Scimitar vs. Sovereign

[Tsukiyumi]

It's a possibility, but there's the fact that we've never seen a disruptor that takes in excess of a dozen seconds to power up. There's also the fact that, if it was equipped with such armament, it would make far more sense to charge them all up and unleash the entire battery at once.

If it's got as many weapons as Worf claimed, then it must have the slowest-charging weapons in Trek. They'd make a Napoleonic gun look like a quick firer.

If they had, say, 30 forward-firing, and each one takes forever to recharge, we'd see pretty few shots.

Of course, a smart commander would simply wait until they had all charged, and fire them at once.

...But, as we've discussed, Shinzon wasn't the brightest bulb.

Just a thought.

[Sionnach Glic]

But then we hit another wall with the "fire all disruptor banks" comment. And, again, the problem that all the shots come from the exact same spot.

[Tsukiyumi]

But then we hit another wall with the "fire all disruptor banks" comment. And, again, the problem that all the shots come from the exact same spot.

Do they come from the exact same spot? I mean, the ship is hundreds of meters across. And, they'd only be able to fire the weapons that were charged.

[Captain Seafort]

They came from as close to the same spot as could be determined from the resolution of a computer screen. In any event, the ships big enough that fifty-odd weapons, if they existed, could have been scattered across the entire surface, rather than concentrated in a few spots - it would make them far les vulnerable. Since the Scimitar was only commanded by an idiot, not designed by one, we can assume that such a flaw would have been avoided. As for slow recharge times, they'd have to have the worst RoF ever seen in Trek for all the guns to be firing.

[m52nickerson]

So, we're just tossing out my theory that there are 52 disruptors, only they take forever to recharge, and we only see a few firing at once? I guess there's no way to prove or disprove that one, so it's not the best. Still fits, though.

Perhaps this is why the Scimitar could fire while cloaked. Her disruptors had to be designed to operate with a minimal amount of power, so to have any type of punch they had to have a long charge time as power was built up. This would also explain why it had 52 disruptors, with the long charge they needed a large number disruptors to maintain a descent overall rate of fire.

[Captain Seafort]

Perhaps this is why the Scimitar could fire while cloaked. Her disruptors had to be designed to operate with a minimal amount of power, so to have any type of punch they had to have a long charge time as power was built up. This would also explain why it had 52 disruptors, with the long charge they needed a large number disruptors to maintain a descent overall rate of fire.

A logical assumption on the face of it, but not one supported by the facts - it fails to answer why the weapons would be so tightly concentrated as to appear to be single weapons, and why there's no change in the effectiveness or RoF after the cloak was disabled. You'd have thought that once it was down they'd have cut loose with all weapons - instead they kept using the same small number that had been observed throughout the battle. Moreover, their firepower was pathetic - they just about managed to hole the E-E's bridge, but the only threat the hit posed to the crew was being sucked out through the hole.

[Sionnach Glic]

Indeed, at one point in the battle Shinzon deliberately lowers the cloak to try and convince a Warbird into coming straight at him. When it starts aproaching, he orders all weapons to fire.
Take a wild guess as to how many we see firing.

[m52nickerson]

A logical assumption on the face of it, but not one supported by the facts - it fails to answer why the weapons would be so tightly concentrated as to appear to be single weapons, and why there's no change in the effectiveness or RoF after the cloak was disabled. You'd have thought that once it was down they'd have cut loose with all weapons - instead they kept using the same small number that had been observed throughout the battle. Moreover, their firepower was pathetic - they just about managed to hole the E-E's bridge, but the only threat the hit posed to the crew was being sucked out through the hole.

Closely packed to act as a single weapons to compensate for the long recharge time, and cut down on the amount of work the fire control system and the tactical officer had to do. Instead of controlling 52 different weapons, now he has a much more manageable number.

If the disruptors were designed in the way I described there was probably no way to override this. They were physically designed to slowly charge under low power. Not all the weapons would be in a state of full charge so cutting loos with everything might not have been a possibility.

[m52nickerson]

Indeed, at one point in the battle Shinzon deliberately lowers the cloak to try and convince a Warbird into coming straight at him. When it starts aproaching, he orders all weapons to fire.
Take a wild guess as to how many we see firing.

We see one weapon fire repeatedly or we see a groups of weapons fire in turn.

I may just quit responding to you if you can't come up with anything new.

[Captain Seafort]

Closely packed to act as a single weapons to compensate for the long recharge time, and cut down on the amount of work the fire control system and the tactical officer had to do. Instead of controlling 52 different weapons, now he has a much more manageable number.

Fifty-two guns remain fifty-two guns regardless of how they're arranged - there would be no change in the targetting requirements regardless of how they were grouped. World War era battleships had to lay each gun individually, not by turret. As for the issue of compensating for long recharge times this has already been dealt with, repeatedly. The guns would have to have the worst RoF of any ship in Trek, and it still wouldn't make sense to cluster them so close together.

If the disruptors were designed in the way I described there was probably no way to override this. They were physically designed to slowly charge under low power. Not all the weapons would be in a state of full charge so cutting loos with everything might not have been a possibility.

Again, a long list of new entities is required by this theory. Ours requires no such convoluted exuses - we see all shots emerging from the same point. The simplest solution is that all such shots originate from the same weapon.

[Captain Seafort]

We see one weapon fire repeatedly or we see a groups of weapons fire in turn.

So it's either one weapon, or its lots of weapons that look like one weapon. Both are consistent with the visual evidence and the former is simpler. Therefore it is preferable.

I may just quit responding to you if you can't come up with anything new.

Why should we come up with "anything new" when the theories and logic we have already provided are perfectly adequate?

[Sionnach Glic]

We see one weapon fire repeatedly or we see a groups of weapons fire in turn.

Bzzt! Wrong!
We get a close up shot of the Scimitar's hull at that point, and you can see that one weapon track the Warbird as it fires.

I may just quit responding to you if you can't come up with anything new.

Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing.

[m52nickerson]

Fifty-two guns remain fifty-two guns regardless of how they're arranged - there would be no change in the targetting requirements regardless of how they were grouped. World War era battleships had to lay each gun individually, not by turret. As for the issue of compensating for long recharge times this has already been dealt with, repeatedly. The guns would have to have the worst RoF of any ship in Trek, and it still wouldn't make sense to cluster them so close together.

Again, a long list of new entities is required by this theory. Ours requires no such convoluted exuses - we see all shots emerging from the same point. The simplest solution is that all such shots originate from the same weapon.

Once again you offer nothing new.

[m52nickerson]

Why should we come up with "anything new" when the theories and logic we have already provided are perfectly adequate?

No quit inadequate and lacking in imagination. So why don't you let us who are interested in coming up with something the explains everything sort this out, Thanks.

[Captain Seafort]

Once again you offer nothing new.

And? What's next, are you going to argue that the theory of gravity is wrong because it's been around for centuries?

So why don't you let us who are interested in coming up with something the explains everything sort this out, Thanks.

That's exactly what Rochey and I have been doing for the last half-dozen pages at least. If you're too thick to understand this, that's your problem.