The potential for refits

[Granitehewer]

disparity was the word for the day, and more appropriate to discuss the technological disparity of the 'trek powers etc than the technological diversity, since we were covering an unexpansive subject of quantum/photon torpedos, phasers/disruptors and shields....but potato potata,lol
why does ditl lure me away from assignments? gaagh

[Duskofdead]

All I really meant to say was, disaprity makes it sound like more advanced vs. less advanced or stronger vs. weaker. When a lot of things don't conform to a linear curve in that way.

[Granitehewer]

8) true to some it would
Anyway we all know that the word of today isn't ''disparity'' or ''diversity'', its ''apricot''

[Tsukiyumi]

I love apricots.

[Granitehewer]

and that m'lud is tsuks' case for the defence......lol

[Lazar]

The important question here is whether you say AP-ricot or APE-ricot.

[Granitehewer]

i say 'ape' but my mother came from hartlepool and was bullied at university for her north eastern dialect,and so adopted a more BBC version, hence me speaking rather pretentiously although girls seem to like it

[Captain Seafort]

The Defiant's pulse phasers are less powerful then a GCS's type Xs?

About the same, if not a bit stronger. The key phrase is "battleship". The Defiant is designed as a proper warship, the GCS is not.

Say the difference between a GCS and an Akira. Better, to go back to what started this all the difference between a GCS and a Sov.

The Akira would get ripped apart. The Sov would have a chance, but would still be at a massive disadvantage.

What? I did not mean that you would put in the same number of weapons.

It would have been easier to make a large ship with the Defients power.

This implies a much larger ship that is no stronger than the Defiant.

It would depand on how much more and if it could use that advantage.

If you're up against a ship far more powerful than your own, especially in Trek-style combat, you would be at a massive disadvantage, to the extent that you would be highly unlikely to succeed.

True for naval vessels.

Even more true for starships, given their lack of vulnerability to torpedoes.

unless it can't bring its weapons to bear.

Not a factor, given starships' 360*360 degree coverage.

even totaly refitted may still lose.

True. It would, however, be far more battleworthy.

you are wrong in your assumptions and ships that are just large floating weapons platforms don't fair as well in combat as smaller well rounded ships.

The Negh'var. DS9. Borg Cubes. Dominion Battleships. The most sucessful combatants in Trek, all of which are of the "floating weapons platform" school.

One of the thing about the Sov that make it good is that fact that while being large and powerful it is also pretty manuverable. Balance is the key, not just bigger is better.

Emphasising mobility over firepower and protection was Jackie Fisher's concept for the battlecruiser. The Sov's closer to Hood than the earlier examples, but in the slow moving wall of a Trek fleet action protection and firepower are king.

How is it irrelevent. If you take two ships, each with the same weapons outload for foreward firing weapons, but ship A has weapons aft, while ship B does not, and you face them at each other, ship A's aft weapons don't mean a thing.

And if you send ship B up against a smaller more manoeuverable opponent it could find itself in trouble very quickly. Ship A would be in a far better position.

So bigger is not always better.

Bigger is always better given equal technology and fitness for role.

you think a GCS would crush a Intrepid outright?

Yes. The Intrepid is only a seventh the size of a GCS, with a seventh the firepower. It's only chance would be to use it's superior speed to run.

Very true. Ambushed and other factors do change the odds. I thought we were discrussing more of an up and up fight.

Ambushes would tend to tilt the balance slightly towards smaller, more manoeuverable ships. Head-to-head the heavier ships would have an even more obvious advantage.

Yes if the Akira just stood there and traded blows. The Akira might be able to manuver to the side of the GCS and stay out of torpedo arcs and limiting the fire from the GCS to 1 or 2 phaser banks and Spread that damage across all of it's shields and armor. At the same time the Akira would be able to use almost all of it's weapons and concentrate damage on one side of the GCS. All of this depends on how powerful the two ships are as well as how manuverable.

The Akira isn't agile enough to get on a GCS's flank and stay there. Plus the fact that the torp launchers may be out of line, but the GCS would still be able to bring four and possibly all five of its main phaser arrays to bear.

