www.ditl.org

Seaforts comment on Kirks quick promotion in the other thread made me think just how hard up Starfleet was for Command Staff after Neros wiped out that fleet.

Naturally we have no way to know a definitive answer, but due to the rapid promotion of several people you might think Starfleet lost a huge portion of their fleet.

But if that is the case it is odd the Romulans or Gorn didn't try to start some fisticuffs with them. It seems the Klingons may have been just as screwed by Nero as Starfleet was.

As I recall, Starfleet only lost seven ships at Vulcan. We don't now how big the fleet is, but I find it hard to believe seven ships made much of a dent in ships or personnel.

Well in TOS they supposed only had 12 capital ships + an undisclosed number of support vessels. So that would be about 60%.

Yes, but in this universe they said that the bulk of the fleet was busy in another place so they were going to have to go rescue Vulcan. Bulk of the fleet would mean at least 50%, I would have thought more. Equally they can't be that badly off if they let the Enterprise off on a random 5 year mission to "where no manone has gone before".

Teaos wrote:Well in TOS they supposed only had 12 capital ships + an undisclosed number of support vessels. So that would be about 60%.

TOS hadn't just lost a ship to Nero in the first place. Seems to have made a difference to the style and number of ships available.

Teaos wrote:Well in TOS they supposed only had 12 capital ships + an undisclosed number of support vessels. So that would be about 60%.

IIRC (and that admittedly is a big "if") the comment to that effect in TOS could have easily meant 12 Constitution-class ships, rather than 12 capital ships all told.

Yeah its always been an iffy number, logic would dictate more ships, but we have zero evidence of any other type of capital ships or many other ships in general.

That episode with 4-5 ships together was the biggest fleet we ever saw and seemed like a big deal.

Do you mean the one with the M-5 computer? Bear in mind that Starfleet gathered 4 of the supposed 12 - that's 33% - for a training exercise.

Yeah thats the one. So that kind of leads credence to the idea that Starfleet didnt have a huge fleet.

Teaos wrote:Well in TOS they supposed only had 12 capital ships + an undisclosed number of support vessels. So that would be about 60%.

They had twelve Constitution class ships. Nobody said anything about other classes. We never see any, but that proves nothing.

It doesnt prove nothing, it proves that we don't see any others despite the fact the Enterprise was in a few situations where you would reasonably expect to see other ships.

So yeah, it doesnt prove they dont exist, but it does heavily favor that interpretation.

Teaos wrote:It doesnt prove nothing, it proves that we don't see any others despite the fact the Enterprise was in a few situations where you would reasonably expect to see other ships.

Such as?

About the only time I can think of when you might expect to see other ships is when they're at a Starbase. And even then, it seems perfectly reasonable for me that other ships would be either not present, or distant enough to be out of any given shot. Space is pretty damn big.

But they where "Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.", not a likely place to come across other parts of the fleet. If they did they were doing something wrong.

In the Abrams universe, which is what this discussion is about, we have direct discussion about "the primary fleet engaged in the Laurentian system" so they had to go and help Vulcan. So there's definitely more ships than we saw destroyed.

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.

Mikey wrote: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.

If it was a routine deployment, sure, but it wasn't - it was for a significant naval exercise. The US has done the same thing with a similar or greater proportion of its carrier fleet on multiple occasions.