They always could, destroyers carried torpedos as their main weapons back in the day and spread of torps from a destroyer could ruin a battle cruiser's day if it hit. There's a reason fleets didn't just want to recklessly chase each other during the night in battles during WWI or WWII and it was mostly because that was the best time for Destroyers to get into torpedo range.
Oh sure, if they could get in range, and that's a very big if. Torpedos made an effective deterrent against pursuit but in active combat offensive use, especially against capital surface combatants was virtually suicidal without the cover of darkness or someone much bigger smashing their target to the point it can't shoot back.
There's also stories of destroyers harassing the Bismark so that slower battle ships and cruisers could catch (and also so that the crew of the Bismark could get no rest, if battle cruisers couldn't be harmed by destroyers then battleships certain wouldn't be and this OP would have been pointless (which it was not).
Not quite. The Bismarck was stuck moving in an unrecoverable turn to port and ended up crawling back toward the pursuing KG5 and Rodney. Granted the four Tribals and the Piorun spent the night harassing her, but aside from forcing Bismarck's crew to remain on alert, they had no effect on the actions of the ship itself, they merely maintained contact.
Were torpedos dangerous? Yes, but without stacking the deck heavily in their favour destroyers were not a threat to a capital ship that could stand off and rapidly turn them into scrap because they simply didn't have the range.
The OP is fundamentally flawed because it assumes that the paradigm of pre-WW2 BB dominance is somehow still a thing in Star Trek, which it isn't because Starfleet made Defiant a ship designed from the ground up to hurt Borg Cubes and dance around like a hefty starfighter. At that point you can imagine how other galactic powers would respond, especially after the Dominion War.
For a WW2 surface combatant equivalent, imagine a Tribal class destroyer with the speed and manoeuvrability of a PT boat,
8 supercharged 14" guns and armour that would shrug off the first salvo or two of anything short of Yamato. That is what Defiant is, that is what every Raptor and "Escort" since represents.
While extreme speed itself is important as shown by the Orion ship in Journey to Babel, maneuverability itself gives almost no protection at all in classic Trek since the phasers and presumably other weapons are aimed via a field effect rather than slow mechanical turrets and even 23 century ships had pinpoint accuracy at ranges of over 100,000km at speeds of at least warp four.
Enterprise D was even shown stutter-firing to take out an entire fighter group in one firing cycle.
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,687Community Moderator
Hell... we've seen Enterprise-D, and E, rapid firing their phasers before. D did it while rotating their phaser frequencies to break a Borg Tractor Beam, which also resulted in differing colors in the beam, and E did it to try and locate Scimitar in Nemesis.
I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite colored text = mod mode
While extreme speed itself is important as shown by the Orion ship in Journey to Babel, maneuverability itself gives almost no protection at all in classic Trek since the phasers and presumably other weapons are aimed via a field effect rather than slow mechanical turrets and even 23 century ships had pinpoint accuracy at ranges of over 100,000km at speeds of at least warp four.
Enterprise D was even shown stutter-firing to take out an entire fighter group in one firing cycle.
No but speed and manoeuvrability are a factor in defence. They are cited time and again as reasons not just for why hero ship X survived but also for the reason some target hasn't been dealt with by whoever is trying to get a target lock. Throw in all the really unpleasant things that a warship's defensive electronic warfare (or whatever the 23-24c equivalent is) suite is doing to an attacking ship's sensors and you reach a point where the vaunted accuracy of 23-24c weaponry is far from guaranteed. (Heck we even have that in game as a "stealth" stat)
Everything works perfectly until someone deliberately tries to stop it.
While extreme speed itself is important as shown by the Orion ship in Journey to Babel, maneuverability itself gives almost no protection at all in classic Trek since the phasers and presumably other weapons are aimed via a field effect rather than slow mechanical turrets and even 23 century ships had pinpoint accuracy at ranges of over 100,000km at speeds of at least warp four.
Enterprise D was even shown stutter-firing to take out an entire fighter group in one firing cycle.
No but speed and manoeuvrability are a factor in defence. They are cited time and again as reasons not just for why hero ship X survived but also for the reason some target hasn't been dealt with by whoever is trying to get a target lock. Throw in all the really unpleasant things that a warship's defensive electronic warfare (or whatever the 23-24c equivalent is) suite is doing to an attacking ship's sensors and you reach a point where the vaunted accuracy of 23-24c weaponry is far from guaranteed. (Heck we even have that in game as a "stealth" stat)
Everything works perfectly until someone deliberately tries to stop it.
