www.ditl.org

It could be. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt in this instance.

Deepcrush wrote:Unless they kept it behind to protect Earth or it was on deployment so far away that they couldn't be moved in time for the Battles.

That's what I was trying to say.

me,myself and I wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:Unless they kept it behind to protect Earth or it was on deployment so far away that they couldn't be moved in time for the Battles.

That's what I was trying to say.

That's called teamwork!

Deepcrush wrote:

me,myself and I wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:Unless they kept it behind to protect Earth or it was on deployment so far away that they couldn't be moved in time for the Battles.

That's what I was trying to say.

That's called teamwork!

Gung Ho!

Captain Seafort wrote:Leaving the rest because Mikey dealt with it nicely.

m52nickerson wrote:

"Had to"? Prove it.

It is proved by the fact that they did it, unless you want to claim the Jem'Hadar just did not feel like taking it out with their weapons and ramed it for the hell of it.

Dax specifically stated that there was no need for a suicide run on the Odyssey, and Sisko suggested that they did it to make a point, and to show Starfleet the extent of their resolve and commitment to the Founders. A analysis I agree with.

Yes there was not reason for them to do it because the Odyssey was retreating, not that it was going to blow up.

Yes there was not???

Captain Seafort wrote: Then provide it d*****t. I'm getting f***ing tired of your evasiveness.

Can you not read. I admitted that I could not prove it, because we have not seen two Sov fight. That does not mean there is not evidence to support that a Sov could stand up against its own weapons. I'm not screaming "Look evidence, I win"!

They're the most heavily-armed Fed ships we've seen, so it can't be a lack of firepower.
They were, at the time of commissioning, the fastest ships in the fleet, so it can't be a lack of mobility.
Ergo, it must be a lack of protection.

As you would say "prove it"! Prove that is was not some other reason to keep the Sov out of those battles.

"We've been in space for over a year. We're ready." A direct statement from the Chief Engineer of a Sov.

Yes, and right after that the ship went up against the Borg and had a large amount of the ship assimilated and then need major repairs.

Not just the only ship with significant armour, the only Fed shp with a proper armoured belt. Every other ship is covered with windows which, as has been pointed out time and time again, represent a significant weakness.

Again prove it. Prove that the windows significantly weaken the armor.

Even if you do that please explain why you believe the shields count for nothing.

...and by the way the Defiant does have windows, they are on the underside of the ship.

Deepcrush wrote:Yes there was not???

Sorry, "Yes, there was no"

Mikey wrote: "Prove your assertion" and "Provide evidence to support your assertion" may, in this instance, be used interchangeably.

The E-E's performance against the Scimitar is evidence.

Which reason would be... ?

Perhaps it was not ready, perhaps the E-E and the Sov were on other mission during the war.

Seafort just above provided evidence that it is, in fact, ready. And there is absolutely NO evidence to assume that the other ship of the class wouldn't be ready.

The fact that they were not in those battles is not evidence that Sov class is weak defensively.

A poor choice of words on my part. I should have said "feasible with little impact on the ship's performance in its intended role" instead of "possible." As to mobility, a ship doesn't become the fastest in the fleet by accident. It is clear that high mobility was a purposeful part of the overall design, and that mobility is ostensibly used in both defensive and offensive positioning - like any other battlecruiser. Mobility in this case refers to tactical usage - it's obvious that I wasn't referring to the Sovereign as a dogfighter.

There is no doubt that maneuverability was part of the design, that does not mean that they took away from the ships defenses to accomplish that, or that the Sov could not function as a battleship.

m52nickerson wrote:Can you not read. I admitted that I could not prove it, because we have not seen two Sov fight. That does not mean there is not evidence to support that a Sov could stand up against its own weapons. I'm not screaming "Look evidence, I win"!

You said "there is evidence to support that claim." Provide it.

As you would say "prove it"! Prove that is was not some other reason to keep the Sov out of those battles.

I just did. Protection, firepower and mobility are the key features of all warships. I've demonstrated that the Sov is the best the Feds have to offer in two of those three areas, therefore on one remains. The sole alternative, that the individual ships weren't ready, is disproven by Geordi's statement regarding the E-E's preparedness, showing that the Feds have at least two ships of the class ready for action.

Yes, and right after that the ship went up against the Borg and had a large amount of the ship assimilated and then need major repairs.

For how long? First Chin'toka occurred over a year after the Borg encounter, and Second Chin'toka and Cardassia a year after that. Moreover the Sov would still have been available for service. Suggesting that no Sovereign class ship was available for any of the major actions stretches credulity.

Again prove it. Prove that the windows significantly weaken the armor.

Mikey's already explained this - cutting holes in a material stresses it, reducing its overall strength.

Of course, this assumes that armour is present.

Even if you do that please explain why you believe the shields count for nothing.

Strawman - I said nothing of the sort, I pointed out that a ship with armour is superior to a ship with armour, regardless of the presence or quality of shields. It is a relative statement, distinguishing two otherwise identical ships - including their shields.

the Defiant does have windows, they are on the underside of the ship.

