www.ditl.org

kostmayer wrote:I'd say what Starfleet calls it is very relevant.

This is the same Starfleet which has made an SOP of applying misleading names to everything in order to present a more peaceable front.

Deepcrush wrote:Wrong, its the mark of a ship built for war just as much as something else. That doesn't make it a battleship. The Sov is a battleship as I see it. The Excelsior is a battleship (of her time of course) as I see it. The GCS just doesn't carry it. Not by what you've shown.

Try opening your eyes then. The GCS is heavilly armed, has extremely strong shields, was described as a battleship by its own crew, and was routinely sent into combat or other military situations. It is therefore a warship. It was at the time of its introduction (and for years afterwards) the most powerful ship in the Federation fleet. It is therefore a battleship.

Again, what the f**k does the Iowa have to do with the GCS. Stick with something that atleast comes close to compare.

The Iowa is a battleship. The GCS is a battleship. If this isn't simple enough for you to understand then I'm afraid I can't help you.

If I popped up on a ship that had a bunch of weapons and then a room filled with kids and a zoo and a dance hall. Battleship wouldn't be my thought.

If you found said kids, zoo and dance hall tucked away on an Iowa, what would be your thoughts. Ignore the heavy artillery, the tens of thousands of tons of armour, and the fact that it's routinely used as means of dropping large quantities of HE on the heads of people the US doesn't like?

Sorry, Seafort. I've been agreeing with you all along until this point:

Captain Seafort wrote:dropping large quantities of HE on the heads of people the US doesn't like?

In fact, we drop large quantities of HE on the heads of people we purport to like, as well.

Mikey wrote:Sorry, Seafort. I've been agreeing with you all along until this point:

Captain Seafort wrote:dropping large quantities of HE on the heads of people the US doesn't like?

In fact, we drop large quantities of HE on the heads of people we purport to like, as well.

To be fair to the US military, it does drop considerably more ordnance on the official enemy than on itself, its allies and neutrals.

Although I quite agree that they have a very poor record when it comes to figuring out what they're aiming at before opening fire. I believe I've commented on this myself once or twice.

Captain Seafort wrote:To be fair to the US military

Are you feeling alright?

Captain Seafort wrote:Although I quite agree that they have a very poor record when it comes to figuring out what they're aiming at before opening fire. I believe I've commented on this myself once or twice.

That's why I mention it. Either beat you to the punch, or Kendall.

Just because it has the armaments of a battleship doesn't make it a battleship. Say I stuck 9 18in guns on a commerciall fishing trawler, is it now a battleship? Despite the fact that it is designed to fish, sort, store, etc. various marine life?
The Galaxy class was designed from the ground up to be Starfleet's frontline explorer/flagship for the next few decades. As such it must also be able to defend itself against whatever the Klingons have or the Romulans are suspected of having, thus making it armed very powerfully.
All ships in Starfleet (that we've seen) are heavily armed (relative to their size) but that doesn't mean the Federation is building a battle fleet, it means they're building a fleet to go out explore, make alliances, chart new nebulae and stars and planets and species, and show the flag a little.

All Deepcrush is asking for is a little corraborative evidence. 1 quote where they identify the ship as a battleship doesn't count. Circumstantial evidence based on the needs of the times doesn't count. An alternate future created by a lost starship doesn't count. Find a quote from an episode where the crew is in their right minds talking about their ship where they stae "We're a battleship."

me,myself and I wrote:Say I stuck 9 18in guns on a commerciall fishing trawler, is it now a battleship?

It is if it is so armed, and armored like a battleship, and crewed like a battleship, and used as a battleship.

me,myself and I wrote:1 quote where they identify the ship as a battleship doesn't count.

It does if there is no quote in which the crew of the ship explicitly says, "This is not a battleship." We don't get to discard evidence merely because we don't like the conclusion.

Mikey wrote:

me,myself and I wrote:Say I stuck 9 18in guns on a commerciall fishing trawler, is it now a battleship?

It is if it is so armed, and armored like a battleship, and crewed like a battleship, and used as a battleship.

me,myself and I wrote:1 quote where they identify the ship as a battleship doesn't count.

It does if there is no quote in which the crew of the ship explicitly says, "This is not a battleship." We don't get to discard evidence merely because we don't like the conclusion.