True, with better writing DSC could have spun the radically different Star Wars knife-fighting range spray-and-pray style ship combat they use, and even the optical windows and sudden Klingon aggressiveness, as a new but temporary breakthrough in sensor ECM that gave them an advantage that they took advantage of before the Federation found out about it and came up with countermeasures.
Still, in every Trek before 2009 speed is not a very effective defense unless it is very extreme speed, and maneuverability means almost nothing except in very niche situations where you have something to break weapons locks with.
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,687Community Moderator
Still, in every Trek before 2009 speed is not a very effective defense unless it is very extreme speed, and maneuverability means almost nothing except in very niche situations where you have something to break weapons locks with.
Eh... one problem with that. For the most part every Trek has always followed a larger starship, so speed and maneuverability aren't really a factor at all. The only time we see that it is... is in DS9 with the Defiant. TNG, we got the Galaxy class Enterprise. Voyager has the Intrepid class which is about the same length as a Connie Refit or so. We saw a little bit more maneuvering in Enterprise, but have to consider that the tech was less advanced due to being 22nd Century tech. DS9 saw more maneuver fighting during the Dominion War, most notably with BoPs, Bugships, and the Defiant.
I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite colored text = mod mode
Still, in every Trek before 2009 speed is not a very effective defense unless it is very extreme speed, and maneuverability means almost nothing except in very niche situations where you have something to break weapons locks with.
Eh... one problem with that. For the most part every Trek has always followed a larger starship, so speed and maneuverability aren't really a factor at all. The only time we see that it is... is in DS9 with the Defiant. TNG, we got the Galaxy class Enterprise. Voyager has the Intrepid class which is about the same length as a Connie Refit or so. We saw a little bit more maneuvering in Enterprise, but have to consider that the tech was less advanced due to being 22nd Century tech. DS9 saw more maneuver fighting during the Dominion War, most notably with BoPs, Bugships, and the Defiant.
Most of the maneuvering in DS9 was to bring cannons to bear, avoid collision with other ships, wreckage, and whatnot, or to use space terrain features in some way. Very little if any was to try and shake target locks, which is probably near impossible anyway unless the opposing ship cannot bring up a warp field to negate time dilation effects and increase turn responsiveness (such as happened in Journey to Babel) or their FTL sensors are damaged (essential to the Picard Maneuver as seen in The Battle).
In fact, target locks were one of the main reasons Roddenberry was dead set against fighters in Star Trek, with a lock missing an enemy ship or shuttle is rather rare, and there is no way a shuttle (which is what a Star Wars style fighter essentially is) could tank even one hit from a capital ship main gun. It would be like expecting a WWII fighter to tank a 14 inch shell hit.
SKIMMING over, I would bust down a new format such.
JUGG - 5 Bow, 4 Astern, 2 Decks
DREAD - 4 bow, 3 Astern, 2 Decks
BATTLECRUISER - 4 bow, 4 astern, single deck.
HEAVY CRUISER - 4 bow, 3 astern, single deck.
CRUISER - 4 with 4, no flight deck.
ESCORT - 3 bow, 2 astern, single EXPerimental slot.
CORVETTE - Two Bow, 2 Astern, Single XP slot.
Each class should be given a proper velocity rating. Big boat, can't turn so much, heavy plated, on down to "glass boat" spin on a dime, but knocked out if hit with a few crits or under siege.
That's just kind of a ballpark guesstimate I would revamp it as anyway.
As far as bunking goes, you have to think long-term, if someone is going to be underway for say, 5 years. Hot-bunking will not work. I slept racks 5 deep on the US BB59. Stateside is was rough. Underway for years on end, no way. Even today, about the only place you might see hot bunks is on a sub, but even there, it's getting more sparse. .... Not to say you have room to even rollover in your rack, but it's your stank, your curtain, your pronoplasterwall. ... I expect that, realistically, BSG had it kinda close to what it would look like, but probably still more narrow and cropped a few inches down between bunks. And that would only count if they had chow in their dorm. Unlikely. So now we are down to probably about 3 feet between 3 bunks here to there where you can call one of them home. And maybe a vending machine that spits out some Chuckles candies.
