StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Now, as a disclaimer, I haven't seen too much Trek, and haven't seen Enterprise at all, which may invalidate the theory. Nontheless:

Phasers are a complete mystery. Regardless of how they work, they are needlessly complex. Why bother inducing some sort of chain reaction in matter? Why not just build a simple energy transfer weapon? The theory would certainly be more straightforward. Hey, why not carry conventional weapons around for dealing with non-organic matter? Why on Earth did they do things this way, when they could have been done simpler?

The idea lies, I think, behind the basic ideology Earth had when phasers were designed. They presumably equipped their craft to, well, as the motto goes, "Go where no man has gone before". They wanted a weapon useful for self-defense to some extent - but also to look impressive. I recall, in STFC(the movie), Data fired on the Borg with his phaser, and it looked as though he was raising a "wand" and the Borg went down. Similarly, against organic beings, it simply looks as though the Fed waved a magic wand, fired a blast of light and... POOF! Being has disappeared.

If the point of your weapon is to impress the natives, that could be highly valuable. They wanted their ships to be not a military array, but ships that could show off humanity's civilization. As in "We walk around in pajamas and wave magic wands and we can still kick your asses in a civilized manner". They showed off their superiority and presumed power through their ships, and the phaser is a consequence of that design theory.

In the TOS era, they were forced to "get military", and improved militarily somewhat, but the basic principle behind phasers remained. This indicates that the idea behind phasers was ingrained into their military by this point, to the point that they couldn't see the basic inefficiancy behind phasers. And, of course, their winning there just convinced them of human superiority even more, and they returned to the basic ideaology that was behind phaser design in the TNG era and beyond.

Does any of that make sense? Basic point, the reason for phasers being what they are is a concious decision, not an inability to make a simpler weapon.

I would like some reasons why DET weapons would be an improvement over NDF ones by their very nature.
And how can you claim they're needlessly complex if you don't know how they work in the first place? For all we know the power cell, housing, trigger group and a no-moving-parts single-inert-block electricity-to-phaserbeam-conversion thingamajig are all the components there are. I'll take that over a modern-day laser every day.
All of that is still assuming the Feds have the power generation technology to duplicate NDF effect ranges with DET. Which, you know, they don't.
Did I mention I have no idea how to implement a stun setting on a laser?
Your 'conventional' weapons (by which I assume you mean slugthrowers?) point goes right out the window because phasers have no problems with non-organic matter per se, but high density /metal. Against which KE or DET weapons are not inherently better.
You magic wand theory is inherently sound but does not apply to Starfleet because every time they meet primitives, they go (with the ocassional exception of Kirk, and of course the villains) to great lenths to explain that they're not gods, and those weapons are not magic.

The phaser design is most cerainly deliberate, because a 'simpler' weapon would not have offered any advantages.

I would like some reasons why DET weapons would be an improvement over NDF ones by their very nature.

Perhaps not better, but certainly more verstile(verstile in COMBAT TARGETS, not a Swiss-Army-Knife verstile) and perhaps simpler. Certainly simpler in principle.

And how can you claim they're needlessly complex if you don't know how they work in the first place? For all we know the power cell, housing, trigger group and a no-moving-parts single-inert-block electricity-to-phaserbeam-conversion thingamajig are all the components there are. I'll take that over a modern-day laser every day.

Possible. But, again, the idea is not "unload energy into target" but "induce chain reaction in matter", when presumably the primary target is assumed to be organic. The idea is more complex, which seems to bring with it more-complex mechanics(and, BTW, how do you know the complication of the "conversion thingamajig" as you call it?). I'm not saying the phaser, as a tool for inducing chain reactions in matter, is needlessly complex. I'm saying the very idea is more complex than direct energy transfer.

All of that is still assuming the Feds have the power generation technology to duplicate NDF effect ranges with DET. Which, you know, they don't.

Don't because they haven't developed it, perhaps. Phasers likely require lower power levels than a DET weapon, therefore, the area of hand-held power sources wasn't researched enough. Rather like we haven't researched better ways to make swords or breed horses, because we don't need to. My wondering here is why they chose this path. The consequenes, such as this one, are obvious.

Did I mention I have no idea how to implement a stun setting on a laser?

Good. Bring a cattle prod along....

Kidding. Fine, so a DET weapon wouldn't have a stun setting. Is that really such a huge drawback?

