[OT] The Canadian army would crush a Fed ground force.
David Dice
Federation force of equal numbers. Assuming no orbital support, then
the battle is over very quickly, because our modern weapons severely
outrange anything the Federation gives its ground forces. Any combined
arms force would easily destroy any forces the Federation could put on
the ground. They would be forced to keep their heads down from
artillery, and our own infantry and tanks can hit them from about twice
the maximum effective range of hand phasers.
Chuck
Canada has an army? I thought you just sent out all the hockey teams.
--
Chuck
"Are you willing to die for stupidity? You see, I am, if it'll teach you
something." -187
Alex Moon
Chuck <CS...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:8dlb39$1g1m$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
Why would they need one? I mean, they are the 51st state and all...
Just kidding.
--
Alex Moon
moonm...@yahoo.com
members.xoom.com/moonman_559/
ASVS: READ THE F*CKING FAQ!!!
iceberg3k
<paul.c...@wxs.nl> wrote:
>
>David Dice <dd...@carlton.paschools.pa.sk.ca> wrote in message
>news:38FE2247...@carlton.paschools.pa.sk.ca...
away all
>their advantages, ie orbital support,
ROFLMAO!! Do you REALLY think any Feddy crew would actually fire
on the Earth??? You must be joking!
>transporters,
This is even easier. It's been very clearly established that
Federation transporters are appallingly easy to jam. Send up a
few EF-111 Raven EW planes and that will be the end of that
foolishness.
>phaser rifles etc,
If the phaser-armed Fed trooper can't shoot far enough to kill
the Canadian trooper (or American trooper) before a shot from his
M16A2 rifle kills the Fed trooper, it's a moot point.
-- M.
-a.r.k, a.s.v.s
-YHBT, YHL. HAND.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Atomik Chicken
Strowbridge <strow...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38FE5F95...@home.com...
> Chuck wrote:
>
> > Canada has an army? I thought you just sent out all the hockey teams.
>
> trained soldiers on the face of the Earth.
>
> C.S.Strowbridge
They have three of the most highly trained soldiers in the world?
=)
Dalton
>
> Fuck you yankee. >:^)
>
Don't you live in an area full of dangerous, wild animals who could tear
your throat out in a heartbeat so Stere Irwin feels he must play with
them like they were housepets?
--
Dalton | AIM: RobPDalton | ICQ: 50342303
This is just some printing.
Da ASVS Fanfic Archive: [http://members.xoom.com/Tiny11380/fanfics]
Da ASVS FUQ: [http://members.xoom.com/Tiny11380/fuq]
Commander Thelea
Well, I don't know about modern Canada, but....
Take Earth as it is in the UFP around the time of DS9.
Give the Federation troops all the orbital bombardment
support they want.
Give me two Theatre Groups of Waffen-SS (Chosen for fanatical
bravery and strong discipline; You rarely find that
combination.); Atleast 50% armoured.
Give me ships of equal technology to the Federation's in
sufficient numbers to transport that force to Earth.
The planet will be mine in four days.
Marina O'Leary
"Let your rapidity be that of the wind, your compactness that of
the forest..... Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as
night, and when you strike, fall like a thunderbolt!" -- Sun-
Tzu, The Art of War.
Paul Cassidy
David Dice <dd...@carlton.paschools.pa.sk.ca> wrote in message
news:38FE2247...@carlton.paschools.pa.sk.ca...
> I hate to say it, but even our pitiful army could easily defeat a
> Federation force of equal numbers. Assuming no orbital support, then
> the battle is over very quickly, because our modern weapons severely
> outrange anything the Federation gives its ground forces. Any combined
> arms force would easily destroy any forces the Federation could put on
> the ground. They would be forced to keep their heads down from
> artillery, and our own infantry and tanks can hit them from about twice
> the maximum effective range of hand phasers.
I really love posts like this. You hamstring the Feds by taking away all
their advantages, ie orbital support, transporters, phaser rifles etc, then
triumphantly announce victory.
If we make this fair, we take away things from the other side too like their
artillery and tanks.
Let's be honest here. If we take away an Imperials orbital support and their
walkers, how much chance would they stand against artillery and tanks?
Why not be fair and say a straight infantry battle?
WeeMadAndo
of a Klingon ship.
"HUT HUT HUT"
"Today is a good day to - " <Sounds of heavy tackling all round>
--
WeeMadAndo,
"ASVS, you'll never find a more wretched hive of sum and villainy."
Chuck <CS...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:8dlb39$1g1m$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Canada has an army? I thought you just sent out all the hockey teams.
>
pablo_sa...@my-deja.com
A fairly good one, in fact. Better than the Feds, at least. Besides,
the Imp military is not *just* the stormtroopers. An army cannot just
be *one* type of soldier. If you went into battle in the middle ages
with just swordsmen and no cavalry or archers, you'd be dead. If you
went in with just archers, or just cavalry, likewise. Some people
don't seem to understand the phrase "military machine." Is a machine
just one part? Can you run a car with just the wheels? A military is
the soldiers, the tank drivers, the pilots, the clerks, and the guy who
cleans the toilets!
> Why not be fair and say a straight infantry battle?
Imps will clean up anyway.
I just think its sad that the Fed's only real advantages in battle
require unhindered orbital support.
