Trek Space Combat Ranges

[Sionnach Glic]

We know the ships can go fast, near c even at sublight. We know they can shoot at long ranges, hundreds of thousands of km. They usually don't do so. The obvious reason why is because space battles would be pretty boring if the ships averaged many thousands of km apart. The in universe reason why is... well there isn't one. If Sisko had bitched one day that they had to close in to just a few km because of the enemy Isothorium wavefield, then I'd go along with it happily even if it didn't make a lot of sense.

You're right that none's been given, but the most logical in-universe answer is that it's down to jamming. Not that everything we see is wrong.

We've seen precisely one instance in all of TNG+ era Trek where a ship has fired and hit another ship at ranges greater than a dozen kilometres or so. The range in that instance was 300,000KM, IIRC. That can easily be explained as the E-D having sufficient ECM systems to negate the other vessel's jamming abilities.

Yes it would. But it can hardly be called proof that combat is usually short ranged when it's explicitly stated to be unusually short.

You're right that it's not exactly hard proof, but it's certainly a good indication. If fleets can engage at, say, 10KM range then waiting until you hit 500M before firing is foolish. If fleets can engage at 300,000KM, however, then to wait until you are litteraly right on top of them is just plain crazy and makes no tactical sense whatsoever.

Therefore Okuda (who doesn't have a place in canon) was wrong. If they state the range is 20,000 Kelicams, and the range looks like its about 2 km, then a Kellicam is equivalent to about 10cm.

Or the visuals are wrong.

And the dialogue too? By all means, point out any incident, other than the one I mentioned earlier, of vessels firing on each other at such long ranges.

[Graham Kennedy]

We know the ships can go fast, near c even at sublight.

From what? The best acceleration we've seen or heard of was TMP - the rest of the time they lumber around like beached whales.

Untrue. TOS showed several scenes of the Enterprise moving into and out of orbit at speeds comparable to those seen in TMP.

Modern infantry weapons have a range of several kilometres, and this range is occasionally used. However, the typical firefight happens at a few dozen yards, if that.

If phasers have a range of 200,000 km, then firing them at 1 km is like a rifle with a thousand yard range range being used from less than an inch away.

I'm not suggesting weapons are always used at maximum range - though there are reasons why infantry actions happen close that don't apply to space combat. But they should, from a common sense point of view, be used at sensible ranges. Hundreds of km, thousands of km, tens of thousands of km.

The in-universe reason is probably ECM - as has been suggested time after time.

No, sorry but no. The in universe explanation MIGHT be ECM, certainly. But to suggest that it is "probably" ECM is a stretch. There are other explanations which are just as likely, if not more likely.

That's no different from assuming that there was no orchestral accompaniment to WW2, despite the fact the fact that most war documentaries have one.

Exactly so.

As for the "sound in space" we have solid proof that that must be factually innacurate, whereas we have no such proof regarding typical starship combat ranges.

I make no claim that my take on it must be factually correct. As I said in the first place, it's simply the way I choose to look at it.

It's evidence because, as Rochey pointed out, there's a difference between "close" and "insanely, suicidally close". If typical ranges are a few km, then 500m would be the former. If they're a few thousand then it's the latter.

You can't seriously say that if it was ten times closer than normal they'd go "wow!" and if it was a thousand times normal they'd go "Oh my god that's absurd!!!!!" I agree that the magnitude of their reaction will be proportional to how much closer than usual they are, but there's no possible way to calibrate that precisely and claim that they therefore must be tens of times closer than normal, but not thousands. It's an absurd suggestion.

[Deepcrush]

Wasn't it rather worse than that? As I recall, the whole Earth Alliance only destroyed two Minbari capital ships in the entire war.

Depends on where you look. During season one we see only two Minbari ships lost. However in In the Beginning we see several Minbari ships take undetermined damage. The most dramatic was the "Star Killer" action. In which Sheridan set of several nukes and destroyed several Minbari ships including their Flagship the Black Star and damaged several more.

There is also the comments from the Minbari about the losses they suffered over the course of the war.

A lot of it is guess work in the end. However, the 5-1 estimate seems to fit best IMO.

[Graham Kennedy]

Wasn't it rather worse than that? As I recall, the whole Earth Alliance only destroyed two Minbari capital ships in the entire war.

Depends on where you look. During season one we see only two Minbari ships lost. However in In the Beginning we see several Minbari ships take undetermined damage. The most dramatic was the "Star Killer" action. In which Sheridan set of several nukes and destroyed several Minbari ships including their Flagship the Black Star and damaged several more.

We actually SEE that engagement in the Telemove, and it's just the Black Star on its own as I recall. Then there's a scene where an EA ship rams a Minbari ship. As I recall these are the only two Minbari capital ships ever lost.

There is also the comments from the Minbari about the losses they suffered over the course of the war.

Fighters and ground forces account for that, IIRC.

[Captain Seafort]

Untrue. TOS showed several scenes of the Enterprise moving into and out of orbit at speeds comparable to those seen in TMP.

Fair enough. I will therefore modify my statement to "most of the time they wallow around like beached whales".

If phasers have a range of 200,000 km, then firing them at 1 km is like a rifle with a thousand yard range range being used from less than an inch away.

The analogy certainly isn't perfect, but it illustrates the fact that it's rare for weapons to be used in combat at their maximum possible range.

though there are reasons why infantry actions happen close that don't apply to space combat.

And there are other limitations - sensors - that apply to both.

But they should, from a common sense point of view, be used at sensible ranges. Hundreds of km, thousands of km, tens of thousands of km.

Perhaps. However, the typical ranges aren't hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of kilometres. They're single-digit kilometres.

No, sorry but no. The in universe explanation MIGHT be ECM, certainly. But to suggest that it is "probably" ECM is a stretch.

The please suggest a more likely explanation for the demonstrated ranges, other than "the VFX is wrong because it doesn't feel right to me".

There are other explanations which are just as likely, if not more likely.

Perhaps. "The VFX is wrong because it doesn't feel right to me" is not one of them.

You can't seriously say that if it was ten times closer than normal they'd go "wow!" and if it was a thousand times normal they'd go "Oh my god that's absurd!!!!!"

Why not? Comparing it to the Davy Crockett it would be the difference between being outside the 3rd degree burn radius and being inside the fireball. The former would be survivable (or at least not instantly fatal) - the latter would not.

[Deepcrush]

We actually SEE that engagement in the Telemove, and it's just the Black Star on its own as I recall. Then there's a scene where an EA ship rams a Minbari ship. As I recall these are the only two Minbari capital ships ever lost.

There was one ship rammed. There was the opening battle between EA ships and the Grey Council. There was the Black Star battle. Sheridan commented directly that the nukes had taken out several of the cruisers coming for him, which included the Black Star.

I truely doubt that the war would have taken two years progess if the EA wasn't able to deliver any hurt to the Minbari.

5 to 1 losses is still a huge gap for the EA, made worse that the Minbari out numbered them to begin with.

Fighters and ground forces account for that, IIRC.

I'm sure they account for a large percentage of the Minbari losses but not all of them. I did however notice a trend. The clips shown at the start of the war showed large numbers of Minbari fighters taking part in battle. As the war progressed and even ended I noticed that it became rare to see a Minbari fighter in action. Not sure what that means as there are any number of things.

[SomosFuga]

There was one ship rammed. There was the opening battle between EA ships and the Grey Council. There was the Black Star battle. Sheridan commented directly that the nukes had taken out several of the cruisers coming for him, which included the Black Star.

I truely doubt that the war would have taken two years progess if the EA wasn't able to deliver any hurt to the Minbari.

5 to 1 losses is still a huge gap for the EA, made worse that the Minbari out numbered them to begin with.

I like the 5 to 1 losses because of the reasons you post here and i think it is generally accepted by the fans, although i remember an episode when Earthforce attacks B5 in wich Delenn came into with a couple minbari Sharlins and say somethink like: "there is only one human who has won a battle against the mindbari and he is behind me" obviously refering to Sheridan.

In the first major battle of the war a fleet of 40 human cap ships attacked a fleet of 12 minbari cap ships, the defenders allowed the Earthforce vessels to close into range and fire the first shot despite the attacking fleet was long before well within minbari's weapons range. The battle lasted a few seconds and only one human fighter was allowed to survive to warn its people they were doomed.

[Deepcrush]

I like the 5 to 1 losses because of the reasons you post here and i think it is generally accepted by the fans,

Pretty much, thats its. Its the best we can do since JMS doesn't go into to much detail on the topic.

although i remember an episode when Earthforce attacks B5 in wich Delenn came into with a couple minbari Sharlins and say somethink like: "there is only one human who has won a battle against the mindbari and he is behind me" obviously refering to Sheridan.