My whole point is just stating that because a ship is BIGGER, does not mean is will be better in combat.

And our point is that you're wrong

[Captain Seafort]

I've said since first arriving.. (don't want to step into a quote-for-quote in between granite and rochey/seafort/deepcrush but wanted to comment on the exchange) that the direct equivalency between modern naval conventions and Star Trek doesn't work, never has, never will. It may be what makes most sense to someone totally immersed in contemporary military hardware and studying modern world navies. Which is, ultimately, irrelevant when we're discussing how the shows were written and what conclusions we could draw from watching combat in the Trek universe.

The bigger=better actually holds true for Trek ships to a far greater degree than World War ear battleships, because the latter were vulnerable to aerial attack (against their thinner deck armour) and torpedoes (against virtually non-existant underwater armour). Trek shields effectively form an armoured of even thickness surrounding the ship in three dimensions.

Watch the invasion of Chin'toka.... identical ODP's mass produced and all drawing power from the same source light up ships the size of the Akira and Excelsior in a couple of his. Watch the bridge scenes on the Defiant and note it takes a good dozen or more hits... at least.... with no visible damage sustained whatsoever.

Excelsiors are close to a century old, and not purpose-built warships. Neither, given their apparant age from registry numbers and the fact that the Defiant was considered highly unusual in the early 2370s, were the Akiras.

The bigger ship = bigger power plants = better shields = stronger weapons formula simply does not work in Trek. It's never been true and forces us to try to rectify way too many writing inconsistencies which sometimes confirm but frequently disprove this theory.

On the contrary - all the best performers I listed above are the big ships. The Defiant is the sole exception to this, because it's the only Fed ship to be built as a dedicated warship.

Technology level, obviously, plays a role too. *snip lots of examples*

Of course - the point we're making is that assuming equal technology and equal fitness for purpose, bigger is always better.

[m52nickerson]

About the same, if not a bit stronger. The key phrase is "battleship". The Defiant is designed as a proper warship, the GCS is not.

So a smaller ship had just as powerful weapons as a larger one.

The Akira would get ripped apart. The Sov would have a chance, but would still be at a massive disadvantage.

Only if it just sat there.

This implies a much larger ship that is no stronger than the Defiant

Yes, I wrote it wrong.

If you're up against a ship far more powerful than your own, especially in Trek-style combat, you would be at a massive disadvantage, to the extent that you would be highly unlikely to succeed.

....as you said if far more powerful.

Even more true for starships, given their lack of vulnerability to torpedoes.

Starships don't move like naval vessels.

Not a factor, given starships' 360*360 degree coverage.

Sorry, should have been "all weapons to bear".

True. It would, however, be far more battleworthy.

.....and in that case a larger ship woulds lose to a smaller one.

The Negh'var. DS9. Borg Cubes. Dominion Battleships. The most sucessful combatants in Trek, all of which are of the "floating weapons platform" school.

The Negh'var we see only a few time and always in fleet actions, DS9 is a starbase, Borg Cubes based on their tech, Dominion Battleships we see one against a far, far smaller ship.

Emphasising mobility over firepower and protection was Jackie Fisher's concept for the battlecruiser. The Sov's closer to Hood than the earlier examples, but in the slow moving wall of a Trek fleet action protection and firepower are king.

Damn the Defient did pretty well in those fleet actions.

And if you send ship B up against a smaller more manoeuverable opponent it could find itself in trouble very quickly. Ship A would be in a far better position.

Yes it would, but in the example given it would not matter. I'm not trying to say the larger more powerful ship would not fair better vs. multiple oponents, or underheavy fire.

Bigger is always better given equal technology and fitness for role.

....and a large ship that can't get out of it's own way is really does not have fitness for role when you are talking about ship to ship combat.

Yes. The Intrepid is only a seventh the size of a GCS, with a seventh the firepower. It's only chance would be to use it's superior speed to run.

....and what canon source do you get that the Intrepid has only a seventh of the firepower of a Galaxy?