Your 'conventional' weapons (by which I assume you mean slugthrowers?) point goes right out the window because phasers have no problems with non-organic matter per se, but high density /metal. Against which KE or DET weapons are not inherently better.

Their efficiency drops dramatically against non-organic matter. I suddenly recall a debate on this board that involved showing a packing crate could stop hand phasers...

Your bang-for-the-buck is greatly lessened. Whereas a good DET or KE weapon(proportionate to the situation) will have a higher bang-for-buck.

You magic wand theory is inherently sound but does not apply to Starfleet because every time they meet primitives, they go (with the ocassional exception of Kirk, and of course the villains) to great lenths to explain that they're not gods, and those weapons are not magic.

Actually, it's more proof. If they went out of their way to explain it, presumably they expected this to happen. Maybe because the weapon was designed that way?

That the heroes nowadays are more sensitive and don't want to come from a position of "supermen" is a seperate matter from the design theory behind phasers.

The phaser design is most cerainly deliberate, because a 'simpler' weapon would not have offered any advantages.

Versatility against targets.

Better efficiency(a person is just as dead from a .357 in the chest as a phaser blast).

Easier field repair(this is iffier. But if the principles behind a DET are less complex, field repair might be easier).

Why do I get the feeling my post is gonna be ripped?

Faqa wrote:Perhaps not better, but certainly more verstile(verstile in COMBAT TARGETS, not a Swiss-Army-Knife verstile) and perhaps simpler. Certainly simpler in principle.

How is a DET weapon more versatile in principle, even against combat targets - I suppose they were thinking humanoid aliens when they built it.

Possible. But, again, the idea is not "unload energy into target" but "induce chain reaction in matter", when presumably the primary target is assumed to be organic. The idea is more complex, which seems to bring with it more-complex mechanics(and, BTW, how do you know the complication of the "conversion thingamajig" as you call it?). I'm not saying the phaser, as a tool for inducing chain reactions in matter, is needlessly complex. I'm saying the very idea is more complex than direct energy transfer.

Probable. After all, phasers are nearly on the margin of total impossibility (one or two steps short AFAIK of violating the Conservation of Energy law). To have beaten that (we are suspending disbelief now), the phaser would likely use more complicated principles (well beyond what our science can imagine), which implies more sophisticated engineering to make that theory happen.

Don't because they haven't developed it, perhaps. Phasers likely require lower power levels than a DET weapon, therefore, the area of hand-held power sources wasn't researched enough. Rather like we haven't researched better ways to make swords or breed horses, because we don't need to. My wondering here is why they chose this path. The consequenes, such as this one, are obvious.

Perhaps because they've run into a roadblock in power storage, and the parallel development in phasers were showing good results, so they opted for the Unconventional (for the time) to increase combat power. Even after (if they ever) improved power output, the phaser would still look like a good deal, and that would reduce the impetus to develop power output.

Good. Bring a cattle prod along....

Kidding. Fine, so a DET weapon wouldn't have a stun setting. Is that really such a huge drawback?

If you are claiming to be a peaceful force, a distant disabling without real harm ability is really nice. Probably why tasers are so popular.

Their efficiency drops dramatically against non-organic matter. I suddenly recall a debate on this board that involved showing a packing crate could stop hand phasers...

You sure if they put ST phaser's power cell into say a SW-style blaster (DET), the blaster would have enough power to do a crate?

Faqa wrote:

I would like some reasons why DET weapons would be an improvement over NDF ones by their very nature.

Perhaps not better, but certainly more verstile(verstile in COMBAT TARGETS, not a Swiss-Army-Knife verstile)

Show how a DET weapon is more versatile in combat.

and perhaps simpler. Certainly simpler in principle.

Irrelevant if it's not simpler in application.

And how can you claim they're needlessly complex if you don't know how they work in the first place? For all we know the power cell, housing, trigger group and a no-moving-parts single-inert-block electricity-to-phaserbeam-conversion thingamajig are all the components there are. I'll take that over a modern-day laser every day.

Possible. But, again, the idea is not "unload energy into target" but "induce chain reaction in matter", when presumably the primary target is assumed to be organic.

Seems to be working well enough. For a pistol/rifle size weapon the primary target IS very likely organic (i.e., enemy grunts).

The idea is more complex, which seems to bring with it more-complex mechanics(and, BTW, how do you know the complication of the "conversion thingamajig" as you call it?)

