www.ditl.org

Mark wrote:Lol....Marines are specially trained.

I'm talking about those guys working the flight deck, engine room, galley, and so forth. Toss in a few SPs, and you have a base defense?

Nope, you have a training run for the enemy team.

Mark wrote:I could be wrong here, but it struck me as not even using all security officers. That motley group struck me as just being average joe's from a ships crew, that were handed rifles, beamed down, and told to hold with position with no support.

Yep. Unfortunately, all the evidence points to that being the end-all, be-all of Starfleet infantry.

Mikey wrote:Yep. Unfortunately, all the evidence points to that being the end-all, be-all of Starfleet infantry.

And the Jem'Hadar still couldn't beat them. In AR-558 the Federation troops had lost ~100 people in 5 months. That is less than one person a day, to enemy attacks and the minefield. The Jem'Hadar ground forces are not impressive.

Here are a couple things the Federation could have deployed, to at least support the personnel on the surface:

1. a rapid-fire long-duration weapon. Something that can cut down on the Jem'Hadar attack waves. Add metal plates to protect the gunner, so the enemy fire doesn't hit the gunner as easily. Essentially a phaser machinegun.
2. a rake. Rake the soil into a specific pattern, so any cloaked Jem'Hadar will leave footprints.

Or use those Houdini mines more effectively. Or wide angle kill shots. Or any number of things.

Coalition wrote:

Mikey wrote:Yep. Unfortunately, all the evidence points to that being the end-all, be-all of Starfleet infantry.

And the Jem'Hadar still couldn't beat them. In AR-558 the Federation troops had lost ~100 people in 5 months. That is less than one person a day, to enemy attacks and the minefield. The Jem'Hadar ground forces are not impressive.

Here are a couple things the Federation could have deployed, to at least support the personnel on the surface:

1. a rapid-fire long-duration weapon. Something that can cut down on the Jem'Hadar attack waves. Add metal plates to protect the gunner, so the enemy fire doesn't hit the gunner as easily. Essentially a phaser machinegun.
2. a rake. Rake the soil into a specific pattern, so any cloaked Jem'Hadar will leave footprints.

The machine gun phaser should have been something they could have cobbled together easily enough. Phasers already can be fired as long as the trigger is held down, the only limit seems to be the available energy. Hook one up to a generator, mount it on a tripod with some protection, and just sweep it across the incoming enemy, Two or three of those could have held AR-558 against virtually endless waves of Jem-Hadar.

Why phaser? A 1920's-issue Ma Deuce would have served admirably. Hell, a Vickers would have done the trick.

Mikey wrote:Why phaser? A 1920's-issue Ma Deuce would have served admirably. Hell, a Vickers would have done the trick.

Given that they were using the TNG-era SMG phaser rifles, a few Bakers would have improved their situation.

Could they possibly use such retarded tactics to preserve a relatively un-advanced situation? As soon as one side starts using technology A in a situation, the other side will field other technologies, with an arms race as a result. Starfleet might keep it that simple not to provoke such an arms race. It doesn't make them or the enemy any less stupid, though.

shran wrote:Could they possibly use such retarded tactics to preserve a relatively un-advanced situation? As soon as one side starts using technology A in a situation, the other side will field other technologies, with an arms race as a result. Starfleet might keep it that simple not to provoke such an arms race. It doesn't make them or the enemy any less stupid, though.

They were at war. An arms race only needs one side. To voluntarily limit oneself in war on the grounds that it will confer on advantage on you over your enemy is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The Jem'hadar had already stepped up the game with those ridiculous mines; and in any event, we're talking about a Starfleet that already had - for centuries - things like small artillery pieces, grenades, mortars, squad-support/heavy AI weapons, etc.

Mikey wrote:An arms race only needs one side.

On the contrary - an arms race requires two sides. A massacre only requires one side.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Mikey wrote:An arms race only needs one side.

On the contrary - an arms race requires two sides. A massacre only requires one side.

Thank you for the correction. I should have said, "An arms advantage only needs one side."

It's the primary policy of the US military, and look what it's gotten us (along with a very good industrial base of course). You don't want to be equal to your enemies, you want to be so much stronger they can't touch you. Arms escalations is a police concern, not a military one.

Lighthawk wrote:It's the primary policy of the US military, and look what it's gotten us

Bogged down a couple of shitholes achieving two thirds of fuck-all?

...and keeping the Isles from having to learn German.

Mikey wrote:...and keeping the Isles from having to learn German.

That was never a serious threat - the Channel was all we needed. What you did do (through raw industrial output, not through anything resembling technological equivalence, let alone superiority) was keep western Europe from having to learn Russian.