BTW, if you give an ensign a phaser rifle, he doesn't suddenly become a
soldier. He's just an ensign with a phaser rifle. You can drill
someone in armed combat, but if you send them into battle with just the
shirt on their back and a phaser, he'll be slaughtered!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jonathan Boyd
dd...@carlton.paschools.pa.sk.ca wrote on 19/4/00 10:17 pm:
> I hate to say it, but even our pitiful army could easily defeat a
> Federation force of equal numbers. Assuming no orbital support, then
> the battle is over very quickly, because our modern weapons severely
> outrange anything the Federation gives its ground forces. Any combined
> arms force would easily destroy any forces the Federation could put on
> the ground. They would be forced to keep their heads down from
> artillery, and our own infantry and tanks can hit them from about twice
> the maximum effective range of hand phasers.
But the Feds would have support from shuttles and runabouts. And it would be
awfully disconcerting to be in the middle of a battle and have the guy next
to you disappear in a shimmer of light. Hmm, would be the most effective way
to sue a transporter? I think beam equipment and troops 100m or so into the
air above the opposing army and let them drop down on them. Having a tank or
squad of fellow grunts drop out of the sky around you and go *SLPAT* would
probably put you off a wee bit.
--
Jonathan
AIM: BoydClone | STvsSW website: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/index.html
Strowbridge
> > I hate to say it, but even our pitiful army could easily defeat a
> > Federation force of equal numbers. Assuming no orbital support,
> > then the battle is over very quickly, because our modern weapons
> > severely outrange anything the Federation gives its ground forces.
> > Any combined arms force would easily destroy any forces the
> > Federation could put on the ground. They would be forced to keep
> > their heads down from artillery, and our own infantry and tanks can
> > hit them from about twice the maximum effective range of hand
> > phasers.
>
> I really love posts like this. You hamstring the Feds by taking away
> all their advantages, ie orbital support, transporters, phaser rifles
> etc, then triumphantly announce victory.
What's the big deal with phaser rifles, they still don't have the range.
> If we make this fair, we take away things from the other side too like
> their artillery and tanks.
>
> Let's be honest here. If we take away an Imperials orbital support and
> their walkers, how much chance would they stand against artillery and
> tanks?
Crush them like bugs.
> Why not be fair and say a straight infantry battle?
Sure, Canada would still win. We have snipers and a good engineer core.
C.S.Strowbridge
Strowbridge
> Canada has an army? I thought you just sent out all the hockey teams.
Yes, Canada has an army. In fact they are three of the most highly
WeeMadAndo
--
WeeMadAndo,
"ASVS, you'll never find a more wretched hive of sum and villainy."
Alex Moon <rbra...@sopris.net> wrote in message
news:sAsL4.2107$L7.3...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
>
> Chuck <CS...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:8dlb39$1g1m$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > Canada has an army? I thought you just sent out all the hockey teams.
> >
> > --
> > Chuck
> > "Are you willing to die for stupidity? You see, I am, if it'll teach
you
> > something." -187
> >
>
Graeme Dice
>
> Chuck wrote:
>
> > Canada has an army? I thought you just sent out all the hockey teams.
>
> trained soldiers on the face of the Earth.
>
> C.S.Strowbridge
top-gun competitions, even though the Tudor's they use for training have
defective ejections seats, and the CF-18's are developing airframe
cracks, and our Sea King helicopters require 40 hours of maintenance for
every hour of flight time.
Strowbridge
>
> Strowbridge wrote:
> >
> > Chuck wrote:
> > > Canada has an army? I thought you just sent out all the hockey
> > > teams.
> >
> > Yes, Canada has an army. In fact they are three of the most highly
> > trained soldiers on the face of the Earth.
>
> And our fighter pilots consistently trounce the American's at their
> top-gun competitions, even though the Tudor's they use for training
> have defective ejections seats, and the CF-18's are developing
> airframe cracks, and our Sea King helicopters require 40 hours of
> maintenance for every hour of flight time.
Did you see Canada lost a Helicopter off the coast of Nova Scotia? It's
stuck on some island and they are trying to rescue it! Why? Every minute
it's there it's saving the taxpayers money.
C.S.Strowbridge
Rat_Bastard
The Canadian army has a single battalion and the feds do also. This
includes armor and artillery support. The feds have the same manpower
and equipment. No starships being involved because this is strictly
about ground forces. You can give the feds their phasers (hand and
rifle versions) and they'll have to use the same armor and artillery
as the Canadians because we all know the feds don't have any of their
own.
In the end, the Canadian Army would mop up. The main reason
being that the feds are all mainly explorers and researchers and the
Canadian Army is a professional, highly trained fighting force.
I don't wanna hear any whining about how a hand phaser can take
out armor either, if it won't take out the rock someone is hiding
behind in some cave in an episode of trek, it won't take out a tank or
apc.
On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 21:17:26 GMT, David Dice
Paul Cassidy
Graeme Dice <grd...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38FF8CE2...@home.com...
> Paul Cassidy wrote:
> >
> > <pablo_sa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8dllcc$ujs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> <snip>
> > > A fairly good one, in fact. Better than the Feds, at least. Besides,
> > > the Imp military is not *just* the stormtroopers. An army cannot just
> > > be *one* type of soldier. If you went into battle in the middle ages
> > > with just swordsmen and no cavalry or archers, you'd be dead. If you
> > > went in with just archers, or just cavalry, likewise. Some people
> > > don't seem to understand the phrase "military machine." Is a machine
> > > just one part? Can you run a car with just the wheels? A military is
> > > the soldiers, the tank drivers, the pilots, the clerks, and the guy
who
> > > cleans the toilets!
> > >
> >
Fed
> > army is not allowed any advantages of a military machine. According to
him,
> > all it gets is men with hand phasers.
> >
>
> That's because that's all the Feds have. They have no combined arms
> force to send into battle.
>
> > > > Why not be fair and say a straight infantry battle?