I DON'T. Which is the entire point. You're assuming that
a)phasers are, in both apllication and theory, needlessly complex,
b) a DET weapon would be less so, and
c) a DET weapon would therefore be INHERENTLY superior to a phaser,
for none of which you have so far presented evidence.
Revolvers are more reliable than autoloaders. Why are autoloaders so widely used? Because they combine sufficient reliability with advantages over the revolver (higher refire rates, larger ammo capacity, quicker to reload).
Phasers have a high ammo capacity, reasonable to high refire rate, continous & widebeam settings, good inherent accuracy, and no reliability issues I know of.
The terrible ergonomics of TNG phasers are a design problem, not something resulting from them being NDF weapons.

. I'm not saying the phaser, as a tool for inducing chain reactions in matter, is needlessly complex. I'm saying the very idea is more complex than direct energy transfer.

Show how it is 'needlessly' complex. Show how a DET weapon would do BETTER than a phaser.

All of that is still assuming the Feds have the power generation technology to duplicate NDF effect ranges with DET. Which, you know, they don't.

Don't because they haven't developed it, perhaps. Phasers likely require lower power levels than a DET weapon, therefore, the area of hand-held power sources wasn't researched enough.

Pure and baseless speculation. Furthermore contrary to the ovserved firepower levels over 200+ years being reasonably constant (no multiple order of magnitude jumps that I know of) and their main power source staying the same (M/AM)

Rather like we haven't researched better ways to make swords or breed horses, because we don't need to.

Leaving alone we probably CAN'T do better (you know, just like the Feds), why improve swords and horses when guns and ICEs can do immesurably better than those?
You still haven't shown the advantages of a DET weapon over a phaser.

My wondering here is why they chose this path.

Because the power cells as used in Phasers are the best they can do, and NDF lets them get some extra bang for the buck under the right circumstances, and provides some nifty options that, say, a laser wouldn't have?

The consequenes, such as this one, are obvious.

The negative consequences you'll still have to point out to me...

Did I mention I have no idea how to implement a stun setting on a laser?

Good. Bring a cattle prod along....

...requiring me to being a separate (and rather bulky) weapon, whereas a Phaser the approximate size of a Walther PP gives me kill, stun, turn-rock-into-campfire, and several degrees of make-stuff-glow-funnily-and-go-away, while so far not showing any noticeable drawbacks...

Kidding. Fine, so a DET weapon wouldn't have a stun setting. Is that really such a huge drawback?

Not neccessarily. However, HAVING it is certainly an advantage, and as it so far seems to come at no noticeable cost, since you have yet to point out the advantage of a DET weapon (beyond the purely theoretical complexity issue)...

Your 'conventional' weapons (by which I assume you mean slugthrowers?) point goes right out the window because phasers have no problems with non-organic matter per se, but high density /metal. Against which KE or DET weapons are not inherently better.

Their efficiency drops dramatically against non-organic matter.

Their efficiency drops dramatically as target density goes up. Don't tell me you expect DET or KE weapons to act otherwise. The concept is known as 'armor'...

I suddenly recall a debate on this board that involved showing a packing crate could stop hand phasers...

So hand phaser penetration is not all that hot. Neither is that of a 9mm JHP. Maybe because they aren't required to be?

Your bang-for-the-buck is greatly lessened.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Your bang-for-the-buck is merely NOT INCREASED THROUGH NDF.
Show how a DET weapon of same power would do better.

Whereas a good DET or KE weapon(proportionate to the situation) will have a higher bang-for-buck.

Unproven assumption. A DET weapon of the same power might very well do worse, and a projectile weapon might, depending on the ammunition, have higher penetration.
You still have to show me why that should be desireable in a sidearm (indeed if it is, why are real-world police so concerned about overpenetration?)

You magic wand theory is inherently sound but does not apply to Starfleet because every time they meet primitives, they go (with the ocassional exception of Kirk, and of course the villains) to great lenths to explain that they're not gods, and those weapons are not magic.

Actually, it's more proof. If they went out of their way to explain it, presumably they expected this to happen. Maybe because the weapon was designed that way?

Oh yes THAT makes sense. They design their weapons to create an impression they intent to explain away at the very first opportunity...

That the heroes nowadays are more sensitive and don't want to come from a position of "supermen" is a seperate matter from the design theory behind phasers.

This 'nowadays' goes back to Kirk's time, you know...