In The Search

SISKO : "Officially she's classified as an escort vessel... unofficially the Defiant's a warship. Nothing more, nothing less."
KIRA : "I thought Starfleet didn't believe in warships."
SISKO : "Desperate times breed desperate measures...."

There's also Troi in The Hunted

TROI : "You are on board the USS Enterprise."
ROGA : "A war vessel?"
TROI : "A Federation starship."

Whilst neither specifically says "this is not a warship" as such, both certainly indicate that it isn't.

Merriam Webster states that a warship is "a naval vessel", while dictionary.com states that it is "a ship built or armed for combat purposes." Both are a little vague, imo. "Naval" may or may not apply to Starfleet. "built or armed for" could mean anything from "a ship expressly dedicated to the purpose of combat and nothing else", right down to "happens to have a gun on board". I don't think anybody sensible would argue that a pleasure yacht becomes a warship simply because i stick a pistol in my pocket when I go aboard.

Wikipedia defines a warship as "a ship that is built and primarily intended for combat". This seems the best definition to me. But is the E-D "primarily intended for combat"? Certainly we have seen it used in combat often, and certainly during the war the primary mission of the ships was one of combat. But was that the intent of their designers, when the ship was built? I think you would be hard pressed to argue that it was.

It's true that Starships are designed to fulfill the military role, and so in that sense they are warships. But a lot of people - naming no names - seem to seize on that, claim that Starships are warships, then bash the design as being a bad warship and so the designers must be idiots. I think this is a poor argument myself. Whilst Starships are built to fulfill the military role, that is just one of their roles. They are also built for exploration, scientific investigation, diplomacy, etc. Their crews state that the military function is not their normal role, and war excepted we have little reason to think otherwise.

Put it this way. Suppose we abolished the police force and depended instead on people making citizens arrests. Practicality of that aside, would it then be logical to rant about how "he's not a teacher, he's a policeman! He arrests people, he takes them to the police station, that's what cops do, so he's a cop, and he's a terrible cop! Why on Earth are cops teaching!"

I'm sure Starfleet could build dedicated warships - they did with the Defiant. But they refrain from doing so, for the most part, quite deliberately. They do it knowing that it will cost lives, knowing that it may lead to increased risk for the society as a whole. But it's a statement about their priorities and the kind of people they are. To reduce it to "they're warships, they're bad warships, those people are stupid" is rather silly, IMO.

Mikey wrote:

me,myself and I wrote:Say I stuck 9 18in guns on a commerciall fishing trawler, is it now a battleship?

It is if it is so armed, and armored like a battleship, and crewed like a battleship, and used as a battleship.

And I stil maintain that the GCS isn't crewed like a battleship, or used as a battleship - at least no more then it is used as a ship of exploration or a ship of diplomacy

Mikey wrote:

me,myself and I wrote:1 quote where they identify the ship as a battleship doesn't count.

It does if there is no quote in which the crew of the ship explicitly says, "This is not a battleship." We don't get to discard evidence merely because we don't like the conclusion.

And I still say that the crews judgement was tainted by their lack of background on the ship, the Federation, and their mission profile.

kostmayer wrote:

Mikey wrote:

me,myself and I wrote:Say I stuck 9 18in guns on a commerciall fishing trawler, is it now a battleship?

It is if it is so armed, and armored like a battleship, and crewed like a battleship, and used as a battleship.

And I stil maintain that the GCS isn't crewed like a battleship, or used as a battleship - at least no more then it is used as a ship of exploration or a ship of diplomacy

Mikey wrote:

me,myself and I wrote:1 quote where they identify the ship as a battleship doesn't count.

It does if there is no quote in which the crew of the ship explicitly says, "This is not a battleship." We don't get to discard evidence merely because we don't like the conclusion.

And I still say that the crews judgement was tainted by their lack of background on the ship, the Federation, and their mission profile.

I agree.

GrahamKennedy wrote:

Mikey wrote:

me,myself and I wrote:Say I stuck 9 18in guns on a commerciall fishing trawler, is it now a battleship?

It is if it is so armed, and armored like a battleship, and crewed like a battleship, and used as a battleship.

me,myself and I wrote:1 quote where they identify the ship as a battleship doesn't count.