Ambushes would tend to tilt the balance slightly towards smaller, more manoeuverable ships. Head-to-head the heavier ships would have an even more obvious advantage.

True, but to a point.

The Akira isn't agile enough to get on a GCS's flank and stay there. Plus the fact that the torp launchers may be out of line, but the GCS would still be able to bring four and possibly all five of its main phaser arrays to bear.

Four or five?

and our point is that you're wrong

Well you have not proved it yet. With the added "Bigger is always better given equal technology and fitness for role" I would give you, for the most part.

[Sionnach Glic]

So a smaller ship had just as powerful weapons as a larger one.

Correct. Because the GCS was not designed as a battleship; it was fitted with a load of stuff that is worthless in combat.

Only if it just sat there.

No, even if it tried moving.

....as you said if far more powerful.

Yes, because a battleship is always going to be far more powerful than a cruiser. Size is one of the reasons for that. Why? Because it allows more guns and generators to be fitted in.

Starships don't move like naval vessels.

So? They're still vulnerable to torpedoes.

Sorry, should have been "all weapons to bear".

All weapons don't need to be brought to bear. Even a small fraction of its armament would be capable of wrecking a smaller ship. Hell, even a single gun could probably do a fair bit of damage.

And also, a smaller ship will also be unable to bring all of its weapons to bear, so I really don't see where you're going with this.

.....and in that case a larger ship woulds lose to a smaller one.

Because it's not a dedicated warship. A supertanker is far bigger than a destroyer, but the destroyer would always win in a fight. Does that mean the well known naval fact that bigger = better is wrong? No. Why? Because you're not comparing warships.

A stock GCS will probably lose to a smaller ship designed for war. A GCS modified to be a dedicated warship, however, would slap down any smaller attacker.

The Negh'var we see only a few time and always in fleet actions,

So? We've seen it, and we know its powerful.

And of course it's seen in fleet actions. That's exactly where a battleship is supposed to be. Skirmishes between single vessels in an inter-stellar war would be almost non-existant.

DS9 is a starbase,

So? Bolt an engine to it and it becomes a starship. Seafort's point was that it shows bigger = better. That it doesn't have an engine is irrelevant.

Damn the Defient did pretty well in those fleet actions.

Because the UFP has a pretty big power advantage over the other factions. We've stated this fact repeatedly.

....and a large ship that can't get out of it's own way is really does not have fitness for role when you are talking about ship to ship combat.

In just what situation would it need to "get out of its own way"? It's not designed to move fast; it's designed to blow shit up.
Oh, and large Trek ships have been observed to be more than capable of executing some surprisingly tight turns, so your "can't get out of its own way" idea is BS.

....and what canon source do you get that the Intrepid has only a seventh of the firepower of a Galaxy?

Gee, way to dodge the point.

The exact ratio is irrelevant. Call it one fourth the power if you want. Hell, call it half if you want.
Seafort's point was that its only advantage is its speed, which is nowhere near enough to save it against the GCS' superior firepower.

True, but to a point.

And that point would be more than adequate to smash a smaller ship apart.

Four or five?

Who cares? Just how does the GCS being able to bring either four or five guns to bear invalidate bigger = better?

Well you have not proved it yet. With the added "Bigger is always better given equal technology and fitness for role" I would give you, for the most part.

Then just what the hell was your point? "Smaller is better provided the smaller ship has an advantage in technology and the bigger ship isn't a proper warship"?

[m52nickerson]

Correct. Because the GCS was not designed as a battleship; it was fitted with a load of stuff that is worthless in combat.

So simple "bigger is better" is not always right.

No, even if it tried moving.

You base this on.......bigger is better.

Yes, because a battleship is always going to be far more powerful than a cruiser. Size is one of the reasons for that. Why? Because it allows more guns and generators to be fitted in.

As stated before if all of those weapons can't be brought to bear then they are useless. Plus you are assuming that just becasue a ship is bigger it's weapons will be more more powerful. What is there to indicate a type X phaser array on a small ship would be less powerful then a type X on a larger ship?