> > >
> > >
> >
artillary,
> > when all they have is hand weapons? After all, if we're keeping a level
> > playing field here, that is all they would have since that's all the
Feds
> > were allowed.
>
> They are allowed their standard ground troops. The Feds get redshirts
> with hand phasers, the Imps get walkers, stormtroopers, repeating
> blasters, a modern army gets howitzers with an 18km range, tanks,
> close-support helicopters, anti-aircraft weapons and infantry.
>
You're doing it again. What happened to the Fed advantages of transporters,
orbital support, and air support?
> >
> > > I just think its sad that the Fed's only real advantages in battle
> > > require unhindered orbital support.
> > >
> >
> > You've got it the wrong way around. They only have that limited ground
force
> > BECAUSE of the power of orbital support. What's the point of having a
huge
> > ground force? If you lose the orbitals, the games over anyway.
>
> The point of having a hige ground force is to take and hold territory.
> A navy can't hold a city, they can only destroy it. That's hardly
> useful when your own citizens are in the city or other innocents.
>
Nope, they wouldn't need to. They can simply beam the enemy out of the city
if they hold the orbitals.
> > Starships
> > wouldn't even need to fire weapons, they simply beam the enemy 1 mile
into
> > the air. Better to put the money into ships and keep the battles away
from
> > planets. Fed ground forces are basically for police actions, and limited
> > defence against raiders.
>
> Since they can only beam an absolute maximum of 700 people per hour to
> the Enterprise for evacuations, or 1850 people off the ship per hour
> using emergency transporters, this tactic is absolutely useless.
>
Actually, thats incorrect. Firstly it assumes that you want to complete the
transporter cycle (ie rematerialise them in one piece). If you look at the
transporter times, most of the time (nearly 4/5 of the time) is taken up
with rematerialisation. Why bother if they're the enemy?
Secondly, you are not using the shuttle transporters. Thirdly, the emergency
transporters, though they can't beam the enemy away, can beam a solid object
"into" the enemy kill them
So let's see, that's 44,400 people neutralised per day using just you
figures. That can probalby be up to 50,000 without pushing it if we use the
shuttles etc. 350,000 people per week (that's a sizable army).
Jonathan Boyd
on 20/4/00 11:57 pm:
>> Starships wouldn't even need to fire weapons, they simply beam the enemy 1
>> mile into the air. Better to put the money into ships and keep the battles
>> away from planets. Fed ground forces are basically for police actions, and
>> limited defence against raiders.
> Since they can only beam an absolute maximum of 700 people per hour to
> the Enterprise for evacuations, or 1850 people off the ship per hour
> using emergency transporters, this tactic is absolutely useless.
Didn't they beam virtually the entire crew off a planet in about a minute in
Descent II?
Graeme Dice
<snip>
> >
> > They are allowed their standard ground troops. The Feds get redshirts
> > with hand phasers, the Imps get walkers, stormtroopers, repeating
> > blasters, a modern army gets howitzers with an 18km range, tanks,
> > close-support helicopters, anti-aircraft weapons and infantry.
> >
>
> You're doing it again. What happened to the Fed advantages of transporters,
> orbital support, and air support?
Orbital support is useless for a ground battle, unless you want to wipe
out both sides. Transporters are limited in their uses, Federation air
support consists of shuttles, which are virtually unarmed.
> > The point of having a hige ground force is to take and hold territory.
> > A navy can't hold a city, they can only destroy it. That's hardly
> > useful when your own citizens are in the city or other innocents.
> >
>
> Nope, they wouldn't need to. They can simply beam the enemy out of the city
> if they hold the orbitals.
Unless of course the enemy happens to place a few radiation emitting
sources in the area, or a creates a low-level magnetic field. You want
to tell me how they can determine which people in a city are the
enemies.
> >
> > Since they can only beam an absolute maximum of 700 people per hour to
> > the Enterprise for evacuations, or 1850 people off the ship per hour
> > using emergency transporters, this tactic is absolutely useless.
> >
>
> Actually, thats incorrect. Firstly it assumes that you want to complete the
> transporter cycle (ie rematerialise them in one piece). If you look at the
> transporter times, most of the time (nearly 4/5 of the time) is taken up
> with rematerialisation.
The pattern buffer takes an average of 87 seconds to cooldown and reset
after every transport. If they start ignoring rematerialization, then
they will overload their systems with immense amounts of energy caused
by the annihilation of the particles in the targets.
>Why bother if they're the enemy?
Now the Federation is going to kill people using their transporters?
That's a huge change of personality.
>
> Secondly, you are not using the shuttle transporters.
A single ship does not carry enough shuttles to significantly affect
this.
> Thirdly, the emergency
> transporters, though they can't beam the enemy away, can beam a solid object
> "into" the enemy kill them
That is still limited to 1850 kills per hour, assuming that they can
even target the ground troops.
>
> So let's see, that's 44,400 people neutralised per day using just you
> figures. That can probalby be up to 50,000 without pushing it if we use the
> shuttles etc. 350,000 people per week (that's a sizable army).
You forget that the Fed ground troops will already be dead after a
single day. Besides, anyone who has watched ST in the Canadian army
would be able to devise a shield to prevent transporters.
Graeme Dice
--
So in conclusion, both technologies are bullshit, but
Star Wars is more powerful BS. It doesn't matter
if it would work or not.
-- Doomriser
SyG
<paul.c...@wxs.nl> wrote:
<snip>
>> > > I just think its sad that the Fed's only real advantages in battle
>> > > require unhindered orbital support.
>> > >
>> >
>> > You've got it the wrong way around. They only have that limited ground
>force
>> > BECAUSE of the power of orbital support. What's the point of having a
>huge
>> > ground force? If you lose the orbitals, the games over anyway.