Point two, I believe you're thinking a little too much in terms of wet navy standards. While it's true that Star Trek has always drawn heavily from real-world navies, it's a fact that space is a very different environment, with differing physics and other factors. Not to mention advances in technology can radically alter design requirements.
I've had arguments with a particular person on another site in the past about this kind of thing. Assuming that WWII standards apply in the future is a mistake. And that's with settings that stick to realistic standards, which, let's face it, Star Trek never has and never will.
tl;dr: The doctrine of a 20th century water navy is not applicable to a 25th century space navy.
Away with ye zombiness (white lantern ring blast) /necro
"Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations
Comments
While extreme speed itself is important as shown by the Orion ship in Journey to Babel, maneuverability itself gives almost no protection at all in classic Trek since the phasers and presumably other weapons are aimed via a field effect rather than slow mechanical turrets and even 23 century ships had pinpoint accuracy at ranges of over 100,000km at speeds of at least warp four.
Enterprise D was even shown stutter-firing to take out an entire fighter group in one firing cycle.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
Everything works perfectly until someone deliberately tries to stop it.
True, with better writing DSC could have spun the radically different Star Wars knife-fighting range spray-and-pray style ship combat they use, and even the optical windows and sudden Klingon aggressiveness, as a new but temporary breakthrough in sensor ECM that gave them an advantage that they took advantage of before the Federation found out about it and came up with countermeasures.
Still, in every Trek before 2009 speed is not a very effective defense unless it is very extreme speed, and maneuverability means almost nothing except in very niche situations where you have something to break weapons locks with.
Eh... one problem with that. For the most part every Trek has always followed a larger starship, so speed and maneuverability aren't really a factor at all. The only time we see that it is... is in DS9 with the Defiant. TNG, we got the Galaxy class Enterprise. Voyager has the Intrepid class which is about the same length as a Connie Refit or so. We saw a little bit more maneuvering in Enterprise, but have to consider that the tech was less advanced due to being 22nd Century tech. DS9 saw more maneuver fighting during the Dominion War, most notably with BoPs, Bugships, and the Defiant.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
Most of the maneuvering in DS9 was to bring cannons to bear, avoid collision with other ships, wreckage, and whatnot, or to use space terrain features in some way. Very little if any was to try and shake target locks, which is probably near impossible anyway unless the opposing ship cannot bring up a warp field to negate time dilation effects and increase turn responsiveness (such as happened in Journey to Babel) or their FTL sensors are damaged (essential to the Picard Maneuver as seen in The Battle).
In fact, target locks were one of the main reasons Roddenberry was dead set against fighters in Star Trek, with a lock missing an enemy ship or shuttle is rather rare, and there is no way a shuttle (which is what a Star Wars style fighter essentially is) could tank even one hit from a capital ship main gun. It would be like expecting a WWII fighter to tank a 14 inch shell hit.
JUGG - 5 Bow, 4 Astern, 2 Decks
DREAD - 4 bow, 3 Astern, 2 Decks
BATTLECRUISER - 4 bow, 4 astern, single deck.
HEAVY CRUISER - 4 bow, 3 astern, single deck.
CRUISER - 4 with 4, no flight deck.
ESCORT - 3 bow, 2 astern, single EXPerimental slot.
CORVETTE - Two Bow, 2 Astern, Single XP slot.
Each class should be given a proper velocity rating. Big boat, can't turn so much, heavy plated, on down to "glass boat" spin on a dime, but knocked out if hit with a few crits or under siege.
That's just kind of a ballpark guesstimate I would revamp it as anyway.
Point two, I believe you're thinking a little too much in terms of wet navy standards. While it's true that Star Trek has always drawn heavily from real-world navies, it's a fact that space is a very different environment, with differing physics and other factors. Not to mention advances in technology can radically alter design requirements.
I've had arguments with a particular person on another site in the past about this kind of thing. Assuming that WWII standards apply in the future is a mistake. And that's with settings that stick to realistic standards, which, let's face it, Star Trek never has and never will.
tl;dr: The doctrine of a 20th century water navy is not applicable to a 25th century space navy.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator