The Constitution class starship.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:24 pm

Thorin wrote:It only blew up because of a warp core breach. If it hit the saucer section it wouldn't have blown it up.
The E-E took gazillions of torpedo and disrupter blasts to its hull and was still in fine working order, with only small hull breaches. One hit to the E-nil and it blows a great big gaping hole through all the saucer section.

Look at the screenshots I provided - they're from the Wrath of Khan, showing the E-nil suffering severe damage to the engineering hull, without blowing up. As I pointed out above, Khan had much greater knowledge of the E-nil's weak points than the Duras did of the E-D's, making the former's survival compared with the latter that much more impressive.

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:30 pm

I agree.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:38 pm

Didn't Reliant get its torpedo launcher blown to pieces by a torpedo?
Judging from its positioning it seems to be directly above the warp core, the fact that it took such a hit and failed to go bang says something.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:42 pm

Rochey wrote:Didn't Reliant get its torpedo launcher blown to pieces by a torpedo?
Judging from its positioning it seems to be directly above the warp core, the fact that it took such a hit and failed to go bang says something.

It does. It also says something about torpedo storage, since it was a very similar sort of hit that cost the Royal Navy several battlecruisers at Jutland, when the explosion progressed from the turret to the magazine. The E-nil also suffered severe damage to her port torpedo bay, and survived, although that was the hit that forced Scotty to take the warp engines off line.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:11 pm

Have we ever know 24th century ships to take such hits and survive?

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:20 pm

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:26 pm

Rochey wrote:Have we ever know 24th century ships to take such hits and survive?

Not to my knowledge, although the Defiant and Valiant took a lot of punishment (the former without shields or SIF) before being destroyed, and the E-E took what looked to be a worse nacelle hit than the "Cause and Effect" impact in Nemesis.

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:04 pm

Its true that TNG movies and ds9 ships are much tougher then the show.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:10 pm

Not to my knowledge, although the Defiant and Valiant took a lot of punishment (the former without shields or SIF) before being destroyed,

1) What was the Valiant?

2) I'd expect the Defiant to take such damage, it seems to be a good, sturdy design.

and the E-E took what looked to be a worse nacelle hit than the "Cause and Effect" impact in Nemesis.

Maybe they decided to actually armour the nacelles on these ships.
About damn time.

Thorin · Post by **Thorin** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:15 pm

So are some people actually trying to tell me that TOS ships can take bigger punishments than TNG ships?
Erm...

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:29 pm

No, TNG era ships have to deal with greater levels of power. What we're saying is that TOS ships have greater survivability than TNG ships. IE, they're not as fragile.

Thorin · Post by **Thorin** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:47 pm

I know the TNG ships are more fragile - its impossible for them not to be considering how much more advanced they are. But to make up the fragility there are all sorts of tactical advancements; better shields, SIF, stronger hulls, backup/auxiluary systems. If a torpedo exploded on the inside of a galaxy class ship, it would indeed do more damage than if it exploded inside a constitution class ship - but that's only because there's more to be damaged on a galaxy. It doesn't mean they can't take as much punishment or are less reliable/functionable after fire/solid than a constitution.

Post by **Teaos** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:55 am

You put more stuff in a ship there is more to go wrong. But all that extra stuff gives them an advantage most of the time.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:32 pm

Thorin wrote:I know the TNG ships are more fragile - its impossible for them not to be considering how much more advanced they are.

Why? Would you say that this ship is more fragile than this one because it's more advanced?

But to make up the fragility there are all sorts of tactical advancements; better shields, SIF, stronger hulls, backup/auxiluary systems. If a torpedo exploded on the inside of a galaxy class ship, it would indeed do more damage than if it exploded inside a constitution class ship - but that's only because there's more to be damaged on a galaxy. It doesn't mean they can't take as much punishment or are less reliable/functionable after fire/solid than a constitution.

You're arguing that a Galaxy can take more punishment than a Connie? Sure the shields are stronger, but without them none of the supposed advances you mentioned stopped this from happening.

Post by **Mikey** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:46 pm

I think what we've sort of converged on here is not that a Galaxy can take more actual damage than a Connie, but that you can fire a lot more at a Galaxy BEFORE she starts to take real damage.

However, once that dmage to the hull starts to accrue, the Connie will remain operational longer.