>>
>> The point of having a hige ground force is to take and hold territory.
>> A navy can't hold a city, they can only destroy it. That's hardly
>> useful when your own citizens are in the city or other innocents.
>>
>
>Nope, they wouldn't need to. They can simply beam the enemy out of the city
>if they hold the orbitals.
>
<snip>
Ok, the feds have to deal with a rebelious group living on planet X.
They are the same species as everyone else living on said planet, and
are NOT making it easy on the feds by carrying communicators or
transponders. just how the hell are you going to tell wich ones you
are supposed to beam out? YOU CAN'T. It's time to send in the groudn
troops.... and watch them get slaughtered.
iceberg3k
O'Farrell" <yno...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If the phaser-armed Fed trooper can't shoot far enough to kill
>> the Canadian trooper (or American trooper) before a shot from
his
>> M16A2 rifle kills the Fed trooper, it's a moot point.
>
range less
>then that off a M-16?
The accurate range of a phaser rifle appears to be well short of
an M16's.
According to the Compendium of Modern Firearms (Kevin Dockery,
1991), an M16 can put a full clip of ammunition into a 27 cm
circle at a range of 500 yards. It can put that same amount of
ammunition into a 13.8mm circle at 25 yards (the apparent
effective range of a phaser rifle).
Notice that in ST:I, Lt. Commander Worf was standing in the
middle of nowhere, with jack shit for cover, and the enemy phaser
blasts were missing him by a country mile.
>Hell ALL the federation trains in is light infintary tactics and
weapons.
>They would probably be quite good at it, after going through a
war with many
>combat vets ready to fight.
And because of the weaponry brought to bear against them, get
slaughtered.
-- M.
-a.r.k, a.s.v.s
-YHBT, YHL. HAND.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Chris O'Farrell
> If the phaser-armed Fed trooper can't shoot far enough to kill
> the Canadian trooper (or American trooper) before a shot from his
> M16A2 rifle kills the Fed trooper, it's a moot point.
Uh hu. And what proof do you have that Federation phasers have a range less
then that off a M-16?
Chris O'Farrell
> Paul Cassidy wrote:
> >
> > Graeme Dice <grd...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:38FF8CE2...@home.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > They are allowed their standard ground troops. The Feds get redshirts
> > > with hand phasers, the Imps get walkers, stormtroopers, repeating
> > > blasters, a modern army gets howitzers with an 18km range, tanks,
> > > close-support helicopters, anti-aircraft weapons and infantry.
> > >
> >
> > You're doing it again. What happened to the Fed advantages of
transporters,
> > orbital support, and air support?
>
> Orbital support is useless for a ground battle, unless you want to wipe
> out both sides. Transporters are limited in their uses, Federation air
> support consists of shuttles, which are virtually unarmed.
No, they consist of Pegerines which are far from useless. They have many
phaser arrays, torp launchers, shields.....
Or you could bring an Intrepid class starship in.....
And phasers (unlike a BDZ) can be focused beams. Look in the TNG episode
when they use phasers to blow open holes in a planet to create a greenhouse
effect to keep a planet warm after an asteriod strike. There you can see the
phasers as tight beams of utter destruction. Death if you have sensors good
enough and the armys are at least a klick apart.
> > > The point of having a hige ground force is to take and hold territory.
> > > A navy can't hold a city, they can only destroy it. That's hardly
> > > useful when your own citizens are in the city or other innocents.
> > >
> >
> > Nope, they wouldn't need to. They can simply beam the enemy out of the
city
> > if they hold the orbitals.
>
> Unless of course the enemy happens to place a few radiation emitting
> sources in the area, or a creates a low-level magnetic field. You want
> to tell me how they can determine which people in a city are the
> enemies.
Use massive amounts of those drones out of ST9 to tag the bad people.
> > >
> > > Since they can only beam an absolute maximum of 700 people per hour to
> > > the Enterprise for evacuations, or 1850 people off the ship per hour
> > > using emergency transporters, this tactic is absolutely useless.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, thats incorrect. Firstly it assumes that you want to complete
the
> > transporter cycle (ie rematerialise them in one piece). If you look at
the
> > transporter times, most of the time (nearly 4/5 of the time) is taken up
> > with rematerialisation.
>
> The pattern buffer takes an average of 87 seconds to cooldown and reset
> after every transport. If they start ignoring rematerialization, then
> they will overload their systems with immense amounts of energy caused
> by the annihilation of the particles in the targets.
Assuming only ONE starship in orbit, that is. If you tripple this number
then you get a large increase.
> >Why bother if they're the enemy?
>
> Now the Federation is going to kill people using their transporters?
> That's a huge change of personality.
>
> >
> > Secondly, you are not using the shuttle transporters.
>
> A single ship does not carry enough shuttles to significantly affect
> this.
Depends. How many, how many can they transport e.t.c
> > Thirdly, the emergency
> > transporters, though they can't beam the enemy away, can beam a solid
object
> > "into" the enemy kill them
>
> That is still limited to 1850 kills per hour, assuming that they can
> even target the ground troops.
So? Concentrating on key command and control units that all you need.
> > So let's see, that's 44,400 people neutralised per day using just you
> > figures. That can probalby be up to 50,000 without pushing it if we use
the
> > shuttles etc. 350,000 people per week (that's a sizable army).
>
> You forget that the Fed ground troops will already be dead after a
> single day. Besides, anyone who has watched ST in the Canadian army
> would be able to devise a shield to prevent transporters.
Um yes. Despite the fact that they don't have the tech to prevent it? And if
they were to use an EM device like a mag sheild, then it would have to be so
powerful that it would completley screw up all of their electronic gear.