It does if there is no quote in which the crew of the ship explicitly says, "This is not a battleship." We don't get to discard evidence merely because we don't like the conclusion.

In The Search

SISKO : "Officially she's classified as an escort vessel... unofficially the Defiant's a warship. Nothing more, nothing less."
KIRA : "I thought Starfleet didn't believe in warships."
SISKO : "Desperate times breed desperate measures...."

There's also Troi in The Hunted

TROI : "You are on board the USS Enterprise."
ROGA : "A war vessel?"
TROI : "A Federation starship."

Whilst neither specifically says "this is not a warship" as such, both certainly indicate that it isn't.

Merriam Webster states that a warship is "a naval vessel", while dictionary.com states that it is "a ship built or armed for combat purposes." Both are a little vague, imo. "Naval" may or may not apply to Starfleet. "built or armed for" could mean anything from "a ship expressly dedicated to the purpose of combat and nothing else", right down to "happens to have a gun on board". I don't think anybody sensible would argue that a pleasure yacht becomes a warship simply because i stick a pistol in my pocket when I go aboard.

Wikipedia defines a warship as "a ship that is built and primarily intended for combat". This seems the best definition to me. But is the E-D "primarily intended for combat"? Certainly we have seen it used in combat often, and certainly during the war the primary mission of the ships was one of combat. But was that the intent of their designers, when the ship was built? I think you would be hard pressed to argue that it was.

It's true that Starships are designed to fulfill the military role, and so in that sense they are warships. But a lot of people - naming no names - seem to seize on that, claim that Starships are warships, then bash the design as being a bad warship and so the designers must be idiots. I think this is a poor argument myself. Whilst Starships are built to fulfill the military role, that is just one of their roles. They are also built for exploration, scientific investigation, diplomacy, etc. Their crews state that the military function is not their normal role, and war excepted we have little reason to think otherwise.

Put it this way. Suppose we abolished the police force and depended instead on people making citizens arrests. Practicality of that aside, would it then be logical to rant about how "he's not a teacher, he's a policeman! He arrests people, he takes them to the police station, that's what cops do, so he's a cop, and he's a terrible cop! Why on Earth are cops teaching!"

I'm sure Starfleet could build dedicated warships - they did with the Defiant. But they refrain from doing so, for the most part, quite deliberately. They do it knowing that it will cost lives, knowing that it may lead to increased risk for the society as a whole. But it's a statement about their priorities and the kind of people they are. To reduce it to "they're warships, they're bad warships, those people are stupid" is rather silly, IMO.

Thank you. That was the point I was trying to make. I just didn't have the time to do all the research and lay it out in a logical, cohesive manner. Thank you for your effort Graham!

GrahamKennedy wrote:In The Search

SISKO : "Officially she's classified as an escort vessel... unofficially the Defiant's a warship. Nothing more, nothing less."
KIRA : "I thought Starfleet didn't believe in warships."
SISKO : "Desperate times breed desperate measures...."

There's also Troi in The Hunted

TROI : "You are on board the USS Enterprise."
ROGA : "A war vessel?"
TROI : "A Federation starship."

Whilst neither specifically says "this is not a warship" as such, both certainly indicate that it isn't.

Troi's quote reeks of dodging the question, especially with her track record of lying through her teeth to support the Federation's party line. As for the Sisko-Kira exchange, the Defiant occupies a unique place as Starfleet's first single-purpose dedicated warship, rather than the warship-plus-a-ton-of-other-crap designs such as the GCS.

Merriam Webster states that a warship is "a naval vessel", while dictionary.com states that it is "a ship built or armed for combat purposes." Both are a little vague, imo. "Naval" may or may not apply to Starfleet. "built or armed for" could mean anything from "a ship expressly dedicated to the purpose of combat and nothing else", right down to "happens to have a gun on board". I don't think anybody sensible would argue that a pleasure yacht becomes a warship simply because i stick a pistol in my pocket when I go aboard.

Of course not. The GCS, however, has considerably more firepower than a pistol.