So? They're still vulnerable to torpedoes.

3 dimensional movement as opposed to 2d movement. Plus smaller ships like the Defiant can bank back and forth.

All weapons don't need to be brought to bear. Even a small fraction of its armament would be capable of wrecking a smaller ship. Hell, even a single gun could probably do a fair bit of damage.

All depending on the power of the two ships.

And also, a smaller ship will also be unable to bring all of its weapons to bear, so I really don't see where you're going with this.

It's maneuverability would help with this, the more maneuverable the more weapons it would be able to use.

Because it's not a dedicated warship. A supertanker is far bigger than a destroyer, but the destroyer would always win in a fight. Does that mean the well known naval fact that bigger = better is wrong? No. Why? Because you're not comparing warships.

Good for naval facts, when I want to talk about them I will go to that forum, lets stick to starships.

A stock GCS will probably lose to a smaller ship designed for war. A GCS modified to be a dedicated warship, however, would slap down any smaller attacker.

Maybe depending on how it was modified. If maneuverability was not increased it could easily become a sitting duck.

So? We've seen it, and we know its powerful.

Yes we know it is powerful, just not how it would fair in a one-on one battle.

And of course it's seen in fleet actions. That's exactly where a battleship is supposed to be. Skirmishes between single vessels in an inter-stellar war would be almost non-existant.

I'm not debating fleet actions. I'm talking one on one.......but we never see that in Star Trek.

So? Bolt an engine to it and it becomes a starship. Seafort's point was that it shows bigger = better. That it doesn't have an engine is irrelevant.

....and I have said that if the size and power advantage was large enough a maneuverability advantage would mean little.

Because the UFP has a pretty big power advantage over the other factions. We've stated this fact repeatedly.

....over the Dominion? That power advantage was that great?

In just what situation would it need to "get out of its own way"? It's not designed to move fast; it's designed to blow s**t up.
Oh, and large Trek ships have been observed to be more than capable of executing some surprisingly tight turns, so your "can't get out of its own way" idea is BS.

Yes, just blow s**t up it really is that simple. Yes large ships have been seen doing some tight turns, but still not as tight as a smaller ship.

Gee, way to dodge the point.

The exact ratio is irrelevant. Call it one fourth the power if you want. Hell, call it half if you want.
Seafort's point was that its only advantage is its speed, which is nowhere near enough to save it against the GCS' superior firepower.

So in other words you can't find one. How do you know its not far less then half? How do you know that the same type of phaser arrays will not do the same damage regardless of what size ship it is on? If you can't prove that then your argument starts to breakdown very fast.

And that point would be more than adequate to smash a smaller ship apart.

Really any proof?

Who cares? Just how does the GCS being able to bring either four or five guns to bear invalidate bigger = better?

One of the big parts of bigger is more weapons. If you can't bring those weapons to bear that advantage is not longer there.

Then just what the hell was your point? "Smaller is better provided the smaller ship has an advantage in technology and the bigger ship isn't a proper warship"?

My point is that for a battleship to be good it must have some balance, maneuverability is part of the total equation.

[Captain Seafort]

So simple "bigger is better" is not always right.

All other factors (i.e. technology and fitness for purpose) being equal bigger is better.

You base this on.......bigger is better.

Yes, as has been pointed out with examples (the River Plate).

As stated before if all of those weapons can't be brought to bear then they are useless.

So design your ship so as many weapons as possible can be brought to bear on as many bearings as possible. As has been pointed out, this is largly true of the GCS.

Plus you are assuming that just becasue a ship is bigger it's weapons will be more more powerful. What is there to indicate a type X phaser array on a small ship would be less powerful then a type X on a larger ship?

The fact that a weapon's power output is dependant on the reactor it's linked to. The physical size of the weapon defines the upper limit of the power it's capable of channeling, but the reactor determines whether it can achieve that limit, and how many such weapons can be supported.

3 dimensional movement as opposed to 2d movement.

