Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

[SpaceMarine93]

Just a question, and I may have get it all wrong, but does the energy shields in Star Wars work roughly the same way or has the same effects as shields in Star Trek? Because if they work on completely different principles, then we can assume that it wouldn't be able to block Star Trek Transporter signals as they do in Star Trek.

For all we know, in an engagement between Starfleet and GE Star Destroyers, Starfleet could simply make up for its inability to match the Star Destroyers' firepower and penetrate their shields and armor by McGuyvering their Transporters into a weapon, bypassing the Star Destroyers' defenses by teleporting anti-matter warheads right into the Star Destroyers and causing massive damage.

Of course, like I said, I might have got Star Wars shields all wrong and they could jam Federation transporter beams as well as Star Trek shields could. And even if they couldn't it wouldn't be much of a game changer - the Imperial Navy could just jam the signals for all we know and still make any hypothetical battle one-sided against Starfleet. Plus Star Destroyers could still take an absurd amount of damage compared to Federation ships.

What about it?

[lord Martiya]

SW ships routinely use heavy jamming in combat, and light jamming can easily block transporters by preventing them to lock on the destination point. So, no need for shielding to block them.
Anyone knows other ways to stop transporters?

[SpaceMarine93]

SW ships routinely use heavy jamming in combat, and light jamming can easily block transporters by preventing them to lock on the destination point. So, no need for shielding to block them.
Anyone knows other ways to stop transporters?

I see. Well, it sounded like a good idea at first, but thanks for clearing it up.

As far as I know, I don't think there is any actual way to stop transporters besides jamming the targeting system.

[Batman]

Or being deep enough underground, close enough to some exotic ore or other, ordinary electric transformators...There's tons of things that disrupt transporters (be it by futzing up the transport process itself or the lockon).
And frankly there's no reason to assume Wars shielding won't block transporters. Other than being massively more resilient, they seem to work the same way Trek shields do-somehow. Given how little we know about shield or transporter operational principles you can either throw your hands up in dispair and say 'there's no way to tell' or err on the conservative side and assume that Wars shields are close enough to Trek shields for them to block transporters.
I don't have the episode title handy, but apparently you can deflect a transporter beam via tractor beam, which implies there's a matter component to it (as the repeatedly referred to 'matter stream' would indicate too) so particle shields should already give transporters the finger.
Oh, and maximum range of shipboard transporters ca TNG? 40,000 km. Have fun trying to get that close to an ISD that knows you're a hostile.

[Lord Revan]

btw do we know if that 40.000 km is a "hard cap" for transporters or just a "soft cap" based on the target you're trying to transport things to, I mean they normally can beam to and from high orbit without issue or ground based transporters to help

[Darth Lucifer]

^^It was stated in the TNG episode "A Matter of Honor" (I think, the one where Riker becomes an exchange officer and goes to the Klingon vessel Pagh). The 40K range was also lifted from the episode for the TNG tech manual.

[bilateralrope]

I'd say that transporters being blocked by the shields of the ship using them is a major problem against most opponents. If the enemy is shooting at the trek ship, then the trek ship will want its shields up. Shields up means no transporter.

So unless the enemy is surprised, or weak enough that the trek ship can safely leave their shields down, I don't see how transporters will offer any viable tactics.

[Lord Revan]

I'd say that transporters being blocked by the shields of the ship using them is a major problem against most opponents. If the enemy is shooting at the trek ship, then the trek ship will want its shields up. Shields up means no transporter.

So unless the enemy is surprised, or weak enough that the trek ship can safely leave their shields down, I don't see how transporters will offer any viable tactics.

well it depends on if they've figured out a way to beam thru their own shields or not (I can't remember atm) if they have a viable tactic comes avaible if you can somehow neutralize or ignore the enemy shields.

[Ted C]

Just a question, and I may have get it all wrong, but does the energy shields in Star Wars work roughly the same way or has the same effects as shields in Star Trek? Because if they work on completely different principles, then we can assume that it wouldn't be able to block Star Trek Transporter signals as they do in Star Trek.

No, we can't, because all kinds of phenomena interfere with transporter function in Star Trek. Star Wars shields prevent matter and energy from reaching the hull of the ship, so it's a safe bet that transporters will have a problem.

