Starfleets loss to Nero

Discussion of the new run of Star Trek XI+ movies and any spinoffs
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Starfleets loss to Nero

Post by Graham Kennedy »

In Court Martial, these ships are listed as being at Starbase 12.

Image

Are we to believe that with only twelve plus some ships in the fleet, ten of them happened to be at this one starbase at the same time?
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Starfleets loss to Nero

Post by Captain Seafort »

The argument has been that the TOS fleet comprised twelve (or at least very low double-digit) Connies, not that there were only a dozen ships total. If the CO of a Nimitz bragged that "there's only a dozen like her in the fleet", no-one would object to that statement on the grounds that the US Navy has a lot more than a dozen Ticos, Arleigh Burkes, subs, etc.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Starfleets loss to Nero

Post by Graham Kennedy »

Actually Teaos has argued that it's twelve "capital ships + an undisclosed number of support vessels". With the twelve being the Connies, and "zero evidence of any other type of capital ships or many other ships in general".

Now we all agree on there being twelve Connies. But I'd be perfectly fine believing that there also "capital ships" of older design, like the Starfleet Museum's Siegfried class or Pyotr-Velikiy class.

And also smaller ships like the Franz Joseph Saladin, Ptolemy, and Hermes classes. (Although if I had my way the Saladin and Ptolemy would be rolled into one design. They're practically identical as it is.)

All in all I'd guess at a TOS Starfleet of at least 50 ships, more likely 100+.

One thing I really wish they had done in the remastered version was thrown an occasional destroyer or Frigate design into the background. Oh well.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Starfleets loss to Nero

Post by Mikey »

That's the idea I tend toward. When HMS Sovereign of the Seas was launched, it would have been perfectly accurate to say that there was nothing like her afloat - but obviously that didn't mean that the RN had no ships of the line.

BTW, "Pyotr-Velikiy" is Ukrainian (and possibly Russian, I'm not positive) for "Big Peter."
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Starfleets loss to Nero

Post by Graham Kennedy »

Apparently it's the name of a Russian Kirov class ship.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Starfleets loss to Nero

Post by Captain Seafort »

Mikey wrote:BTW, "Pyotr-Velikiy" is Ukrainian (and possibly Russian, I'm not positive) for "Big Peter."
That's the literal translation - the more accurate one, in context, is of course "Peter the Great".
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15368
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Re: Starfleets loss to Nero

Post by Teaos »

I have no issue with a bunch of frigates running around. But considering the speeds we see in TOS and events like the Balance of Terror, Whale Probe and any Klingon encounter, if Starfleet had more big ships they would come in as back up. It would be absurd to assume otherwise.
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Starfleets loss to Nero

Post by Mikey »

Captain Seafort wrote:
Mikey wrote:BTW, "Pyotr-Velikiy" is Ukrainian (and possibly Russian, I'm not positive) for "Big Peter."
That's the literal translation - the more accurate one, in context, is of course "Peter the Great".
Huh. Don't know why I didn't think of that, excepting maybe that I'm more familiar with the Ukrainian usage, in which the adjective is generally used to refer specifically to physical size.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Starfleets loss to Nero

Post by McAvoy »

Teaos wrote:I have no issue with a bunch of frigates running around. But considering the speeds we see in TOS and events like the Balance of Terror, Whale Probe and any Klingon encounter, if Starfleet had more big ships they would come in as back up. It would be absurd to assume otherwise.
Power of plot I guess.

Balance of Terror shows that the border of Romulan space is lightly patrolled.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
IanKennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 6155
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: Starfleets loss to Nero

Post by IanKennedy »

Mikey wrote:
Teaos wrote:Yeah thats the one. So that kind of leads credence to the idea that Starfleet didnt have a huge fleet.
No, quite the opposite. To me, at least, the idea of gathering a full third of your only capital ships borders on ludicrous - lending credence, rather, to the idea that four Connies represented rather less than one-third of the total number of capital ships.

And I agree that the comment regarding the Laurentian system seems to mean that at least 51% of the fleet was NOT at Vulcan, and to judge the comment by its colloquiality far more than that.
I would say more than that. The correct quote as not the bulk of our fleet. I found it and it reads as "our primary fleet", which means that what we see at earth was a secondary fleet, or even a training fleet.
email, ergo spam
User avatar
IanKennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 6155
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: Starfleets loss to Nero

Post by IanKennedy »

It's worth pointing out that there are at about 50 different ship classes listed out our Federation ships list. Now, OK, some of those are from different era's.
email, ergo spam
Post Reply