--
'I came, I tried, I failed.
I came again, I cheated, I won'
Chris O'Farrell.
yno...@hotmail.com
ICQ 57988212
Chris O'Farrell
> Paul Cassidy wrote:
> >
> > David Dice <dd...@carlton.paschools.pa.sk.ca> wrote
>
> > > I hate to say it, but even our pitiful army could easily defeat a
> > > Federation force of equal numbers. Assuming no orbital support,
> > > then the battle is over very quickly, because our modern weapons
> > > severely outrange anything the Federation gives its ground forces.
> > > Any combined arms force would easily destroy any forces the
> > > Federation could put on the ground. They would be forced to keep
> > > their heads down from artillery, and our own infantry and tanks can
> > > hit them from about twice the maximum effective range of hand
> > > phasers.
> >
> > all their advantages, ie orbital support, transporters, phaser rifles
> > etc, then triumphantly announce victory.
>
> What's the big deal with phaser rifles, they still don't have the range.
Proof? We have never had to see them used at range except for one episode.
The DS9 one where they crash the JH fighter and have to fight off an attack.
In this, they snip at long distance with good accuracy, taking the JH down
in short order.
> > If we make this fair, we take away things from the other side too like
> > their artillery and tanks.
> >
> > Let's be honest here. If we take away an Imperials orbital support and
> > their walkers, how much chance would they stand against artillery and
> > tanks?
>
> Crush them like bugs.
That would be fun. But what if a group of enginers wait, hiding until the
walkers are right on top of them, then jump on the foot and shove in a
focused C4 charge on the joints? BANG BANG BANG BANG....errr CRASH!
> > Why not be fair and say a straight infantry battle?
>
> Sure, Canada would still win. We have snipers and a good engineer core.
Though against stormies, you would have problems as their armour would be
hard to get through unless everyone was issued with armour peircing ammo.
Chris O'Farrell
> I don't wanna hear any whining about how a hand phaser can take
> out armor either, if it won't take out the rock someone is hiding
> behind in some cave in an episode of trek, it won't take out a tank or
> apc.
You will get it anyway. Phasers have been shown easily to blast through rock
many times. If you want to come and make a contibution, please do your
homework first.
Strowbridge
>
> Strowbridge <strow...@home.com> wrote
> > > > I hate to say it, but even our pitiful army could easily defeat
> > > > a Federation force of equal numbers. Assuming no orbital
> > > > support, then the battle is over very quickly, because our
> > > > modern weapons severely outrange anything the Federation gives
> > > > its ground forces. Any combined arms force would easily destroy
> > > > any forces the Federation could put on the ground. They would
> > > > be forced to keep their heads down from artillery, and our own
> > > > infantry and tanks can hit them from about twice the maximum
> > > > effective range of hand phasers.
> > >
> > > I really love posts like this. You hamstring the Feds by taking
> > > away all their advantages, ie orbital support, transporters,
> > > phaser rifles etc, then triumphantly announce victory.
> >
> > What's the big deal with phaser rifles, they still don't have the
> > range.
>
> Proof? We have never had to see them used at range except for one
> episode. The DS9 one where they crash the JH fighter and have to fight
> off an attack. In this, they snip at long distance with good accuracy,
> taking the JH down in short order.
The weapon ranges shown here were a couple hundred meters, at best. And
that is being REALLY generous. Modern Sniper rifles have ranges of more
than a kilometer.
> > > If we make this fair, we take away things from the other side too
> > > like their artillery and tanks.
> > >
> > > Let's be honest here. If we take away an Imperials orbital support
> > > and their walkers, how much chance would they stand against
> > > artillery and tanks?
> >
> > Crush them like bugs.
>
> That would be fun. But what if a group of enginers wait, hiding until
> the walkers are right on top of them, then jump on the foot and shove
> in a focused C4 charge on the joints? BANG BANG BANG BANG....errr
> CRASH!
Give me a break. The Imperials would have infantry support, an armored
division and artillery. Any area the engineers could hide in would have
been mercilessly attacked BEFORE the AT-AT got there.
> > > Why not be fair and say a straight infantry battle?
> >
> > Sure, Canada would still win. We have snipers and a good engineer
> > core.
>
> Though against stormies, you would have problems as their armour would
> be hard to get through unless everyone was issued with armour peircing
> ammo.
True. And it would also depend on prep time given to each side,
knowledge of the terrain, etc.
C.S.Strowbridge
SyG
They also have been shown to have ZERO effect against loose rock in a
combat situation.
Nathan Yates
Commander Thelea <Lusankya...@Aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Well, I don't know about modern Canada, but....
>
> Take Earth as it is in the UFP around the time of DS9.
>
> Give the Federation troops all the orbital bombardment
> support they want.
>
> Give me two Theatre Groups of Waffen-SS (Chosen for fanatical
> bravery and strong discipline; You rarely find that
> combination.); Atleast 50% armoured.
>
> Give me ships of equal technology to the Federation's in
> sufficient numbers to transport that force to Earth.
>
> The planet will be mine in four days.
>
> Marina O'Leary
>
How about Patton and his Third Army, equipped with modern U.S. weapons? Oh,
except for one thing: reactors in the vehicles, for unlimited range. Half of
it could land in Omaha, Nebraska, spread out in all directions, and within a
day make it all across the NA continent. San Francisco would be Patton's
before the sun set (provided he lands in the morning. I give it that long
because of the speed of the vehicles involved, M-1 Abrams and M-2 Bradleys,
the M-2s would have the 25mm cannon mounted.