Thats the Battle of Babylon 5's Independence. There were two Omegas vs three Minbari Cruisers and a White Star and a surviving Omega plus B5 herself. Running was the only thing they could do.

In the first major battle of the war a fleet of 40 human cap ships attacked a fleet of 12 minbari cap ships, the defenders allowed the Earthforce vessels to close into range and fire the first shot despite the attacking fleet was long before well within minbari's weapons range. The battle lasted a few seconds and only one human fighter was allowed to survive to warn its people they were doomed.

Very true. Though this was common place. So were EA raids and deep target strikes. Sad to say but most of the Minbari losses in space were due to EA fighters, not capital ships. However the Nova Class did prove very nasty when they got up close. So much so that the Minbari had them and their production sites black listed. Another change up was the halt of fighter v fighter engagements. The Starfury was a very able ship inflicted heavy losses on the Minbari Nial. However the Starfury was mostly useless against the larger Minbari cruisers, which then took on the task of taking out EA before MF fighters would launch.

The EA put up a good fight. I'm amazed they did half as well as they did. The Minbari sure as hell didn't think they would. No one thought they would. In the end, it was just fate, the EA would lose and no one could change that but the Minbari.

[Graham Kennedy]

The analogy certainly isn't perfect, but it illustrates the fact that it's rare for weapons to be used in combat at their maximum possible range.

Agreed. Will you also agree that it's also, relatively speaking, quite rare for them to be used at point blank range?

And there are other limitations - sensors - that apply to both.

Indeed, but in Trek sensor performance generally extends massively beyond weapon ranges to begin with, and is very rarely said to be obscured by anything in combat. Offhand the only times I recall sensors being compromised was within nebulas or other such areas.

Perhaps. However, the typical ranges aren't hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of kilometres. They're single-digit kilometres.

If, and only if, we take the FX at face value. Which is certainly something that you may want to do; I absolutely understand why you would.

The please suggest a more likely explanation for the demonstrated ranges, other than "the VFX is wrong because it doesn't feel right to me".

That's really not my responsibility and if I couldn't it wouldn't make your suggestion any more right or likely.

That said : weapons may lose power at longer range, and so closing to point blank range may enhance their effectiveness compared to longer range engagements. Torps could consume their M/AM warhead stock to fuel the engines - indeed the TNG TM claims that this is in fact the case. Phasers seem to do all sorts of bizzare things and who knows what the hell happens to them at extended ranges.

Or it could simply be that weapons may be more accurate at short range, and the benefits of being able to target very specific areas on shields may be enough to close to short range. We know next to nothing about how shields technology works; if hitting a shield six inches to the left is far more damaging, and that can only reliably be done from a few km, then it would be a valid trade.

There's two that are just as good as ECM.

Perhaps. "The VFX is wrong because it doesn't feel right to me" is not one of them.

That's your opinion, and you have every right to it.

Why not? Comparing it to the Davy Crockett it would be the difference between being outside the 3rd degree burn radius and being inside the fireball. The former would be survivable (or at least not instantly fatal) - the latter would not.

You clipped the important part of what I said. Yes, we expect the intensity of the reaction to increase as the range decreases. The absurdity is to think that you can calibrate this and make mathematical predictions for it. That is simply stupid.

[Captain Seafort]

Agreed. Will you also agree that it's also, relatively speaking, quite rare for them to be used at point blank range?

Rare, certainly, but not unheard of.

Indeed, but in Trek sensor performance generally extends massively beyond weapon ranges to begin with

I'm not talking about range, but about accuracy. Although there have been cases of the E-D not spotting things until it was within extreme weapons range.

and is very rarely said to be obscured by anything in combat.

If ECM is standard in combat why would they mention it, any more than they'd reel off the exact capabilities of their opponent every single time they engaged, even if the class was well known?

Offhand the only times I recall sensors being compromised was within nebulas or other such areas.

Let's see..

Rock (The Battle, The Hunted, The High Ground, Legacy)
X rays (Symbiosis)
Magnetic fields (Peak Performance, Final Mission)
Funny radiation (The Ensigns of Command, Booby Trap)
Electrical storms (The Enemy)

If, and only if, we take the FX at face value. Which is certainly something that you may want to do; I absolutely understand why you would.

It's something that logically must be done unless there's very strong evidence that the visuals are completely fucked up (the Darmok phaser for example).

That said : weapons may lose power at longer range, and so closing to point blank range may enhance their effectiveness compared to longer range engagements. Torps could consume their M/AM warhead stock to fuel the engines - indeed the TNG TM claims that this is in fact the case. Phasers seem to do all sorts of bizzare things and who knows what the hell happens to them at extended ranges.

Unlikely, given that there doesn't seem to be any difference in the ease which which Fed capital ships chop up Galors at any range (The Wounded [twice] and SoA)

Or it could simply be that weapons may be more accurate at short range, and the benefits of being able to target very specific areas on shields may be enough to close to short range. We know next to nothing about how shields technology works; if hitting a shield six inches to the left is far more damaging, and that can only reliably be done from a few km, then it would be a valid trade.

That makes sense, although given their crap shooting even at observed ranges I shudder to think how bad that would be at longer range.

You clipped the important part of what I said. Yes, we expect the intensity of the reaction to increase as the range decreases. The absurdity is to think that you can calibrate this and make mathematical predictions for it. That is simply stupid.

I'm not suggesting mathematical precision in comparing their reactions - I'm expecting them to know their own weapons and to know the difference between dangerous and suicidal. You earlier compared ranges and spoke of the difference in engagement distances being between a mile-ranged rifle being fired from an inch away. That comparison becomes even worse if you were to typical engagement ranges of thousands of kilometres with Sisko closing to 500m. If typical ranges are only a few km to start with then the problem goes away - it's a tenth typical range, rather than a ten-thousandth.

[Sionnach Glic]

If, and only if, we take the FX at face value. Which is certainly something that you may want to do; I absolutely understand why you would.

So what are you actualy basing your belief that standard combat range is a hundred thousand KM or so on? It's not the visuals, and it's not the dialogue. So what's it based on? Just a sense of "I don't think it should be like that"? But if you take that stance, why shouldn't we disregard other illogical things that Trek does?

Can I assume that Starfleet Redshirts are actualy heavily armoured and well trained troops with excellent and ergonomic weapons, despite all evidence to the contrary?
Can I assume that the GCS is actualy an excellently designed vessel with few faults or problems, despite all evidence to the contrary?
Can I assume Jem'hadar shock troops don't charge into hand-to-hand combat like morons, despite all evidence to the contrary?
Can I assume the Klingons aren't space-faring Vikings, despite all evidence to the contrary?

The simple fact is, your belief of super-long combat ranges contradicts everything we've seen and heard of Trek combat, bar one incident against one ship which can easily be explained. This belief has no more canon grounding than any of the hypothetical assumptions I've listed above.

[Coalition]

I like it, but what happend in the case on KE weapons? i mean, if shields in ST are vulnerable to KE impacts why not to use KE weaponry? unless it takes a lot of energy to get through the shiled, to much for a ship mounted railgun or mass driver; or would applies the same principle "low mass-high speed"
Anyway, thanks, it's a good explanation.

KE weapons are really slow compared to c speed weaponry. Let's assume you can fire KE shells at 10% of c. This means assuming all else is identical, a light speed weapon has 10 times greater range. If the KE ship cannot bring its weapon to range on the target, it will lose. Steering themselves can be done, but you need a large thruster pack to do so. You eventually reach the point where your KE shot is effectively a non-nuclear torpedo.

If you try to increase the speed of the KE shot, you have to decrease its mass (or vastly increase the structural bracing). Eventually you get to the point where you are firing a neutral particle beam, and have crossed a very fuzzy boundary into energy based weaponry.

Photon torpedos also have the ability to do proximity blasts, where even if the torp misses, some damage will still be done to the target. A photorp hitting along the edge of a shield can still deliver half of its damage to the shield. A KE shot might punch through the shield, but it never hits anything, and most of its energy gets wasted.

As to lots of energy getting through the shield, remember in "Pegasus" the asteroid was very irregular, but they were worried about the gravity? The irregular shape means the asteroid does not have enough gravity to reshape itself, yet Data was concerned about the asteroid collapsing. It could be that Trek shields can handle small amounts of matter hitting them, but larger amounts cannot be handled.

Basically KE weapons require lots of energy delivered at once (unlike photons that can access the ship's stockpiles of antimatter), and has a shorter range than phasers. As with anything, there are tradeoffs.

[Graham Kennedy]

So what are you actualy basing your belief that standard combat range is a hundred thousand KM or so on? It's not the visuals, and it's not the dialogue. So what's it based on? Just a sense of "I don't think it should be like that"?

Common sense, really. We know the ships can fly at close to light speed. We know the ships can fire across hundreds of thousands of km. We know the weapon yields can range up into many megatons, at least.

And, we know that the real ACTUAL reason they don't depict it that way most of the time is that it would look boring.

Now you can invent some technobabble in-universe bullshit to explain that, if you like. But do not lose sight of the fact that that is exactly what you ARE doing - inventing bullshit. I've done it myself many times, it's good fun and all that.

I prefer, in this particular case, to not BS technobabble it. It just sets off my common sense alarm, so I prefer to accept that the FX is exactly what it is - designed to look cool. I don't claim that I have irrefutable proof that my opinion is the One Way It Must Be, or that all others must or should believe as I do. I simply think it's what makes sense. If you want to go with other criteria and come to other conclusions, then fine, have at it and may it give you pleasure to do so.

But if you take that stance, why shouldn't we disregard other illogical things that Trek does?

There is no "we". You are free to disregard whatever you feel like or not disregard whatever you feel like.

And personally, I DO disregard some of the other things that Trek does. I mentioned the music thing earlier; in my personal vision of "how Trek 'really' is", of COURSE people don't walk around with soundtracks playing all the time. You'd have to be a moron to think that is anything other than just something done because it's a damn TV show we're talking about here, not a bloody documentary.

Can I assume that Starfleet Redshirts are actualy heavily armoured and well trained troops with excellent and ergonomic weapons, despite all evidence to the contrary... (snipped for brevity)

My friend, you can assume whatever the hell you like. I'm not the thought police.

Can I assume that the GCS is actualy an excellently designed vessel with few faults or problems, despite all evidence to the contrary?

I will dwell on this one, slightly, because I do exactly that. Quite simply we have no idea what factors or considerations go into the 'real' process of designing a Starship. When somebody says "but it's stupid to have windows and put the bridge on the top" I'm perfectly happy to agree, but I'm also perfectly happy to assume that there is in fact some reason or other as to why the 24th century folks do that.

The simple fact is, your belief of super-long combat ranges contradicts everything we've seen and heard of Trek combat, bar one incident against one ship which can easily be explained.

No, actually it doesn't. For instance there is the Ent episode Storm Front, where closing to within a few KM to attack a target is specifically described as point blank range. And indeed every case of a ship firing from orbit at a planet - of which there are quite a few - would involve ranges of hundreds of km at least, and more likely tens of thousands of km since standard orbit seems to be geostationary.

Then there's The Changeling, where the Enterprise fired a torp at Nomad for 90,000 km away, scoring a direct hit.

Then there's Journey to Babel, where the Enterprise fires at a Klingon ship some 75,000 km distant and scores hits.

Then there's The Deadly Years, where the Romulans are pounding the Enterprise from up to a hundred thousand kilometres away. And let's not forget the weapon the BoP fired in Balance of Terror, which followed the Enterprise at warp speed for a good ten or twenty seconds, indicating a range in the millions of km.

Then there's the Klingons firing at V'Ger from outside the cloud, which gives their torps a range of 1 AU - 150 million km - even in the remastered version, and over 6 billion kilometres in the original.

Then there's A Matter of Honour, where Riker says that the Klingons should hold their fire "until you are within forty thousand kilometers" as it will "reduce their response time."

Then there's The Wounded, which I've had in mind for most of this by don't know has been mentioned by name, but which shows combat at hundreds of thousands of km - against a ship, by the way, which was one of the only ones we've ever heard WAS carrying some sort of high power jamming field, and yet which did precisely squat to the weapons range.

Then there's The Search, in which they detect two Jem'Hadar warships who will pas within 100,000 km, described as "well within range of their weapons" by Kira.

Then there's half a life, where we see the E-D firing torpedoes into a star from several stellar diameters away, which must be easily millions of km.

And that's before we ever get into firing at warp, which we've seen both phasers and torpedoes do, and which would do god knows what to weapon ranges.

And on, and on, and on.

The weapons clearly ARE capable of such ranges. Now if you want to BS imaginary ECM that cancels all that, feel free and more power to you. I've not ever once in this thread said that that's not possible.

What I object to is the idea that this represents some "probably true" solution and that any other options must therefore be dismissed out of hand.

[Vic]

[Tsukiyumi]

*hands Vic some popcorn*

Fun, ain't it?