The phaser design is most cerainly deliberate, because a 'simpler' weapon would not have offered any advantages.

Versatility against targets.

In what way?

Better efficiency(a person is just as dead from a .357 in the chest as a phaser blast).

The .357 has to be reloaded after 5 to 10 rounds. Unlike the phaser.

Easier field repair(this is iffier. But if the principles behind a DET are less complex, field repair might be easier).

Never witnessed throughout the series. Nonissue if frequency of filed repair being required is low enough.

Why do I get the feeling my post is gonna be ripped?

YOUR post? Have you any idea how people here feel about phasers?

Faqa wrote:Now, as a disclaimer, I haven't seen too much Trek, and haven't seen Enterprise at all, which may invalidate the theory. Nontheless:

Phasers are a complete mystery. Regardless of how they work, they are needlessly complex. Why bother inducing some sort of chain reaction in matter? Why not just build a simple energy transfer weapon? The theory would certainly be more straightforward. Hey, why not carry conventional weapons around for dealing with non-organic matter? Why on Earth did they do things this way, when they could have been done simpler?

needless idiocy. more simplistic and effective weapons are more valued by militaries than unnecessarily complex ones that don't offer nearly as much firepower.

The idea lies, I think, behind the basic ideology Earth had when phasers were designed. They presumably equipped their craft to, well, as the motto goes, "Go where no man has gone before". They wanted a weapon useful for self-defense to some extent - but also to look impressive. I recall, in STFC(the movie), Data fired on the Borg with his phaser, and it looked as though he was raising a "wand" and the Borg went down. Similarly, against organic beings, it simply looks as though the Fed waved a magic wand, fired a blast of light and... POOF! Being has disappeared.

Impress who? The federation has strict policies against interfering in underdeveloped cultures. Historically, regular guns were impressive to native americans and it had the exact same effect that you described. You point a stick at someone, it makes a loud noise and they fall down. It's possible to make a weapon impressive without making it needlessly complex.

If the point of your weapon is to impress the natives, that could be highly valuable. They wanted their ships to be not a military array, but ships that could show off humanity's civilization. As in "We walk around in pajamas and wave magic wands and we can still kick your asses in a civilized manner". They showed off their superiority and presumed power through their ships, and the phaser is a consequence of that design theory.

so pajamas and magic wands are more impressive than body armor and weapons far more effective at making things go boom?

In the TOS era, they were forced to "get military", and improved militarily somewhat, but the basic principle behind phasers remained. This indicates that the idea behind phasers was ingrained into their military by this point, to the point that they couldn't see the basic inefficiancy behind phasers. And, of course, their winning there just convinced them of human superiority even more, and they returned to the basic ideaology that was behind phaser design in the TNG era and beyond.

So you're saying they made shitty weapons due to arrogant idiocy rather than any practical reason? If anything that would paint starfleet as being even more inept and bungling than before.

I am not commenting on the ergonomics of phaser design here, but there is very little/nothing inherently disadvantous in phaser technology. A particle beam capable of accurate aiming, which has big returns against most materials and has a stun setting is not inferior to a DET weapon which requires more power for the same effect, has less versatility and cannot stun (part of the versatility). It is complicated in design, but is nontheless reliable and if they only put into sensible gun shapes it would prove a superior alternative to DET of any kind, even K.E.

The Silence and I wrote:I am not commenting on the ergonomics of phaser design here, but there is very little/nothing inherently disadvantous in phaser technology. A particle beam capable of accurate aiming, which has big returns against most materials and has a stun setting is not inferior to a DET weapon which requires more power for the same effect, has less versatility and cannot stun (part of the versatility). It is complicated in design, but is nontheless reliable and if they only put into sensible gun shapes it would prove a superior alternative to DET of any kind, even K.E.

a small addition to that:

Most of the time, hand-phasers are set to low level settings like stun or kill (both of which don't even scorch their target). However, they do have additional settings that provide effects closer to DET weapons, if that's what is required.

Perhaps not better, but certainly more verstile(verstile in COMBAT TARGETS, not a Swiss-Army-Knife verstile) and perhaps simpler. Certainly simpler in principle.

Chain reaction weapons can do more damage with lesss energy. It is an advantage in pitched battles.

Possible. But, again, the idea is not "unload energy into target" but "induce chain reaction in matter", when presumably the primary target is assumed to be organic. The idea is more complex, which seems to bring with it more-complex mechanics(and, BTW, how do you know the complication of the "conversion thingamajig" as you call it?). I'm not saying the phaser, as a tool for inducing chain reactions in matter, is needlessly complex. I'm saying the very idea is more complex than direct energy transfer.

The primary target is not organic. Phasers were primary weapons aboard starships so they were designed to disintegrate metallic hulls.

Possible. But, again, the idea is not "unload energy into target" but "induce chain reaction in matter", when presumably the primary target is assumed to be organic. The idea is more complex, which seems to bring with it more-complex mechanics(and, BTW, how do you know the complication of the "conversion thingamajig" as you call it?). I'm not saying the phaser, as a tool for inducing chain reactions in matter, is needlessly complex. I'm saying the very idea is more complex than direct energy transfer.

Even if the Federation had better power sources the same amount of energy could be fed into a phaser to do more damage.

Good. Bring a cattle prod along....

Kidding. Fine, so a DET weapon wouldn't have a stun setting. Is that really such a huge drawback?

It would be a drawback. Imagine how effective modern day police would be if they had phasers set on stun mode rather than just lethal weapons.

Their efficiency drops dramatically against non-organic matter. I suddenly recall a debate on this board that involved showing a packing crate could stop hand phasers...

They appear to have higher effectiveness against shields. According to the TNG TM IIRC Galaxy class phaser output is 1.04 GW. Yet the phasers are just as effective as multi megaton torpedoes.

Ummm....

Can I just address general points here, rather than doing a quote-by-quote? Just let me know if I miss anything:

-A phaser is primarily designed for one target and only one - organic targets. They use this technology aboard ship, likely cause' it's all they know. If phaser research was yielding the results the higher-ups wanted, there would've been an order to just super-size em' for starships, and never mind the issues there - it's chepaer.

Because, quite frankly, a max-power phaser can't penetrate the cover of a crate. To answer Batman's analogy, this would be like desiging a weapon that could only take hollow-point ammo, then issuing it as a standard weapon to every soldier. Even if a large-scale phaser can penetrate armor, it takes more power than a DET based weapon would take. The fact that a 10-foot JHP bullet shot from a cannon(I know that's likely impossible) can penetrate Kevlar doesn't make the JHP a better armor-piercing round.

-If a phaser is issued to police, that's fine. But damn, this is their only military weapon. For Starfleet officers, too, a stun setting is useful. But is it worth sacrificing HUGE efficiency against any sort of armor? Yes, a DET weapon just kills, no frills. And it's less efficient against organic meatbags(first person to spot the reference gets a cookie. I'll bet that's in five seconds...), just as a phaser is less efficient at.. umm.... damn near everything EXCEPT organic targets. But what else do you need on a battlefield? I'm trying to theorize why the hell someone would design a military weapon this way.

- My 'magic wand' theory tried to explain both the curious operating principle of the phaser and it's godawful ergonomics in TNG. Those(ergonomics) fit better into a 'look impressive' theory than the "Federation's massive stupidity" theory it would take to really design a weapon to look like a razor....

It may be that Starfleet officers have grown softer, a movement apparantly in it's prime even by Kirk's time(though not complete), that prevented them from wanting to look like gods to the native folk. But still, is there a better explanation for the phaser and the TNG and beyond ergonomics?

- It's possible that Feds can't do better than they have in portable power sources, forcing them to compromise. But then, why not design bigger weapons? Bigger than a phaser, something that can be used on the ground, and still penetrate armor? Why this reliance on stopped-by-crates weapons, if the only reason is power source portability? No, a deliberate design which ingrained a cultural ethos to trust the phaser seems more reasonable.


Again, let me know if I missed anything, and...

if I start acting stupid enough to secure a spot on Hate Mail, let me know, will you?

Faqa wrote:Ummm....

Can I just address general points here, rather than doing a quote-by-quote? Just let me know if I miss anything:

-A phaser is primarily designed for one target and only one - organic targets. They use this technology aboard ship, likely cause' it's all they know. If phaser research was yielding the results the higher-ups wanted, there would've been an order to just super-size em' for starships, and never mind the issues there - it's chepaer.

source that they're designed to primarily work on organic targets? If this was the case they would not have installed weapons on starships that function on the same basic principles as hand phasers.

Faqa wrote:Ummm....
Can I just address general points here, rather than doing a quote-by-quote?

Fine by me, I know where those q-by-q's can lead...
As long as you don't mind us doing it this way.

-A phaser is primarily designed for one target and only one - organic targets. They use this technology aboard ship, likely cause' it's all they know.

While I agrred on this originally, and STILL agree WRT hand phasers, evilcat is RIGHT: Phasers were used as shipboard weapons BEFORE they were used as sidearms (IIRC and ignoring possible ENT retcons).
So the evolution would actually be the other way round.

Because, quite frankly, a max-power phaser can't penetrate the cover of a crate.

BZZZT. Wrong again. A phaser set to whatever happens to be the default for pistol-range firefights (propably the minimum one-shot-propable-kill setting vs humans) can't penetrate the crate.
Why should it be required to?

To answer Batman's analogy, this would be like desiging a weapon that could only take hollow-point ammo, then issuing it as a standard weapon to every soldier.

Um-no. It's like issuing a weapon that defaults to JHP without user intervention. Seems reasonable for a sidearm.

Even if a large-scale phaser can penetrate armor, it takes more power than a DET based weapon would take.

Baseless assumption. Your proof for that is ...?

The fact that a 10-foot JHP bullet shot from a cannon(I know that's likely impossible) can penetrate Kevlar doesn't make the JHP a better armor-piercing round.

And that's supposed to mean-what, exactly? No offense intended, but I have no idea what you're talking about...

But is it worth sacrificing HUGE efficiency against any sort of armor?

1. Show a DET weapon using the power available to a phaser would do noticeable better.
2. As for whatever reason nobody seems to wear armor in Trek who cares?
3. As shipboard phasers don't do half bad against metal hulls, the problem doesn't seem to be quite as bad as you make it out...

, just as a phaser is less efficient at.. umm.... damn near everything EXCEPT organic targets.

Just in case you didn't get it the first 17 times I said it-PROVE IT!!!
Show how a laser of the same power would do BETTER, against organic targets or otherwise!!!

- My 'magic wand' theory tried to explain both the curious operating principle of the phaser and it's godawful ergonomics in TNG. Those(ergonomics) fit better into a 'look impressive' theory than the "Federation's massive stupidity" theory it would take to really design a weapon to look like a razor....

As Phasers, and therfore the idea behind your 'magic wand theory', predate TNG by over a hundred (200 if we accept ENT) years, AND as TOS Phasers actually look rather weapon-ish, AND as TNG Fed stupidity extents to technology no tribal is likely to come in contact with (touchscreens for vital bridge functions? No comment) I'm afraid it still won't wash...

- It's possible that Feds can't do better than they have in portable power sources, forcing them to compromise. But then, why not design bigger weapons? Bigger than a phaser, something that can be used on the ground, and still penetrate armor?

How about they don't need to, because nobody uses armor anyway?
And that's ignoring that manportable phasers come in a minimum of three sizes anyway...

Why this reliance on stopped-by-crates weapons, if the only reason is power source portability?

You DO realize you're starting to sound silly, do you? Does the term 'variable firepower' mean anything to you?
By your reasoning, since 9mm JHP has no armor penetration capacity worth mentioning, today's armies are stupid for using firearms AT ALL.

First of all, general debate conceded. If phasers were designed first as a shipboard weapon, then my theory makes no sense. Chalk up another one to "Federation is stupid"...

That said, I'd like to clear up a misconception:

Batman, you don't seem to get my meaning. If phasers are uniformly set for killing organic targets, yet ARE capable of more, why don't they DO it? If they DO have power levels capable of blasting through the Almighty Packing Crate(TM), why don't they dial up when the target takes cover. Why not blow the shit out of the cover and leave the target exposed? Either Fed soldiers can't follow common sense.... or their hand-held weapons just aren't capable of it. I'd be inclined to go with the latter. And, that said, a DET weapon likely could. How much force would it take to blast through a thin crate? Today's packing crates - would they stand up to a spraying M-16 or shotgun? For that matter, a few good .357 shots? THEY'RE KE weapons.

No, I can't imagine a DET weapon being less efficient here. The chain reaction used on organic matter is LESS effective against non-organic matter. A DET weapon IS at a disadvantage at one-hit kills against purely organic targets, as opposed to a phaser. But bring in cover and armor... and the phaser falls down.

Can someone please answer whyTF they decided it was a good idea to supersize a weapon designed for organic targets and apply it FIRST to a STARSHIP, while ABANDONING other research? Are gonna be THAT idiotic in the 24th century? Hope not.

Edit:

The correct analogy would be an army issuing weapons that ONLY take JHP ammo and using ONLY those weapons, even AFTER seeing JHP deficiences. Does that make any more sense.

Faqa wrote: That said, I'd like to clear up a misconception:

Batman, you don't seem to get my meaning. If phasers are uniformly set for killing organic targets, yet ARE capable of more, why don't they DO it? If they DO have power levels capable of blasting through the Almighty Packing Crate(TM), why don't they dial up when the target takes cover.
Why not blow the shit out of the cover and leave the target exposed?

Because that might pose a serious drain on their remaining firepower?
Let's assume you have a 9mm pistol with morphable ammo (to account for the variable yield energy weapon nature of the phaser)
Do you
a)stick with your (arbitrary assumption) 150 rounds of JHP, and try to kill the enemy whenever he peeks out of cover, or
b) do you morph 120 of them into one killer HE round which blows the Packing Crate including contents into smithereens and risk to be fucked for the rest of the fight?

Either Fed soldiers can't follow common sense.... or their hand-held weapons just aren't capable of it. I'd be inclined to go with the latter. And, that said, a DET weapon likely could.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but 'likely could' doesn't hack it. You have to SHOW it. And if you intend to argue that current day firearms COULD, let me remind you that the infamous Crate incidents to my knowledge always involve pistol phasers so anything larger than an M9 is cheating.

How much force would it take to blast through a thin crate? Today's packing crates - would they stand up to a spraying M-16 or shotgun?

Your point being? Are M9's useless because they don't have the firepower of an M16 or a 12 gauge?
And that's of course assuming those crates are EMPTY...

No, I can't imagine a DET weapon being less efficient here. The chain reaction used on organic matter is LESS effective against non-organic matter.

Shown where? I'd like an example of phasers being less efficient on-say. nitrogen (non-organic) than human flesh (organic).
Because all incidents of Phasers being less efficient on anorganic matter were against anorganic matter denser than organic one...

A DET weapon IS at a disadvantage at one-hit kills against purely organic targets, as opposed to a phaser. But bring in cover and armor... and the phaser falls down.

As evidenced where?

Can someone please answer whyTF they decided it was a good idea to supersize a weapon designed for organic targets and apply it FIRST to a STARSHIP, while ABANDONING other research?

Circular reasoning. If it was applied to a starship FIRST, on what basis do you assume it was designed for organic targets?

The correct analogy would be an army issuing weapons that ONLY take JHP ammo and using ONLY those weapons, even AFTER seeing JHP deficiences. Does that make any more sense.

It makes more sense but still doesn't apply.

Another point to note is that small phasers seemed to be developed for use aboard starships.

If you are boarded you want to be able to shoot the intruders without putting holes in important things.

Prozac the Robert wrote:Another point to note is that small phasers seemed to be developed for use aboard starships.
If you are boarded you want to be able to shoot the intruders without putting holes in important things.

Very popular but complete and utter garbage argument.
A ship fragile enough that internal small-arms fire is a serious concern has no business going anywhere real weapons may be used against it...

Batman wrote:

Prozac the Robert wrote:Another point to note is that small phasers seemed to be developed for use aboard starships.
If you are boarded you want to be able to shoot the intruders without putting holes in important things.

Very popular but complete and utter garbage argument.
A ship fragile enough that internal small-arms fire is a serious concern has no business going anywhere real weapons may be used against it...

To be fair, the external hull could be armored and there will hopefully be heavy compartments separating major portions of the hull, complete with strong bulkheads. But not every internal wall has to be that thick. These Fed ships are supposed to be science vessels.

Batman wrote:Because that might pose a serious drain on their remaining firepower?
Let's assume you have a 9mm pistol with morphable ammo (to account for the variable yield energy weapon nature of the phaser)
Do you
a)stick with your (arbitrary assumption) 150 rounds of JHP, and try to kill the enemy whenever he peeks out of cover, or
b) do you morph 120 of them into one killer HE round which blows the Packing Crate including contents into smithereens and risk to be fucked for the rest of the fight?

So, your analogy assumes it takes EIGHTY percent of the phaser's capacity to blow up ONE packing crate?

If it takes a more reasonable amount. Like 10 rounds in this example, given how vastly easier it will be to shoot the target once he's uncovered, I would shoot for it.

Batman wrote: Very popular but complete and utter garbage argument.
A ship fragile enough that internal small-arms fire is a serious concern has no business going anywhere real weapons may be used against it...

Nonsense. If you have a choice between a weapon which kills/stuns the enemy and has no chance of damaging your ship in any way, or a weapon that can put holes in internal walls, blow up consoles/plasma relays and throw bits of shrapnel arround, which would you pick if all other factors were even? [edited for stupid typo right after posting]

Batman wrote:

Prozac the Robert wrote:Another point to note is that small phasers seemed to be developed for use aboard starships.
If you are boarded you want to be able to shoot the intruders without putting holes in important things.

Very popular but complete and utter garbage argument.
A ship fragile enough that internal small-arms fire is a serious concern has no business going anywhere real weapons may be used against it...

use modern vessels as an example. If someone were to start shooting off guns inside electronics sensitive areas (the bridge for example), to handle intruders, they'd risk damaging critical components of the ship that might be difficult to repair or replace out at sea. It'd make more sense to have a weapon available that could render boarding intruders harmless while not damaging components that could be inconvenient or difficult to replace at long journeys away from ports they can normally get fixed in.

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:

Batman wrote:Because that might pose a serious drain on their remaining firepower?
Let's assume you have a 9mm pistol with morphable ammo (to account for the variable yield energy weapon nature of the phaser)
Do you
a)stick with your (arbitrary assumption) 150 rounds of JHP, and try to kill the enemy whenever he peeks out of cover, or
b) do you morph 120 of them into one killer HE round which blows the Packing Crate including contents into smithereens and risk to be fucked for the rest of the fight?

So, your analogy assumes it takes EIGHTY percent of the phaser's capacity to blow up ONE packing crate?
If it takes a more reasonable amount. Like 10 rounds in this example, given how vastly easier it will be to shoot the target once he's uncovered, I would shoot for it.

So would I. Know kindly show me where we were officially told the drain a crate destruction shot would pose...
How do you know it does NOT use 80% of available capacity?

Everybody:Conceeded WRT dangerous-onboard-ship-siderarms.
Whenever somebody brings that up, I somehow think shooting-holes-in-hull, which is of course garbage, there's plenty of damage to be done without putting so much as a dent in external bulkheads. Sorry

Darth_Zod wrote:

Batman wrote:

Prozac the Robert wrote:Another point to note is that small phasers seemed to be developed for use aboard starships.
If you are boarded you want to be able to shoot the intruders without putting holes in important things.

Very popular but complete and utter garbage argument.
A ship fragile enough that internal small-arms fire is a serious concern has no business going anywhere real weapons may be used against it...

use modern vessels as an example. If someone were to start shooting off guns inside electronics sensitive areas (the bridge for example), to handle intruders, they'd risk damaging critical components of the ship that might be difficult to repair or replace out at sea. It'd make more sense to have a weapon available that could render boarding intruders harmless while not damaging components that could be inconvenient or difficult to replace at long journeys away from ports they can normally get fixed in.

The problem with that is of course that said weapons are also no good against like I don't know, say the Borg. Or for that matter any one with the slightest concept of body armor?

Stormbringer wrote:
The problem with that is of course that said weapons are also no good against like I don't know, say the Borg. Or for that matter any one with the slightest concept of body armor?

true. of course we've been shown that federation weapons tend to not work so well against body armor when put to the test. . . . at least early star trek episodes have anyways (notably the episode in TNG where klingon extremists attempted taking over the enterprise). there's more examples, but i can't think of any specific episodes atm.

Batman wrote:So would I. Know kindly show me where we were officially told the drain a crate destruction shot would pose...
How do you know it does NOT use 80% of available capacity?

One of the contentions originally made in this thread is that phasers are crap that can't blast a crate. With this, your contention is effectively that phasers are crap that effectively cannot blast a crate.

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:

Batman wrote:So would I. Know kindly show me where we were officially told the drain a crate destruction shot would pose...
How do you know it does NOT use 80% of available capacity?

One of the contentions originally made in this thread is that phasers are crap that can't blast a crate. With this, your contention is effectively that phasers are crap that effectively cannot blast a crate.

Pistol phasers can't, at least not without using a prohibitive percentage of their power reserve.
As pistol phasers are effectively sidearms equivalent to the US' M9 that means what?
The core contention originally made was that NDF weapons are BY DEFINITION inferior to DET/KE ones, for which I have yet to see evidence.