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
  #11  
Old 08-13-2008, 07:30 PM
tomcatjosh's Avatar
tomcatjosh tomcatjosh is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,803
Default

Vezy True... Who Cares About Picard. GHe's Grandpa Now LOL
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-13-2008, 07:34 PM
KJTrek's Avatar
KJTrek KJTrek is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 2,608
Default

no, nothing against picard. he's not that bad. I still want another TNG movie.
__________________
Good and bad men are each less so than they seem.
- Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-13-2008, 07:39 PM
tomcatjosh's Avatar
tomcatjosh tomcatjosh is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,803
Default

Well, If Berman Gets the Job Back Bye Bye Trek
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-13-2008, 07:40 PM
KJTrek's Avatar
KJTrek KJTrek is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 2,608
Default

well, I think Star Trek needed someone new...
__________________
Good and bad men are each less so than they seem.
- Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-13-2008, 07:41 PM
tomcatjosh's Avatar
tomcatjosh tomcatjosh is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,803
Default

Yeah. Berman Got Wacky
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-13-2008, 07:44 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 wacky, he just milked Star Trek as we knew it dry. Things were getting old at the end, and that's why the next movie is going to be completely new. we need new blood.
__________________
Good and bad men are each less so than they seem.
- Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-13-2008, 07:46 PM
tomcatjosh's Avatar
tomcatjosh tomcatjosh is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,803
Default

True. plus JJ Is Fresh, Has expierience, And Has an Open Mind A knows what Should Stay And What should Go.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-13-2008, 08:11 PM
KJTrek's Avatar
KJTrek KJTrek is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 2,608
Default

well, duh!
__________________
Good and bad men are each less so than they seem.
- Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-14-2008, 04:56 AM
Botany Bay's Avatar
Botany Bay Botany Bay is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by admiralroot View Post
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
Uhm, a shuttlecraft has shields strong enoughs to withstand some shots of a space ship. It can hover and has sensor equipment that seems competable with space ships. So, if you want to bring a space ships firepower closer to your enemy (for what reasons ever) wouldnt a shuttle be the weapon of choice.

A tank is a ground vehicle and as such terribly limited.

And then you make a little fault in your thinking. While tactically there could be situations where a tank like vehicle could be of use, strategically such a situation is very unlikely to happen.

As I said, as soon as there is a space ship in orbit your armies cant hide, your headquarters are exposed and you are completely defenseless. You can do some mess on the ground, but that would be nothing more then some little terror attacks like killing some civillians or taking hostages. Na, even taking hostages is somewhat useless in an age of superior sensors and transporters.

The strategic imballance with party A having a space ship and party B having none would be so overwhelming huge, no way a ground force could operate longer then a few days.

Terrorism though is another topic (the Maquis). But again, shuttles are fancy.

The one with the controll over the infrastructure wins the war. The space ship would have complete controll from orbit.

Last edited by Botany Bay : 08-14-2008 at 05:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-14-2008, 05:00 AM
Zardoz's Avatar
Zardoz Zardoz is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere In The Future
Posts: 31,432
Default

So it was a "Tankless" thing to do?
__________________
"High Priestesses Of Zardoz" By Eliza's Starbase Of Avatars Copyright 2009."
"Zardoz Speaks To You, His Choosen Trek Fans."
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 01:04 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.