The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > General Star Trek Discussions > Trek Tech > Ships, Devices, etc. > Why are there no tanks?!
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 08-20-2008, 11:58 AM
Commodore's Avatar
Commodore Commodore is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Starbase 24
Posts: 2,511
Default

If this was Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica, I would agree. But in any event, you're entitled to your opinion and that's fine.

I just think that--in regards to Star Trek--tanks are just so 20th-Century, and really wouldn't be very commonplace by the 24th-Century. The ARGO buggy served its purpose as a high-speed ground transport on a planet where transporters were useless, but they could have easily have just used the ARGO shuttle (which was faster, could cover more ground, was more armored, and may had a stronger weapon than the buggy--but Picard was undergoing some kind of mid-life crisis or whatever, I guess).

It's not that I think that armored ground vehicles period are obsolete, but by the 24th-Century, I think the role of tanks will be extremely limited and won't be considered standard equipment in the regular Starfleet inventory. If anything, I believe they would be more commonly found with Starfleet Marines/MACOs/whatever, but you wouldn't see them sitting in Enterprise's shuttlebay...
__________________
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
--En Vogue
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 08-20-2008, 02:13 PM
Botany Bay's Avatar
Botany Bay Botany Bay is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,112
Default

Lets see what we mean with tanks: an armored ground vehicle with a gun.

Again, the space shuttles we saw in Trek make such a thing obsolete. You remember this very small shuttle from TNG. It was smaller then a car but still was able to warp space in such a manner it could travel faster then the speed of light. Can you imagine how much power the "batteries" of that thing offer?

If you go down a street with a platoon all you need is such a craft, hovering beside you, shields powered up. It doesnt need a gun mounted to it, because the handphasers of your little platoon have enough firepower to flatten the whole city.

Sure you need "footsoldiers". May be a vehicle close by, transporting your luggage and offering some visual cover in case you receive enemy fire. Also dont forgett to pack the vehicle with ice cream. Hightens your comrades morale
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 08-20-2008, 04:47 PM
Akula2ssn's Avatar
Akula2ssn Akula2ssn is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,454
Default

I'm not saying such a vehicle would be common place. Nor am I saying that such a vehicle would be standard in a starship's inventory. As I've already said, ground force operations in Star Trek aren't common place to begin with, and Star Fleet vessels don't normally carry heavy weaponry for such operations nor do they normally carry ground forces outside of the ship's existing security force. The purpose of such a vehicle is for wartime operations, not traditional away missions. As you've pointed out, transporters are not always going to be available. Such circumstances can arise for any number of reasons. In all likelihood transporter countermeasures would be standard to ground force operations. I read that in the DS9 episode, "Nor the Battle of the Strong" that the Klingons used transporter scramblers in ground battles to inhibit effective deployments of ground troops by the enemy. There's also the transport inhibitor, the Romulan Remat detonator, and the Tamarian particle scattering field. And in the case of large operations, the shuttles are going to have to make several trips in order to fully deploy large ground forces. And during the operation, the shuttles are going to be needed to ferry other supplies to the ground forces, help redeploy ground forces, and ferry wounded back to the ship. The purpose of such a vehicle is to provide heavy weapons and defensive support for ground troops without having to tie up the shuttle that is of greater strategic and tactical use in the air and in orbit. It doesn't even have to be a large vehicle. It can be small enough to carry in a large shuttle. Basically something the size of the old Hotchkiss H35 and H-39 tanks; Renault R-35 and FT-35; the Panzer I and Panzer II; Fiat L3; Type 94 Te-Ke and Type 89 Chi-Ro; etc. A shuttle the size of a Type 7 shuttle can easily carry one vehicle and still have room for a small unit of troops or perhaps a second vehicle.
__________________

"Don't confuse facts with reality."
-Robert D. Ballard

Last edited by Akula2ssn : 08-20-2008 at 08:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 08-20-2008, 08:13 PM
Commodore's Avatar
Commodore Commodore is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Starbase 24
Posts: 2,511
Default

Sorry, but I still think tanks would be largely useless in Trek. It's just a relic from a type of warfare that won't be commonplace by the 24th-Century especially with better weapons and vehicles at Starfleet's disposal.
__________________
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
--En Vogue
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 08-20-2008, 08:28 PM
Akula2ssn's Avatar
Akula2ssn Akula2ssn is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,454
Default

Fair enough. I'm just more interested in the technology for how it can be used and not for the sake of the technology. Weapons and vehicles are nothing more than tools. How old or new the technology is only important to a certain extent. Planes were supposed to make armies and navies a thing of the past, missiles were supposed to make guns a thing of the past. Etc. Just because the occasion to use a capability doesn't happen often doesn't mean you throw it away.

While firearms have disappeared from Star Trek, guns have not. The torpedo launcher is a form of gun, just it doesn't use gas expansion from burning chemical propellants to accelerate the projectile (in this case a torpedo) down the tube, or it doesn't solely rely on gas pressure.
__________________

"Don't confuse facts with reality."
-Robert D. Ballard

Last edited by Akula2ssn : 08-20-2008 at 10:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 08-20-2008, 11:41 PM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,458
Default

I remember when FASA put out their first sourcebook for the Next Generation additions to their Star Trek RPG, (not first season, but simply first sourcebook) there was a ground-effect manned phaser cannon shown. IIRC, it actually moved on anti-gravs, but it was just a cannon with a seat on it...not an actual tank.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 08-21-2008, 12:46 AM
Akula2ssn's Avatar
Akula2ssn Akula2ssn is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,454
Default

Actually when you think about it the fact that there is an absence of tanks in Star Trek, and predominantly infantry work, has basically forced them to revert to late 19th century/early 20th century tactics in some battles like the siege of AR-558. Basically during that campaign, they had to employ something similar to trench warfare. In many ways it was the Guadalcanal of the Dominion War. Both sides had their ground forces deployed, and neither ground force could rely on their respective fleets for support because both fleets were still fighting for control of the surrounding space; much like the Japanese, United States, and Australian navies fought for control waters surrounding Guadalcanal. Trench warfare came about during the American Civil War when weapons technology had advanced, but no advances in mobility had taken place. As a result combat lines remained purely defensive and static. Trench warfare is generally a sign of attrition warfare and AR-558 was very much a campaign of attrition. Tanks were developed specifically to counter trench warfare. However during WWI, the tank was technologically unreliable and did not see wide spread use. If the Dominion ground forces had something with the capabilities of the tank, they probably could have broken through the Star Fleet defensive lines with a bit more ease. At the same time I'm not at all surprised that the Jem'Hadar lacked such a platform, given their Klingon-like proclivity for close quarters melee combat.
__________________

"Don't confuse facts with reality."
-Robert D. Ballard

Last edited by Akula2ssn : 08-21-2008 at 01:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 04-19-2009, 10:15 PM
Buckman's Avatar
Buckman Buckman is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 182
Default

theres is a weapon called the TR-116 rifle http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/TR-116_rifle
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:33 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.