Againe with the name calling. I see you have no real argument.

That depends on the capacity of the shield, the type of material, and what's being thrown at it. For example, 12" battleship armour plate of WW2 was far more effective against projectiles than the shields of a GCS.

Hm. Ok.

On the contrary, both those statements are based on scientific fact. How anti-grav works is irrelevent.

So in other words, the shuttle uses a bit more energy to achiwe higher speeds. Understandable.

It can move close to the ground, but it isn't designed to do so - a tank is designed to move on the ground, and is therefore better suited to that environment.

Than you also have water, swams, forrest, hills,... numerus natural obstacles, that limit the moment of the tank. There is not such limitation on a shuttle.

If you mount the shuttle's weapon on it's roof then you cripple its effectiveness as a ground-support aircraft.

Right place. Why is that the roof. You are responding as these are still barrel weapons where you need to point a gun in a certaine direction in other to shoot.

Of course it does.

Hm. Than how can they travle FTL. How can they reduce the mass of an object. Tell me. Using Newton.

Bullshit. Go and get a dictionary and lean what the term means.

Ok. But shields do offer more protection than any armour.

We simply don't know enough about the mechanics of shields to know one way or the other, therefore I'm erring on the side of caution.

There is a problem. Exactly.

You can try and use it like that, but it's far better suited to the air support role. On the ground its weapons are in completely the wrong place.

Its ony a metter of the arc, nothing more.

How does this remove the need for ground vehicles?

Well if you have something better there is no need to live in the past.

[Sionnach Glic]

The debate regarding GCS shields Vs battleship cannons has been split to here.