m52nickerson wrote:Which he did by giving the report, that does not mean the other would not have been looking at the scan results. It would be important for anyone that might have to take over the tactical station to know were key system of the Scimtar were located, including the weapons systems. So the fact that no one correct Worf, or he never corrected himself make him simplle making a mistake highly unlikely.
Everyone else was busy doing their jobs. There may have been a backup tactical officer, but he'd have been less experienced than Worf, and so as likely, if not moreso to make the same mistake, if a mistake was made. As has been pointed out repeatedly, a mistake is not the only possibility.
Their jobs would be to be as informed as possible to better give the Captain options and carry out his orders.
In their area of expertise. Worf's area of expertise was tactical, therefore he gave the weapons report.
How do you know it was powered by that generator and that was not just part of the Thelaron weapon?
Which part of "maybe" do you not understand. Not to mention that this entire debate is revoling around the fact that you don't understand the burnen of proof. You are making a positive claim - that the Scimitar has dozens of weapons despite visual evidence to the contrary. It is your job to prove that claim, not ours to disprove it.
Example?
Every fucking time you've claimed that we've ignored Worf's statement.
That is wrong on many levels. One, even if they did not understand the inner working of each system, they would know how much power those systems would require. So if the Cloak, Shields, were seen as greater priorities then the weapons the weapons would have to be designed around the power available. Two, not knowing how all the systems worked would mean the possibility of major design flaws, and sytem not being compatible.
Only two systems need to be universally compatable - the power distribution grid and the computer network. Nothing else. As for the issue of power requirements, those designing the overall ship would know how much power each system required, and how much power the main reactor could generate. They would then know how many disruptors (for example) the ship would be able to carry.
Unless those were not the exact same weapons firing, then the recharge rates could be much longer.
True. Now prove that those were different weapon, despite the fact that they were all firing from the same half dozen points on the hull.
I can't wait for someone to tell me that the way a WW battle ship works is comparability to a Star ship.
They are both designed for the same fundamental role - to inflict maxium damage on the enemy. To do this they need to balance firepower, mobility, and protection. This has not changed since the days of chariots, and will not change as long as warfare continues.
I got one, how about the fact that on battle ships the main guns are normally in groups of three or more.
Wrong. The vast majority of warships use twin turrets, and spread their weapons as far apart as possible without compromising protection. Moreover each gun is protected individually, rather than depending solely on the ship's main belt armour. Since starship protection is universal, rather than concentrated in armoured belts, the effectiveness of their shields is affected by the overall size of the ship far more than the distribution of their weapons.