For all we know, in an engagement between Starfleet and GE Star Destroyers, Starfleet could simply make up for its inability to match the Star Destroyers' firepower and penetrate their shields and armor by McGuyvering their Transporters into a weapon, bypassing the Star Destroyers' defenses by teleporting anti-matter warheads right into the Star Destroyers and causing massive damage.

A very common Trekkie claim that is completely baseless. Civilizations less advanced than the Federation can handily block transporters in Star Trek, so there's no reason to think they'll magically transcend Imperial shielding and jamming.

Of course, like I said, I might have got Star Wars shields all wrong and they could jam Federation transporter beams as well as Star Trek shields could. And even if they couldn't it wouldn't be much of a game changer - the Imperial Navy could just jam the signals for all we know and still make any hypothetical battle one-sided against Starfleet. Plus Star Destroyers could still take an absurd amount of damage compared to Federation ships.

What about it?

There is no good reason to assume that transporters will magically penetrate Imperial shields when practically every shield system ever encountered in Star Trek will stop them, along with a variety of other phenomena like electromagnetic intereference, dense metals, and even the mere proximity of some natural minerals.

[the atom]

Based on all we know about shields from both sides it's a safe bet that Imperial shielding technology should be able to block transporters just as easily as Starfleet shields. But then again people have been known to work miracles with the technology in the past, so I wouldn't go so far as to rule the tactic out as an impossibility.

For the most part though, transporting bombs would only work if a Star Destroyers shields were down.

[Batman]

If that. ISD armour and the interference from its various systems may be enough to render transporting bombs aboard impossible and that again assumes that the Starfleet ship a) lives long enough to get into transporter range and b) actually drops its own shields (bad mojo even if we assume firepower parity, though a case could be made that if we accept the ICS figures it wouln't make much in the way of difference).

[the atom]

If that. ISD armour and the interference from its various systems may be enough to render transporting bombs aboard impossible and that again assumes that the Starfleet ship a) lives long enough to get into transporter range and b) actually drops its own shields (bad mojo even if we assume firepower parity, though a case could be made that if we accept the ICS figures it wouln't make much in the way of difference).

An ISD isn't a solid block of armour mind you. There's the hanger along hundreds of windows, ports, and various other openings that would make a fairly convenient matter stream. Of course if they've actually managed to drop the shields then the next most convenient course of action would be to send a quantum torpedo through the bridge windows or hangar bay and be done with it.

Also, what exactly in the ICS indicates that an Imperial Warship of any kind could survive an internal catastrophe like an antimatter bomb going off inside the ship?? I know the firepower figures are basically now highest canon as far as C-canon goes, but come on.

[Batman]

An ISD isn't a solid block of armour mind you. There's the hanger along hundreds of windows, ports, and various other openings that would make a fairly convenient matter stream.

Because we all know the only thing that can block a transporter is a solid block of matter. Oh Wait. Oh, look up the concept of density while you're at it.

Also, what exactly in the ICS indicates that an Imperial Warship of any kind could survive an internal catastrophe like an antimatter bomb going off inside the ship??

That'd be the part where without knowing how much antimatter there was that doesn't tell us anything?
Also blithely assumes you manage to get the antimatter bomb aboard the ISD. Shields. Getting within transporter range.

[the atom]

Because we all know the only thing that can block a transporter is a solid block of matter. Oh Wait. Oh, look up the concept of density while you're at it.

Right, because every square inch of a Star Destroyer is just as well armoured as the next, regardless of the actual concentration of armoured plates that are specialized to do the actual damage taking right? Damn it, our shields are down! Hey wait, is that a fighter? Oh shit, it's getting closer...should we intensify forward fire? TOO LATE!http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... ukMQ#t=22s Man,

That'd be the part where without knowing how much antimatter there was that doesn't tell us anything?

Well unless they happen use less then an ounce, it's a reasonably fair bet that there's more then a few kilotons worth, which is being pretty damn conservative given the wide range of firepower witnessed throughout the series. Even Wong's lower numbers for fucking Pegasus generally give us higher numbers then that. http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Dat ... mit=Submit

Also blithely assumes you manage to get the antimatter bomb aboard the ISD. Shields. Getting within transporter range.

Why yes, for the purpose of this particular discussion I am assuming that. What of it? If you want to argue about the combat viability of Starfleet ships against Imperial ones then...well...there's a lot of other places to do it.