Wikipedia defines a warship as "a ship that is built and primarily intended for combat". This seems the best definition to me. But is the E-D "primarily intended for combat"? Certainly we have seen it used in combat often, and certainly during the war the primary mission of the ships was one of combat. But was that the intent of their designers, when the ship was built? I think you would be hard pressed to argue that it was.

I would argue the opposite. The Cardassians, for example, are evidently a significant military power, and capable of taking on Starfleet on something approximating parity given that they did well enough during the Fed-Cardassian War to force a give-and-take treaty, rather than a Fed-dictated one. Yet the E-D withstood fire from one of their main warships unshielded, and then swatted it like a bug. Similar treatment of Galors was seen from Galaxies in the Dominion War.

It's true that Starships are designed to fulfill the military role, and so in that sense they are warships. But a lot of people - naming no names - seem to seize on that, claim that Starships are warships, then bash the design as being a bad warship and so the designers must be idiots. I think this is a poor argument myself. Whilst Starships are built to fulfill the military role, that is just one of their roles. They are also built for exploration, scientific investigation, diplomacy, etc. Their crews state that the military function is not their normal role, and war excepted we have little reason to think otherwise.

The Last Outpost - the E-D is sent to pursue a Ferengi starship to recover a stolen piece of equipment.
Angel One - the E-D is ordered to the Neutral Zone to confront a possible Romulan incursion.
Heart of Glory - the E-D is patrolling the Neutral Zone.
The Neutral Zone - the E-D is again sent to contront the Romulans.

That's just from the first season. Episodes in which the E-D is specifically tasked with military missions. In later seasons patroling the Neutral Zone or the Cardassian border became a regular task of the Enterprise, and she was repeatedly sent to investigate unknown but suspected attacks on Federation assets ("The Survivors", "Best of Both Worlds" and "Force of Nature" spring to mind). Not to mentioned their use during the Dominion War, particularly as Sisko's battering ram in "Sacrfice of Angels".

The reason people "bash" the GCS is because it is clearly considered the go-to design when heavy firepower is called for, despite being extremely badly designed for such a role. Whether Starfleet intended it as a battleship with science labs or a science ship with massive armament is irrelevent. It is repeatedly and frequently employed as a battleship. In terms of correcting the design, I don't care whether the science labs or the guns go - you can't have both and expect it to perform optimally at either.

Put it this way. Suppose we abolished the police force and depended instead on people making citizens arrests. Practicality of that aside, would it then be logical to rant about how "he's not a teacher, he's a policeman! He arrests people, he takes them to the police station, that's what cops do, so he's a cop, and he's a terrible cop! Why on Earth are cops teaching!"

It would. For the same reason that the battleship and science vessel roles of the GCS need to be separated, and the warship optimised for its role, a specialised police force, with specialised training and equipment is required.

I'm sure Starfleet could build dedicated warships - they did with the Defiant. But they refrain from doing so, for the most part, quite deliberately. They do it knowing that it will cost lives, knowing that it may lead to increased risk for the society as a whole. But it's a statement about their priorities and the kind of people they are. To reduce it to "they're warships, they're bad warships, those people are stupid" is rather silly, IMO.

The highlighted bit is the core why they're either guilty of gross stupidity, or malicious in the extreme.

To toss my two cents worth in here gang, I think a huge part of this episode was a crock. How much of your skill DEPEND on your memories and experience??? You can't really remove one and not the other. But, assuming like the writers did for a moment, it's possible, lets try it like this. They have the entire ships schematics, but not access to the history of Starfleet or any unaltered records. Without understanding WHY the GCS has been so heavely armed (i.e. Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, and other assorted hostile species) it would be easy to judge it as a battleship with it's weapons complement. Archer said something similar about not wanting to make first contact in a battleship, until he realized what it's really like out there. So, it's an easy mistake for the inexperienced (which all the crew was again at that time) to make.

Captain Seafort wrote:Troi's quote reeks of dodging the question, especially with her track record of lying through her teeth to support the Federation's party line. As for the Sisko-Kira exchange, the Defiant occupies a unique place as Starfleet's first single-purpose dedicated warship, rather than the warship-plus-a-ton-of-other-crap designs such as the GCS.

To me it suggests that a Federation Starship, in paticular the Enterprise D, fulfils many roles - a warship being only one of them. I don't see why it has to be a warship-plus-a-ton-of-other-crap, rather then a vessel of exploration, diplomacy and scientific research - and a ship of war if needed.