Of course, it would also have helicopters, jeeps/humvees, and
Artillary...what about air support? How would a Harrier VTOL aircraft do
against a peregrine fighter or a shuttlecraft?
--
"Beat me if you can...survive if I let you".
Commander Thelea
Harriers armed with Falcon Nuclear Tipped Heat Seeking
Missiles, a '60s vintage weapon, would rip apart Peregrines.
Even if the explosions didn't take down their shields, in the
atmosphere at low altitude, the shockwave would knock them into
the ground. Possibly at medium altitudes as well.
Patton's Third Army modified like that would make the Feds a
pushover.
The SS's armoured forces without modifications would still have
an easy time of it, which is why I chose them, without giving
them to many advantages. As for fuel.. Well, they'll be
capturing civilian replicators left and right, and I doubt
gasoline is a banned substance in the UFP.
Marina O'Leary
Phong Nguyen
<Lusankya...@Aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <8drn03$dlo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Nathan Yates
><Fifty_...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>In article <0023afd2...@usw-ex0105-040.remarq.com>,
>> Commander Thelea <Lusankya...@Aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
> Harriers armed with Falcon Nuclear Tipped Heat Seeking
>Missiles, a '60s vintage weapon, would rip apart Peregrines.
>Even if the explosions didn't take down their shields, in the
>atmosphere at low altitude, the shockwave would knock them into
>the ground. Possibly at medium altitudes as well.
>
What is the effective range of the Falcon, anyways? The Harrier pilot
would have to be careful not to kill his own fighter in the ensuring
detonation.
Genie missiles might do well also, but I don't know their specs or
guidance systems.
Jonathan Boyd
on 21/4/00 10:06 pm:
>>> They are allowed their standard ground troops. The Feds get redshirts
>>> with hand phasers, the Imps get walkers, stormtroopers, repeating
>>> blasters, a modern army gets howitzers with an 18km range, tanks,
>>> close-support helicopters, anti-aircraft weapons and infantry.
>> You're doing it again. What happened to the Fed advantages of transporters,
>> orbital support, and air support?
> Orbital support is useless for a ground battle,unless you want to wipe
> out both sides.
Stun setting will work quite nicely - incapacitate the opposing army before
it gets near, then send in your men to capture them.
> Transporters are limited in their uses, Federation air
> support consists of shuttles, which are virtually unarmed.
Virtually unarmed by SF standards, but by ours , they're pretty nasty. And
what about runabouts, Peregrines, etc?
Paul Cassidy
> >> > You've got it the wrong way around. They only have that limited
ground
> >force
> >> > BECAUSE of the power of orbital support. What's the point of having a
> >huge
> >> > ground force? If you lose the orbitals, the games over anyway.
> >>
> >> A navy can't hold a city, they can only destroy it. That's hardly
> >> useful when your own citizens are in the city or other innocents.
> >>
> >
> >Nope, they wouldn't need to. They can simply beam the enemy out of the
city
> >if they hold the orbitals.
> >
>
> Ok, the feds have to deal with a rebelious group living on planet X.
> They are the same species as everyone else living on said planet, and
> are NOT making it easy on the feds by carrying communicators or
> transponders. just how the hell are you going to tell wich ones you
> are supposed to beam out? YOU CAN'T. It's time to send in the groudn
> troops.... and watch them get slaughtered.
What kind of numbers are we talking here? If its a small hostage situation,
then why not beam everyone out and sort it out on the ship.
If it's a larger group, use the ships phasers to stun everyone then beam
them up and sort it out.
If it's a whole planet with a small group of hostages and the Feds don't
know where they are, then they are stuck. However, an Imperial force would
be just as stuck. Sure the Imperial force could land and invade, but that
doesn't guarantee that they find the hostages alive or at all, which is the
whole point of your scenario.
Alex Moon
Chris O'Farrell <yno...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39022bde$0$27...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
>
> > The accurate range of a phaser rifle appears to be well short of
> > an M16's.
> >
> > According to the Compendium of Modern Firearms (Kevin Dockery,
> > 1991), an M16 can put a full clip of ammunition into a 27 cm
> > circle at a range of 500 yards. It can put that same amount of
> > ammunition into a 13.8mm circle at 25 yards (the apparent
> > effective range of a phaser rifle).
>
>
True.
> > Notice that in ST:I, Lt. Commander Worf was standing in the
> > middle of nowhere, with jack shit for cover, and the enemy phaser
> > blasts were missing him by a country mile.
>
> Wha? ST1?
>
ST: Insurrection.
> > >Hell ALL the federation trains in is light infintary tactics and
> > weapons.
> > >They would probably be quite good at it, after going through a
> > war with many
> > >combat vets ready to fight.
> >
> > And because of the weaponry brought to bear against them, get
> > slaughtered.
>
> Yes, but I was talking about if it was JUST a light infantry engagement.
Still, the Canadians would have been trained to fight, while Starfleet
troops would be taught to fight. There is a differance.
iceberg3k
the Kilrathi War: Three batallions of Confederation marines (one
infy, one armored cav and one arty), two CVEs or CVLs with their
full complement of fighters plus battlegroup for each carrier
(two DDs and a corvette for the CVEs or one CA and two DDs for
the CVLs) and a heavy cruiser battlegroup (two CAs and four DDs).
Give the Feddies as much personnel and starship support as they
want.
The system will be mine in half a week. These boys are used to
going up against homicidal psycho cats twice as big as they are,
who could bench press six of them without breaking a sweat. The
Federation troops wouldn't have a prayer (especially since
organized religion seems to be outlawed by the Federation ;)).
-- M.