What's this supposed to prove. My original point, that the main reason why destroyers were a threat to battleships in the world wars does not apply to starships, stands.

All depending on the power of the two ships.

A smaller ship will always be less capable at inflicting and withstanding damage than a larger one. The degree to which this is true varies depending on the relative sizes of the ships, but it remains true.

It's maneuverability would help with this, the more maneuverable the more weapons it would be able to use.

No it won't. It will be able to vary which weapons it uses, but the number of weapons that can be brought to bear simultaneously would not be affected.

Good for naval facts, when I want to talk about them I will go to that forum, lets stick to starships.

We're discussing naval facts - the fact that it happens to be in space doesn't change the underlying principles. Indeed, as I've pointed out repeatedly, size and power output has an even greater effect on starship combat than on RL combat.

Maybe depending on how it was modified. If maneuverability was not increased it could easily become a sitting duck.

Bigger ships are always less manoeuverable. The fact that something is a "sitting duck" does not by itself make it vulnerable.

Yes we know it is powerful, just not how it would fair in a one-on one battle.

We saw it withstand the guns of a station that was one-shotting smaller ships, and subsequently knock out said station's shields temporarilly. That effectively was a one-on-one action, and the Negh'var came out of it most creditably.

I'm not debating fleet actions. I'm talking one on one.......but we never see that in Star Trek.

We're debating the usefullness of larger ships over smaller ones. Part of this involves taking into account the sort of engagements that the ships would be involved in.

I have said that if the size and power advantage was large enough a maneuverability advantage would mean little.

Then you accept the point we are making. The fact that a larger and more powerful platform proved superior in combat negates your claim that smaller and more manoeuverable ships have the advantage.

over the Dominion? That power advantage was that great?

Yes. This is proved by the fact that Fed ships can go head-to head with dedicated warships the size of their largest ships.

Yes, just blow s**t up it really is that simple.

Exactly. Battleships are not intended for finesse. They are intended to inflict and withstand tremenous punishment.

Yes large ships have been seen doing some tight turns, but still not as tight as a smaller ship.

So? The difference is not sufficient to overcome the advantage of being on the inside of the arc.

So in other words you can't find one. How do you know its not far less then half?

The GCS carries 275 photon torpedoes. The Intrepid carries 38. Plus the fact that the GCS was used as battleship in the Dominion War. The Intrepid never even appeared in a fleet action.

How do you know that the same type of phaser arrays will not do the same damage regardless of what size ship it is on?

Because it isn't the phaser array that determines power - it's the reactor that feeds it. A larger, more powerful ship can put more energy into a single array, or feed more arrays.

Really any proof?

The Dom battleship against the Valiant. Wolf 359. The FC battle. Any fleet action involving DS9.

One of the big parts of bigger is more weapons. If you can't bring those weapons to bear that advantage is not longer there.

Wrong - the key advantages are bigger weapons, more weapons, and better defenses. Also, smaller ships have exactly the same problem - they can only bring so many weapons to bear simulataneously.

My point is that for a battleship to be good it must have some balance, maneuverability is part of the total equation.

Mobility is part of the equation, but it's far less important than firepower and protection.

[m52nickerson]

All other factors (i.e. technology and fitness for purpose) being equal bigger is better.

Perhaps.

Yes, as has been pointed out with examples (the River Plate).

Which did not involve starships.

So design your ship so as many weapons as possible can be brought to bear on as many bearings as possible. As has been pointed out, this is largly true of the GCS.

As many =/= all.

The fact that a weapon's power output is dependant on the reactor it's linked to. The physical size of the weapon defines the upper limit of the power it's capable of channeling, but the reactor determines whether it can achieve that limit, and how many such weapons can be supported.

Do you have any proof that a smaller ship would not be able to generate enough power to fire it's phasers at there upper limit? Most likely not. Why would Starfleet or anyone design a ship that could not fully power its weapons?

What's this supposed to prove. My original point, that the main reason why destroyers were a threat to battleships in the world wars does not apply to starships, stands.