Captain Seafort wrote:I would argue the opposite. The Cardassians, for example, are evidently a significant military power, and capable of taking on Starfleet on something approximating parity given that they did well enough during the Fed-Cardassian War to force a give-and-take treaty, rather than a Fed-dictated one. Yet the E-D withstood fire from one of their main warships unshielded, and then swatted it like a bug. Similar treatment of Galors was seen from Galaxies in the Dominion War.

The Federation doesn't have the apetite for war that the Cardassians do, and thus would be except a greater compromise in any treaty. The Cardassians may also have had greater numbers on their side. The Galaxy being more powerful then another races warship does not make it a warship. Being the most powerful vessel in a fleet doesn't make it a warship either.

Captain Seafort wrote:The Last Outpost - the E-D is sent to pursue a Ferengi starship to recover a stolen piece of equipment.
Angel One - the E-D is ordered to the Neutral Zone to confront a possible Romulan incursion.
Heart of Glory - the E-D is patrolling the Neutral Zone.
The Neutral Zone - the E-D is again sent to contront the Romulans.

That's just from the first season. Episodes in which the E-D is specifically tasked with military missions. In later seasons patroling the Neutral Zone or the Cardassian border became a regular task of the Enterprise, and she was repeatedly sent to investigate unknown but suspected attacks on Federation assets ("The Survivors", "Best of Both Worlds" and "Force of Nature" spring to mind). Not to mentioned their use during the Dominion War, particularly as Sisko's battering ram in "Sacrfice of Angels".

The reason people "bash" the GCS is because it is clearly considered the go-to design when heavy firepower is called for, despite being extremely badly designed for such a role. Whether Starfleet intended it as a battleship with science labs or a science ship with massive armament is irrelevent. It is repeatedly and frequently employed as a battleship. In terms of correcting the design, I don't care whether the science labs or the guns go - you can't have both and expect it to perform optimally at either.

There don't seem to be many classes of vessel that weren't employed in the Dominion war. The Galaxy was very capable of fighting, it was sent to fight. It doesn't mean it was designed and built primarily for that purpose.

It may not perform optimally as a Science ship or a warship, but it seems to perform more then adequately as both in most of the situations it finds itself in.

Captain Seafort wrote:The highlighted bit is the core why they're either guilty of gross stupidity, or malicious in the extreme.

Sisko's father seemed perfectly willing to sacrifice security for greater freedom. His views didn't seem unique.

Starfleet officers defend the Federation with their lives. That includes upholding the Federations ideals. If that takes the form of putting up a greater everyday risk due to Starfleet being less militarized, then so be it.

Try opening your eyes then. The GCS is heavilly armed, has extremely strong shields, was described as a battleship by its own crew, and was routinely sent into combat or other military situations. It is therefore a warship. It was at the time of its introduction (and for years afterwards) the most powerful ship in the Federation fleet. It is therefore a battleship.

Ah right, the crew with as much sense as a broke dick dog... good... glad that you get your info from that and not the REST of TNG...

It was routinely sent EVERYWHERE! You dance around things that go against you for nothing other then to be that fucking retard you are. Glad to see you're such a great skipper.

The Iowa is a battleship. The GCS is a battleship. If this isn't simple enough for you to understand then I'm afraid I can't help you.

Again, again and again... You keep saying "It is because I say so!", and like your life... means NOTHING. The GCS works both the Military and S/E arms of SF. It makes sense to call it a combat capable starship, but still not a battleship. A battleship is built for one reason. WAR! You don't build a battleship to go look at a star.

If you found said kids, zoo and dance hall tucked away on an Iowa, what would be your thoughts. Ignore the heavy artillery, the tens of thousands of tons of armour, and the fact that it's routinely used as means of dropping large quantities of HE on the heads of people the US doesn't like?

The same ship that routinely studies the nebula or star of the week. Studies new civilizations. Charts new starsystems. Works with setting up new colonies. Has a Captain Picard Day so kids can throw a party... Hosts dinner parties for ambassadors... Yep, see a lot of battleships doing this...

Warship, yes... Battleship, no.