It's got two rows of lights along the inside of each nacelle. They're probably portholes, although it's also conceivable that they're running lights. Either way, they're evidence that that area of the nacelles lack armour - the main hull lacks any such lights.

m52nickerson wrote:The E-E's performance against the Scimitar is evidence.

E-E's performance against the Scimitar is evidence that the ship can stand up fairly well to the Scimitar's guns, although not for any substantial length of time. It provides no evidence whatsoever about the E-E's resistance to its own guns.

Perhaps it was not ready, perhaps the E-E and the Sov were on other mission during the war.

The former is already dealt with, the latter is obvious - because they weren't at the battles. What we're explaining is the likely reason why they weren't there.

The fact that they were not in those battles is not evidence that Sov class is weak defensively.

Again, explained above.

There is no doubt that maneuverability was part of the design, that does not mean that they took away from the ships defenses to accomplish that

Yes it does. Assuming all other things (impulse engine power, mass-lightening) are equal, a less massive ship will be more manoeuvrable than a more massive one. Armour adds mass, therefore mobility is always at the expense of protection.

that the Sov could not function as a battleship.

No, the fact that it was never used as one in the fleet actions suggests that it's unsuitable for such a role.

Captain Seafort wrote: You said "there is evidence to support that claim." Provide it.

Prove what the evidence, watch Nemesis again.

I just did. Protection, firepower and mobility are the key features of all warships. I've demonstrated that the Sov is the best the Feds have to offer in two of those three areas, therefore on one remains. The sole alternative, that the individual ships weren't ready, is disproven by Geordi's statement regarding the E-E's preparedness, showing that the Feds have at least two ships of the class ready for action.

The beating we have seen the E-E take are proof that it is the best by far in protection.

What if there is no other ship? We see nothing of any other Sov class in cannon.

For how long? First Chin'toka occurred over a year after the Borg encounter, and Second Chin'toka and Cardassia a year after that. Moreover the Sov would still have been available for service. Suggesting that no Sovereign class ship was available for any of the major actions stretches credulity.

Fine I give you this. That does not mean the Sov's were not being used else were in the war, and being kept out of large battles because of lack of protection. Especially considering the use of older outdated ships that were dropping like flies.

Mikey's already explained this - cutting holes in a material stresses it, reducing its overall strength

Perhaps if the armor was made in the shape of the hull and then holes for windows were cut into it. If armor plates were placed around the windows they would not be weakened.

Of course, this assumes that armour is present.

Yes it does, but even if no armor name another Starfleet ship that can take the punishment that a Sov can.

Strawman - I said nothing of the sort, I pointed out that a ship with armour is superior to a ship with armour, regardless of the presence or quality of shields. It is a relative statement, distinguishing two otherwise identical ships - including their shields.

So a ship with armor and shields is better better then a ship with just shields even if the ship with just shields can stand up to much more damage? Better protection is better protection no matter were it comes from.

It's got two rows of lights along the inside of each nacelle. They're probably portholes, although it's also conceivable that they're running lights. Either way, they're evidence that that area of the nacelles lack armour - the main hull lacks any such lights.

Those aren't running lights, those are windows. They are not even on the nacelles.

Prove what the evidence, watch Nemesis again.

Sorry, but no. It's not his job to do your research for you. Saying "well, it's at some point in a two and a half hour long movie" doesn't cut it. Either provide pictures yourself, or tell him exactly where the evidence is.

Captain Seafort wrote: E-E's performance against the Scimitar is evidence that the ship can stand up fairly well to the Scimitar's guns, although not for any substantial length of time. It provides no evidence whatsoever about the E-E's resistance to its own guns.

Not for a substantial length of time? It was long enough for the E-E to fire all of it''s torpedoes, which it was not doing constantly, and exhaust it's phases. It does provide evidence, because we see the power of the Scimitars weapons by the way it takes out the other two Romulan ships. Plus the fact that Picard after seeing the Scimitar and having the scans of the ship available it was thought of enough of a threat to warrant a fleet.

The former is already dealt with, the latter is obvious - because they weren't at the battles. What we're explaining is the likely reason why they weren't there.

You are trying to explain why they were not there that supports your conclusions.

Yes it does. Assuming all other things (impulse engine power, mass-lightening) are equal, a less massive ship will be more manoeuvrable than a more massive one. Armour adds mass, therefore mobility is always at the expense of protection.

As I said, you could always add more armor to a ship. That does not mean that that ship is not very well protected without that extra armor.

No, the fact that it was never used as one in the fleet actions suggests that it's unsuitable for such a role.

All we know is that we have never seen it in a large fleet action. That does not mean it has not been. Nor does it mean that it is unsuited for such action.

Rochey wrote: Sorry, but no. It's not his job to do your research for you. Saying "well, it's at some point in a two and a half hour long movie" doesn't cut it. Either provide pictures yourself, or tell him exactly where the evidence is.

I was talking about the battle, sorry you could not figure that out.