I was answering Rocheys point. It could be said that they still are a danger. A photon torpedo fired from a GCS is just as powerful as one fired from an Intrepid.

A smaller ship will always be less capable at inflicting and withstanding damage than a larger one. The degree to which this is true varies depending on the relative sizes of the ships, but it remains true.

Again, and you still fail to put the whole argument together, if the larger ship can't bring its weapons to bear then the advantage is taken away.

No it won't. It will be able to vary which weapons it uses, but the number of weapons that can be brought to bear simultaneously would not be affected.

Your right they could not bring more simultaneously, but they would be able to bring all, or nearly all of its weapons to bear through out the battle.

We're discussing naval facts - the fact that it happens to be in space doesn't change the underlying principles. Indeed, as I've pointed out repeatedly, size and power output has an even greater effect on starship combat than on RL combat.

No you are discussing naval facts, not me. There may be some principals the same but there are still a large amount of difference. Naval ships don't have energy shields, phasers, the don't move like starships. All of these change the name of the game.

Bigger ships are always less manoeuverable. The fact that something is a "sitting duck" does not by itself make it vulnerable.

It does in the ways I have described.

We saw it withstand the guns of a station that was one-shotting smaller ships, and subsequently knock out said station's shields temporarilly. That effectively was a one-on-one action, and the Negh'var came out of it most creditably.

Yes, exactly we see a small ship just about take out a large station. What was that about bigger is.......

We're debating the usefullness of larger ships over smaller ones. Part of this involves taking into account the sort of engagements that the ships would be involved in.

If you are debating that then fine, I proving that in one-on-one situations larger ships may not always be superior.

Then you accept the point we are making. The fact that a larger and more powerful platform proved superior in combat negates your claim that smaller and more manoeuverable ships have the advantage.

In some instances yes, if the larger ship is powerful enough to destroy the smaller ship in only a few shots, of if the smaller ship can't harm the larger one. These are not absolutes.

Yes. This is proved by the fact that Fed ships can go head-to head with dedicated warships the size of their largest ships.

Or the federation ship were better overall designed. Unless you can prove that it was a technological advantage all we know is that the Federation ships were better overall, not just better weapons and shields.

Exactly. Battleships are not intended for finesse. They are intended to inflict and withstand tremenous punishment.

....and those point make them very useful in certain situations. It does not mean that they can't be finessed to death.

So? The difference is not sufficient to overcome the advantage of being on the inside of the arc.

Really, and you know this for a fact?

The GCS carries 275 photon torpedoes. The Intrepid carries 38. Plus the fact that the GCS was used as battleship in the Dominion War. The Intrepid never even appeared in a fleet action.

Again if the GCS can't hit the Intrepid with those torpedoes then they are useless.

Because it isn't the phaser array that determines power - it's the reactor that feeds it. A larger, more powerful ship can put more energy into a single array, or feed more arrays.

Proof?

The Dom battleship against the Valiant. Wolf 359. The FC battle. Any fleet action involving DS9.

The Dominion battleship was much, much larger then the valiant, and in that situation the power advantage was great enough to overcome any maneuverability advantage, plus the Valiant flew right into the firing path of the Warships main weapons. Wolf 359 the Borg had a tech advantage. The Federation fleet really could not damage the cube or protect themselves. In the fleet actions involving DS9 we also see a much large station taking out much smaller ships easy, larger ship were still a danger. FC battle?

Wrong - the key advantages are bigger weapons, more weapons, and better defenses. Also, smaller ships have exactly the same problem - they can only bring so many weapons to bear simulataneously.

As stated it would not be simultaneously, but they could still be used. Also, you have not offered any proof from canon that a larger ship with the same types of weapons as a smaller ship would be able to cause more damage with each individual weapon.

Mobility is part of the equation, but it's far less important than firepower and protection.

You have yet to show that that is true in all situations.

[Captain Seafort]

Perhaps.

No perhaps about it.

Which did not involve starships.

Irrelevent - it demonstrates the case, and I've pointed out repeatedly that it's even more true of starships than of RL ships.

As many =/= all.

