Starfleet Jedi

Here, we can see the anti-Trek brigade spout the same inane bullshit over and over again, and ignore facts in favor of their delusions.
The best one (and I use the term "best" lightly) is Aratech, topping his list of idiocies with this gem:

Stormies only miss all the time when shooting at a hero. They have about a 50/50 accuracy on the mooks.

To the Rebels on the Tantive IV and the Ewoks are heroes now?

Gotta love those Warsies... :)

That thread just amuses me, as I am sure I pointed out before to them we have never actually seen what the Federation ground army looks like.

What there talking about is like taking MP's from a carrier and setting them up as Marines and expecting them to fight with the same ability and technologies without giving them access to those technologies.

I'm actually suprised that no one brings up the fact that the Cardassians, who fought a war with the Federation prior to the Dominion War, is stated to have a mechanized infantry. In addition, we have seen the Jem'Hadar use the Houdini subspace mines, holographic decoys, artillery, and so on. The Klingons have also been shown using artillery, and the Federation itself is known since TOS times to have the mortar launched photon grenades. We really have seen very little of actual full-out ground combat in Trek, just bits and pieces.
-Mike

Well the problem it's that it is expected from Trek to show evidence of those capacities. Although details and clues are present, in general the best you have to see from troops is guys wearing tissue, leather and using disruptors and phasers, when everybody expects Starcraft, the book Mobile Infantry, the Imperium and clonetroopers.
Surely, Trek isn't really using much of mechanized support. Yeah, we've heard it all, the Klingons have some tanks, the Cardassians have some suits somewhere, the UFP used a mortar once in all their life, in a way that indicated nothing of a long chain of logistics, etc.
No, the point is that ground warfare is a weak force of Trek. It lacks something between orbital control and meatbags with phasers, even if they're deadly and can punch through lots of stuff. Eventually, the only intermediate element that's relatively regular enough is the shuttle, which in many ways combines transport, deployment, mobile base, sensors, assault and ground/air mobility.

Rather interesting how they assume all "Red shirts" die. I swear most people who argue anti-Star Trek have never watched more then clips.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Well the problem it's that it is expected from Trek to show evidence of those capacities. Although details and clues are present, in general the best you have to see from troops is guys wearing tissue, leather and using disruptors and phasers, when everybody expects Starcraft, the book Mobile Infantry, the Imperium and clonetroopers.
Surely, Trek isn't really using much of mechanized support. Yeah, we've heard it all, the Klingons have some tanks, the Cardassians have some suits somewhere, the UFP used a mortar once in all their life, in a way that indicated nothing of a long chain of logistics, etc.
No, the point is that ground warfare is a weak force of Trek. It lacks something between orbital control and meatbags with phasers, even if they're deadly and can punch through lots of stuff. Eventually, the only intermediate element that's relatively regular enough is the shuttle, which in many ways combines transport, deployment, mobile base, sensors, assault and ground/air mobility.

I think the real problem is that the writers of startrek realized that there is no real point to all those things.

After all what use is heavy armor if your enemy owns the gravity well since we know phasers from orbit can pluck the hair off a fly accuracy wise.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Well the problem it's that it is expected from Trek to show evidence of those capacities.

Yet when SW fails at every turn to show any competence in Stormtroopers, or any aiming capability, they still spout the "Only failzzzz aginst he-roezzzzz!" bullshit... :)

Episky wrote:I think the real problem is that the writers of startrek realized that there is no real point to all those things.

After all what use is heavy armor if your enemy owns the gravity well since we know phasers from orbit can pluck the hair off a fly accuracy wise.

You don't always have the luxury of owning space during a conflict. The UFP has not been pushed as far as to have isolated groups fight on the ground, eventually protected by whatever disruption, natural or not, preventing teleportation. We do know that there is a wide variety of phenomena that can disrupt beaming up/down as well as sensors.
It's more complicated if you literally have to assault or defend a position in a shielded building or area. You'd surely like the support of a vehicle that would provide protection against phasers and allow to carry some sensors, more weapons, medical support, etc.

Praeothmin wrote:

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Well the problem it's that it is expected from Trek to show evidence of those capacities.

Yet when SW fails at every turn to show any competence in Stormtroopers, or any aiming capability, they still spout the "Only failzzzz aginst he-roezzzzz!" bullshit... :)

There's no point honestly arguing those. We know phasers have a huge accuracy, even at medium ranges.
SW's automatic rifle blasters suck big times in comparison, and only very skilled troopers seem to get something good out of them, and the only weapons which allow for much better accuracy are "sniper" rifles.

You don't always have the luxury of owning space during a conflict. The UFP has not been pushed as far as to have isolated groups fight on the ground, eventually protected by whatever disruption, natural or not, preventing teleportation. We do know that there is a wide variety of phenomena that can disrupt beaming up/down as well as sensors.
It's more complicated if you literally have to assault or defend a position in a shielded building or area. You'd surely like the support of a vehicle that would provide protection against phasers and allow to carry some sensors, more weapons, medical support, etc.

Lack of evidence is not evidence in itself. We never see any ground battle that might indicate lack of armor support - we saw two undersupplied garrisons and that's all. However, it might be worth to note that only ground armor we do know about (read: we know it exists while knowing nothing about it) are Klingon and Cardassian IFV's, probably used to ocuppy relatively low-tech worlds - like Bajor. And as pointed out, in most battles, ground vehicles probably have no chance in hell of surviving if battle for control of space around planet is lost - infantry at least can continue to fight guerilla warfare.

However, Federation does have "hopper", which seems to be some kind of purely atmospheric transport craft, which probably means they have support/gunship version of it too.

Actually, we heard of Klingon ground vehicules, and the Cardassian mechanized infantry, and we have seen with our own eyes the Federation Dune Buggy, most likely a light recon vehicule which, while unarmored, I'd use way before I would use an AT-ST.
The weapon is as powerful, and the vehicule is definitely faster and more maneuverable... :)

Praeothmin wrote:Actually, we heard of Klingon ground vehicules, and the Cardassian mechanized infantry, and we have seen with our own eyes the Federation Dune Buggy, most likely a light recon vehicule which, while unarmored, I'd use way before I would use an AT-ST.
The weapon is as powerful, and the vehicule is definitely faster and more maneuverable... :)

A buggy in Trek, that bobs up and down, prevents the gunner from acquiring anything, that can't even protect its passengers, and would supposedly be used to scout when tricorders do that a thousand times better? That's more like a GLA buggy with some alien artifact strapped on its back. Frankly, if I had no real plan to cross a vast distance under a limited time, I'd rather go with the AT-ST, and forget about the scout mission. At least I'd have protection, more weapons with equal accuracy (again, the buggy's weapon sucked big times), and the capacity to avoid being stuck like a buggy would.

frankly a lack of evidence should not be a device with which to go on 'durr iz not evidence of absence " the feds likely dont mass deploy ground vehicles and know what?

they dont have too your cap ships can target people and germs from space and fire with out causing any collateral or life wipe in seconds or hours depending on the need

ground vehicles have very little relevance in such battles though die hard warsies like leo1 try to claim other wise

Mr. Oragahn wrote:

Praeothmin wrote:Actually, we heard of Klingon ground vehicules, and the Cardassian mechanized infantry, and we have seen with our own eyes the Federation Dune Buggy, most likely a light recon vehicule which, while unarmored, I'd use way before I would use an AT-ST.
The weapon is as powerful, and the vehicule is definitely faster and more maneuverable... :)

A buggy in Trek, that bobs up and down, prevents the gunner from acquiring anything, that can't even protect its passengers, and would supposedly be used to scout when tricorders do that a thousand times better? That's more like a GLA buggy with some alien artifact strapped on its back. Frankly, if I had no real plan to cross a vast distance under a limited time, I'd rather go with the AT-ST, and forget about the scout mission. At least I'd have protection, more weapons with equal accuracy (again, the buggy's weapon sucked big times), and the capacity to avoid being stuck like a buggy would.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Strike_Vehicle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Patrol_Vehicle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_L ... ke_Vehicle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:S ... d_vehicles

Given the Argo buggy was based on real world vehicles used by real world militaries I'm guessing the design isn't very bad for a sci-fi vehicle.

I honestly can't see how someone can't get car sick riding in an AT-ST.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:

Praeothmin wrote:Actually, we heard of Klingon ground vehicules, and the Cardassian mechanized infantry, and we have seen with our own eyes the Federation Dune Buggy, most likely a light recon vehicule which, while unarmored, I'd use way before I would use an AT-ST.
The weapon is as powerful, and the vehicule is definitely faster and more maneuverable... :)

A buggy in Trek, that bobs up and down, prevents the gunner from acquiring anything, that can't even protect its passengers, and would supposedly be used to scout when tricorders do that a thousand times better? That's more like a GLA buggy with some alien artifact strapped on its back. Frankly, if I had no real plan to cross a vast distance under a limited time, I'd rather go with the AT-ST, and forget about the scout mission. At least I'd have protection, more weapons with equal accuracy (again, the buggy's weapon sucked big times), and the capacity to avoid being stuck like a buggy would.

Protection against what?
At best, given its track record, the AT-ST's armor cannot even protect you against hand guns... :)

It gives protection against Old Mad Woman armed with Death Walking Stick...

EDIT: On a more serious note, Darkstar DID calculate that Magnum handgun might be best thing that armor might protect you from... and it definetly protects against hand blasters (single-digit MJ of DET).