[Stofsk]

I don't really see how it's logical to assume that Star Destroyer hull/armour have magical properties that will block transporters. For one thing, theatom is right that there's a huge hangar bay and several windows here and there which could be potential vulnerabilities. Not to mention that transporters have been used to go through a lot of things, like the hull of an alien starship with unknown properties and unknown internal layout (like the borg cube in 'QWho' and 'BOBW'). Transporters can be blocked or affected by exotic particles and density (one episode in TNG they couldn't beam through 2km of granite but in another episode they could beam through 2km of rock; transporter enhancers also exist which suggests the real problem is maintaining the beam and/or establishing a lock), but those exotic particles and density are hardly present here, and the biggest thing that interferes with transporters appears to be shields and force fields.

So I'd be happy to assume the SD's shields could block a transporter beam, but the armour/hull is a big unknown (though I'd lean towards they could do it if the shields were down). As for how this could be used tactically? Well they can transport whilst at warp so a variant of the warp strafe appears! (muahahaa - actually it would be more like the Picard Manoeuvre, a ship would have to slow to subwarp speeds, transport, and in the middle of the transport process accelerate back to warp speed; to transport an away team would be risky, because precise targeting information is required, but to transport a bomb?) Also, they can transport while cloaked so that's another option - assuming they can get cloaking devices.

All in all it's an interesting idea for a tactic but no 'silver bullet'.

[madd0ct0r]

query - didn't the new film have scotty and kirk beam themselves further then the 40k distance, into a warpspeed target no less!

[Stofsk]

Yup.

[Lord Revan]

With a bomb detonation the key question would where and how big, if you detonated bomb with yield of about an equilevant of modern hand grenate in the storage closet containing the captain's holos of twi'lek porn the damage would fairly minimal but a large device in a critical location might take out the whole ship.

[RogueIce]

query - didn't the new film have scotty and kirk beam themselves further then the 40k distance, into a warpspeed target no less!

He "hadn't invented it yet" but yes he did. Only problem I see there is we don't know precisely when he was supposed to have created it. Unless there was some "long-range warpspeed target" transporting in the series I'm not aware of, TNG: Relics opens the possibility he didn't come up with the formula until sometime after the series, between the end of VOY and, uh, sometime before Spock disappeared.

So I guess it depends on what timeframe we're having the Federation at for that tactic.

[Eternal_Freedom]

On the matter of Imperial/SW warships survivng large internal explosions, there are two I can think of off-hand. Fromt he Novel Death Star, the ISD-1 Steel Talon is destroyed when some Rebels plant a rather large bomb in a cargo container carried into the hanger bay.

Obviously, they remembered the tactic, because by the time of Vector Prime (25-odd years later) the New Republic's big battlecruiser Mediator is able to survive a major nuclear explosion in the hanger bay. It causes a lot of damage and flips the ship end over end a few times, but the ship remains functionable and is (IIRC) later repaired and recalled to service.

[RogueIce]

On the matter of Imperial/SW warships survivng large internal explosions, there are two I can think of off-hand. Fromt he Novel Death Star, the ISD-1 Steel Talon is destroyed when some Rebels plant a rather large bomb in a cargo container carried into the hanger bay.

Pretty much the same thing also happened to the ISD Invincible during the X-Wing game. Around the same time frame, as well.

[Ted C]

What reason is there to expect an ISD or any space warship to survive a large internal explosion? Are we really debating this? A small, chemical bomb maybe, but I can't think of a ship from any setting that would survive a nuclear explosion inside the ship.

[Batman]

Nuclear indicates the nature, not the yield. I can think of several ships that could survive to even shrug off a KT or below explosion going off inside them.
Remember there's SciFi that has hand weapons in that range.

[SpaceMarine93]

Nuclear indicates the nature, not the yield. I can think of several ships that could survive to even shrug off a KT or below explosion going off inside them.
Remember there's SciFi that has hand weapons in that range.

Like the Xeelee handgun that could blow up stars?

Just how powerful is an anti-matter warhead in Star Trek anyhow?

[Lord Revan]

Just how powerful is an anti-matter warhead in Star Trek anyhow?

for what?

photontorps are in the KT-low MT range depending on various factors (the tech manual gives 64 MT but that's an "optimal" yield IIRC)

but again anti-matter gives us the type of explosive not the yield (and since there's no minium yield of anti-matter bombs)