-a.r.k, a.s.v.s
-YHBT, YHL. HAND.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Chris O'Farrell
> Harriers armed with Falcon Nuclear Tipped Heat Seeking
> Missiles, a '60s vintage weapon, would rip apart Peregrines.
> Even if the explosions didn't take down their shields, in the
> atmosphere at low altitude, the shockwave would knock them into
> the ground. Possibly at medium altitudes as well.
>
have greater ranges then your missiles destroying your craft before they get
a shot off.
As for the recoil, how powerful are the Nukes?
Peregrines look like they can withstand multi-megaton levels of firepower
without too much fuss. Though in Pre-Emptive strike, when a photon salvo
detonates in a Peregrine squadron they go out of control momentarily, AND in
space there is a bit more room to regain control.
But I doubt a single KT level hit could so much as jolt the Peregrine.
Chris O'Farrell
> The accurate range of a phaser rifle appears to be well short of
> an M16's.
>
> According to the Compendium of Modern Firearms (Kevin Dockery,
> 1991), an M16 can put a full clip of ammunition into a 27 cm
> circle at a range of 500 yards. It can put that same amount of
> ammunition into a 13.8mm circle at 25 yards (the apparent
> effective range of a phaser rifle).
Kwool. Though this will be somewhat dependent on training.
> Notice that in ST:I, Lt. Commander Worf was standing in the
> middle of nowhere, with jack shit for cover, and the enemy phaser
> blasts were missing him by a country mile.
Wha? ST1?
> >Hell ALL the federation trains in is light infintary tactics and
Chris O'Farrell
SyG <cho...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:3900f7c7...@news.mpls.uswest.net...
What was this?
And WHAT power setting were the phasers on?
Generaly they are set to stun.
SyG
<yno...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>SyG <cho...@uswest.net> wrote in message
>news:3900f7c7...@news.mpls.uswest.net...
>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 09:43:10 +1000, "Chris O'Farrell"
>> <yno...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> I don't wanna hear any whining about how a hand phaser can take
>> >> out armor either, if it won't take out the rock someone is hiding
>> >> behind in some cave in an episode of trek, it won't take out a tank or
>> >> apc.
>> >
>> >You will get it anyway. Phasers have been shown easily to blast through
>rock
>> >many times. If you want to come and make a contibution, please do your
>> >homework first.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> They also have been shown to have ZERO effect against loose rock in a
>> combat situation.
>
>What was this?
>And WHAT power setting were the phasers on?
>Generaly they are set to stun.
>
>
you know, I would truely love to tell you, but I didn't catch the
begining of the show (was watching the much more important "win ben
steins money"), so I don't know the episode. IIRC, in the few minutes
I actualy watched it, the feds were engaging a troop of Jem-Hedar, who
were using rocks as cover. Saw a few phaser shots hit the hil behind
the Jem, wich *appeared* to be composed of loose shale. I could be
wrong, as that's about when I turned the channel.
Phong Nguyen
Yes, but in an atmosphere you have to worry about the overpressure wave
and such.
Ashen-Shugar
>in article 38FE2247...@carlton.paschools.pa.sk.ca, David Dice at
>dd...@carlton.paschools.pa.sk.ca wrote on 19/4/00 10:17 pm:
>
>> I hate to say it, but even our pitiful army could easily defeat a
>> Federation force of equal numbers. Assuming no orbital support, then
>> the battle is over very quickly, because our modern weapons severely
>> outrange anything the Federation gives its ground forces. Any combined
>> arms force would easily destroy any forces the Federation could put on
>> the ground. They would be forced to keep their heads down from
>> artillery, and our own infantry and tanks can hit them from about twice
>> the maximum effective range of hand phasers.
>
>But the Feds would have support from shuttles and runabouts. And it would be
>awfully disconcerting to be in the middle of a battle and have the guy next
>to you disappear in a shimmer of light. Hmm, would be the most effective way
>to sue a transporter? I think beam equipment and troops 100m or so into the
>air above the opposing army and let them drop down on them. Having a tank or
>squad of fellow grunts drop out of the sky around you and go *SLPAT* would
>probably put you off a wee bit.
Except that the transporters would probably go on the blink the moment
somebody fires up a radar tracking system, and anybody activating any
ECM gear would probably cause all the control panels to explode
killing half the ST force.
Hell, the transporters would probably go on the blink when I put my
dinner in the microwave.
------------------
Ashen-Shugar
------------------
Last of the Dragon Lords,
Greatest of the Valheru.
M.I.C.H.A.E.L.: Mechanical Intelligent Construct Hardwired for Assassination and Efficient Learning
Guardian2000
> For the sake of argument, let's say that both sides are
equal.
> The Canadian army has a single battalion and the feds do
also. This
> includes armor and artillery support. The feds have the same
manpower
> and equipment. No starships being involved because this is
strictly
> about ground forces. You can give the feds their phasers
(hand and
> rifle versions) and they'll have to use the same armor and
artillery
> as the Canadians because we all know the feds don't have any
of their
> own.
We don't know that at all . . . we've never *seen* ground assault
equipment, but that does not mean it does not exist in Starfleet.
Actually, come to think of it, we *have* seen one small example
of
Starfleet/Federation artillery. In "Arena"[TOS], we see a small
ground
battle between six Starfleet personnel under Kirk, and an
unknown number
of Gorn forces (though Spock did say that "we're hopelessly
outnumbered").
The redshirt Kirk brought along was vaporized at a range
of "1570 yards"
(about .8 miles), and the Gorn promptly starting firing small
explosives
at the Starfleet personnel.