So?

Do you have any proof that a smaller ship would not be able to generate enough power to fire it's phasers at there upper limit? Most likely not. Why would Starfleet or anyone design a ship that could not fully power its weapons?

Of course a ship should always be able to get the best performance out of its weapons. My point is that for a big ship that performance would be better than a smaller ship.

I was answering Rocheys point. It could be said that they still are a danger. A photon torpedo fired from a GCS is just as powerful as one fired from an Intrepid.

Correct, however PTs are far less dangerous to starships than RL torpedoes are to battleships, as starship 'armour' (their shields) cannot be bypassed in the same way as a battleship's belt.

Again, and you still fail to put the whole argument together, if the larger ship can't bring its weapons to bear then the advantage is taken away.

Wrong. It would still have the advantage of more weapons, more powerful individual weapons and stronger defences, regardless of whether they can hit an attacker with 100% of their weapons or not.

Your right they could not bring more simultaneously, but they would be able to bring all, or nearly all of its weapons to bear through out the battle.

So?

1) The same is true of the larger ship.

2) The fact that they can use all their weapons at different points does not increase the firepower they can bring to bear.

No you are discussing naval facts, not me. There may be some principals the same but there are still a large amount of difference. Naval ships don't have energy shields, phasers, the don't move like starships. All of these change the name of the game.

Protection. Firepower. Mobility. These factors dominate warfare. They always have since Ug bashed Og with a rock, and they always will. How they are achieved is irrelevant.

Apart from that, starship technology makes raw power output more important than during the world wars, not less, as I have pointed out time and time again.

It does in the ways I have described.

No it doesn't. Go and watch DS9.

Yes, exactly we see a small ship just about take out a large station.

No we didn't - we saw a large ship hurt the station slightly more than smaller ships could (i.e. at all). Note that the station rapidly got its shields back, and was ready to continue.

If you are debating that then fine, I proving that in one-on-one situations larger ships may not always be superior.

No, you're not - you're attempting to do so, and failing miserably.

In some instances yes, if the larger ship is powerful enough to destroy the smaller ship in only a few shots, of if the smaller ship can't harm the larger one. These are not absolutes.

They are - they are inherent in the ships' relative strengths. More powerful ships will always be able to kill less powerful ships in fewer shots than the reverse could be achieved.

Or the federation ship were better overall designed. Unless you can prove that it was a technological advantage all we know is that the Federation ships were better overall, not just better weapons and shields.

Explain how a jack-of-all-trades ship could be successful in battle against a purpose-built warship without having superior weapons and shielding technology.

It does not mean that they can't be finessed to death.

Explain how this could be done.

Really, and you know this for a fact?

Yes.

Again if the GCS can't hit the Intrepid with those torpedoes then they are useless.

1) The Intrepid has never demonstrated sufficient manoeuverability to dodge torpedoes

2) I see you're completely ignoring the second point. We saw the GCS used as a battleship. We never even saw an Intrepid in a battlefleet.

Proof?

You want proof that power comes from reactors instead of thin air?

The Dominion battleship was much, much larger then the valiant, and in that situation the power advantage was great enough to overcome any maneuverability advantage, plus the Valiant flew right into the firing path of the Warships main weapons. Wolf 359 the Borg had a tech advantage. The Federation fleet really could not damage the cube or protect themselves. In the fleet actions involving DS9 we also see a much large station taking out much smaller ships easy, larger ship were still a danger. FC battle?

The battle in FC.

You accept that larger ships are more effective then. Thank you.

As stated it would not be simultaneously, but they could still be used.

Irrelevent. Only simultaneous attacks can be counted in effective firepower.

Also, you have not offered any proof from canon that a larger ship with the same types of weapons as a smaller ship would be able to cause more damage with each individual weapon.

Big ship = more room for reactors and fuel and more room for bigger weapons = more power to weapons.

If the same design of weapons were being used, then the larger ship would be able to mount more of them, and would therefore have greater effective firepower.

You have yet to show that that is true in all situations.

I have done so repeatedly.