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
  #1  
Old 08-13-2008, 03:29 PM
admiralroot's Avatar
admiralroot admiralroot is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Washington County, Utah
Posts: 557
Default Why are there no tanks?!

Title says it all. I know that we already have starships with tremendous firepower, but they can't hit everything, sometimes, direct fire support is needed. Its like today, air forces can rain so much death and destruction, but ultimatly, tanks are needed because some enemy forces were hiding and only a tank can take them out. besides, when you think about it, who doesn't want to see a 24th century tank. The federation could've used some MBT's (main battle tanks) during the seige of AR-558.
PS-if you can't already tell, I love military stuff, and tanks especially have a special place in my heart
__________________
To Boldly destroy what no man has destroyed before.
War is coming home- world in conflict

Last edited by admiralroot : 08-13-2008 at 03:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-13-2008, 03:40 PM
tomcatjosh's Avatar
tomcatjosh tomcatjosh is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,800
Default

Try Playing Mechassault
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-13-2008, 03:42 PM
admiralroot's Avatar
admiralroot admiralroot is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Washington County, Utah
Posts: 557
Default

I have, but that still doesn't answer my question about tanks, besides, in mechassault, they still use tanks
__________________
To Boldly destroy what no man has destroyed before.
War is coming home- world in conflict
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-13-2008, 04:18 PM
Botany Bay's Avatar
Botany Bay Botany Bay is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,112
Default

Well, I would suppose that the following abilities of a space ship as seen in Trek make a tank completely useless.

1. A ship finds life signs no matter where. Even deep down in caves we saw ships sensors correctly locating individuals.

2. How correct a ships sensors are is impressively presented by the transporters. If I can locate the exact position of each and every little quark in your body to beam you up, then its a piece of cake to know what guns you have, what equipment in general. With such a transporter and the sensory it needs I should be able to run a complete medical check of you from orbit.

3. We saw the Enterprise use ships phasers for vaporizing a planets surface and by this cutting deep into it.

Now count all that together and you easily see what tanks, bunkers, trenches, airbases, artillerie positions and fox holes get you

Seriously, as soon as there is a space ship in orbit you lost the war. Game over.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-13-2008, 04:24 PM
tomcatjosh's Avatar
tomcatjosh tomcatjosh is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,800
Default

Very True
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-13-2008, 06:54 PM
admiralroot's Avatar
admiralroot admiralroot is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Washington County, Utah
Posts: 557
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Botany Bay View Post
Well, I would suppose that the following abilities of a space ship as seen in Trek make a tank completely useless.

1. A ship finds life signs no matter where. Even deep down in caves we saw ships sensors correctly locating individuals.

2. How correct a ships sensors are is impressively presented by the transporters. If I can locate the exact position of each and every little quark in your body to beam you up, then its a piece of cake to know what guns you have, what equipment in general. With such a transporter and the sensory it needs I should be able to run a complete medical check of you from orbit.

3. We saw the Enterprise use ships phasers for vaporizing a planets surface and by this cutting deep into it.

Now count all that together and you easily see what tanks, bunkers, trenches, airbases, artillerie positions and fox holes get you

Seriously, as soon as there is a space ship in orbit you lost the war. Game over.
1. That is true, but what if the enemy is using a cloaking field and/or hiding in a spot that is naturally sensor "proof", you need some portable fire power.
2. Isn't this basically what you said on number 1
3. Starships can do this, but what if vaporising a planet clean isn't an option. I mean, what if there are civilians and/or friendlys near by, you wouldn't want to risk vaporising them.Also, What if the enemy has a planetary or regional shield generator, it would take time to break through the shields.
All in all, tanks are still important. for example, when tanks first appeared in WWI, they were more of a terror weapon than a weapon of war. Personally, while I'd like the firepower of a starship, I'd like something more memecing, more in your face, something that screams death. Something that says "Peace through Superior Firepower"
Case Closed
__________________
To Boldly destroy what no man has destroyed before.
War is coming home- world in conflict
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-13-2008, 07:03 PM
Collecian's Avatar
Collecian Collecian is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 41
Default

I always thought they could use guns on the Borg, it seems the Borg personal shields are designed to adapt to plasma weapons and not to projectile weapons. Like when Picard on FC sprayed the two borg in the Holodeck. My thought is why don't they replicate guns/projectile weapons instead of those like phasers/particle weapons.?
__________________
Well if he was here right now Bocephus,
Would he think that we were right?
Do you think he might?
Don't you know he would Watasha,
Be right here by our side.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-13-2008, 07:25 PM
KJTrek's Avatar
KJTrek KJTrek is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 2,608
Default

ARGO on steroids? Still one of the worst decisions for the movies... seriously, a frickin' Jeep? it should've at least been anti - grav. I think perhaps a heavily armed shuttlecraft would fit the bill of what you want... something that can move quicker than land units, but still has the precision of being close to ground, and some serious bang.
__________________
Good and bad men are each less so than they seem.
- Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-13-2008, 07:27 PM
tomcatjosh's Avatar
tomcatjosh tomcatjosh is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,800
Default

It Was Meant To Be Humorous I Believe.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-13-2008, 07:28 PM
KJTrek's Avatar
KJTrek KJTrek is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 2,608
Default

not really. they treated it quite seriously. the only sad thing was that it was on the same level as the crappy natives on the planet. they should have just used the shuttle and beamed up the pieced of B4
__________________
Good and bad men are each less so than they seem.
- Samuel Taylor Coleridge

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 05:08 AM.


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.