Kirk ordered two guys to lay down fire on the coordinates given
to
them by Spock. Since Spock mentioned intervening high ground,
we may
assume this was simply suppressive fire designed to either keep
the
Gorn from charging (such as Gorn can charge, anyway) or to keep
them
from being able to take up position and vaporize more of the
Starfleet
personnel . . . probably the latter. Kirk finally returned fire
with a photon grenade launcher, effectively ending the battle.
Since the
Enterprise was also being attacked, there was no opportunity for
orbital
support fire (though we know, based on "A Piece of the
Action"[TOS], "The
Apple"[TOS], and "Who Mourns for Adonais?"[TOS] that the
Enterprise-Prime
would have been capable of the pinpoint accuracy necessary to
take out the
Gorn forces without harming Kirk). That is the only time, not
counting
Insurrection, that we have seen some weapon other than phasers
in use by
Starfleet on the ground.
While we do not know the maximum range of the photon grenade
launcher that
Kirk used, we can make some guesses. Kirk fired it at the
intervening
high ground, some 1200 yards (.65 miles, roughly) distant, and
the young
officer seemed concerned that Kirk would use the devices at such
close
range.
The range was probably a bit low. Spock's tricorder had somehow
been
overloaded by the Gorn, and, since the Gorn were not visible
(according to
the statement of the young officer), neither their destination
nor their
speed was known. Kirk, not knowing how slow the Gorn are on
foot, may
have overestimated their speed. Alternately, it may be possible
that he
was correct, and that the large force of Gorn had some sort of
vehicle
handy.
Also, the angle at which Kirk planted the grenade launcher,
coupled with a
look at it's apparent designed angles of fire, would seem to
indicate much
greater ranges for the photon grenades. Kirk planted it on a
45-degree
slope, and it seemed to have only a 45-degree or so possible
swivel (i.e.
it could fire "flat" at 0 degrees, and appeared to be near
maximum at the
angle Kirk was using it, which was about 45-degrees (not
counting the
45-degree slope)). I am presuming, of course, based on the
appearance of
the launcher and the appearance of the photon grenade, that it's
a simple
gravity-aim device . . . a "dumb bomb", if you will. I would
assume,
then, that the device would normally be fired at ranges of at
least two
miles, if not more. I'd consider two miles a lower estimate
(considering
the young officer's concern, coupled with the fact that the
grenade's
effect seemed to reach all the way back to the buildings behind
Kirk when
it was fired at 1200 yards).
At any rate, the Gorn bugged out after they ate the photon
grenade. I'd
say it's likely that they had some casualties among them. But,
then, for
all we know, the Gorn ship may have simply beamed up the Gorn
giblets
remaining, but there's no way to know for sure. They may have
been missed
entirely by the grenade, but simply pooped their britches and
beamed out.
In any event, we've seen one small example of Federation
artillery, ending
a battle in which a technologically sophicated enemy force, which
hopelessly outnumbered six Starfleet personnel, was forced to
withdraw,
with "only" two losses on the Starfleet side.
> In the end, the Canadian Army would mop up. The main
reason
> being that the feds are all mainly explorers and researchers
and the
> Canadian Army is a professional, highly trained fighting force.
>
Considering the advanced communication abilities of the
Starfleet forces,
coupled with their far more advanced weaponry, coupled with their
tricorders, the Canadians would never even know what hit them.
While the
Canadians were sending out scouting parties, the Starfleet crew
would
already know the location of every man, tank, and artillery
piece in the
area. Starfleet could pick off the scouting parties. Starfleet
would
have advanced warning of a sniper, and they'd burn him down the
moment he
came into line of sight. At two miles distance from any target,
they
could fire off photon grenades, obliterating/rendering
inoperable any
troops or equipment within at least 200 yards, potentially more
(judging
by the fear produced by a 1200 yard shot . . . and that's a TOS
weapon).
While a tank would be using infrared and other line-of-sight
sensors to
find the enemy, Starfleet would be miles off (or behind a hill)
getting
detailed readings of the tank and it's personnel, and report
back the
armor strength, weapons capabilities, and the efficiency of their
anti-perspirants.
Starfleet has simple personnel forcefields and larger away team
fields
(TNG Tech Manual, Hand Phaser section), presumably for use in
special
operations such as the one we're discussing. Hell, even Worf
can create a
shield capable of repelling numerous bullets, using only the
simple tools
of the American west of the late 19th Century and the internal
components
of his communicator.
> I don't wanna hear any whining about how a hand phaser
can take
> out armor either, if it won't take out the rock someone is
hiding
> behind in some cave in an episode of trek, it won't take out a
tank or
> apc.
Where the hell does this come from? We've seen Worf use his
phaser to
cut a tube at least three meters long (probably four) and a
meter or
meter-and-a-half wide through sold rock, albeit of unknown
density
("Chain of Command, Pt. I"[TNG]). We've seen a phaser vaporize
a Dodge
Ram pickup truck on a Voyager episode whose name escapes me
("Future's
End"?). We've seen phasers make rocks red-hot while on low
settings
several times ("A Private Little War"[TOS] and "Silicon
Avatar"[TNG] come
to mind), we've seen phasers cut through large rock walls on
several
occasions ("Caretaker"[VOY], Neelix and Paris pop a big hole in
the
ceiling, and in _Insurrection_ they open up a door through rock
to the
outside). In "Man Trap"[TOS], even Dr. Crater's old obsolete
laser
pistol blew the crap out of some old stone ruins that Kirk and
Spock were
standing behind.
And yet, we're supposed to believe that a hand phaser won't take
out a
tank or APC? Even if I go along with you and greatly
underestimate the
phaser's potential, it could still do enough damage to
immobilize the
Canadian vehicle of whatever sort, and render it a burning hulk.