Ork WAAUUUUUGHH vs. Trek Earth redux

[Thanatos]

Given the data I pointed out and a free weekend, I could program an automatically aiming mortar that selects Ork targets in real time.

That means absolutely dick. What should be and what actually exists are two different things. You need to learn that supposition and outright pulling stuff out of your arse is not evidence, no matter how much you wish it to be.

Of course, since you can never be held accountable here, you will never learn.

[Jedi Master Spock]

That means absolutely dick. What should be and what actually exists are two different things. You need to learn that supposition and outright pulling stuff out of your arse is not evidence, no matter how much you wish it to be.

Of course, since you can never be held accountable here, you will never learn.

Thanatos, we have all of one simple rule here, and that's to be civil. I'm quite serious about it.

Now, I'll explain the logic of the mortar matter, since you may not have understood precisely the exchange.

I am not interested in theological debate, but scientific analysis. If something is perfectly reasonable, we have every reason to consider it probable unless we find contrary evidence. For example, we assume that characters in Star Trek actually use toilet facilities, in spite of a lack of supporting evidence, because it seems perfectly reasonable.

We know that photon grenades have been stockpiled (along with personal force fields and phaser rifles).

We know it is incredibly easy to construct mortars if, for some reason, the Federation has forgotten how to make the launchers seen in TOS; we know that it's not too difficult to operate a mortar, and given the portable sensor technology of Star Trek, quite simple to make an automatically aiming mortar that would compensate for lack of specific training.

Accordingly, it's quite probable that the Federation can provide artillery for its troops at most a week into the battle for Earth, and if artillery is critical, unreasonable to assume it won't be provided.

Can we conclude that it necessarily will be provided? No. We can, however, conclude it's quite plausible based on the limited evidence available to us.

Can we conclude that Starfleet will completely lack artillery - as Opecoiler was suggesting - or be unable to use it due to Starfleet personnel being untrained? No. We could assume it, but it's not particularly plausible because of the reasons I've outlined.

This is actually a very typical situation when we're comparing two different fictional things - there's a great deal which is either underdetermined or overdetermined, and we have to step back to consider which of our options is most plausible.

[Thanatos]

If something is perfectly reasonable, we have every reason to consider it probable unless we find contrary evidence.

What you are describing is negative proof, which goes against basic reason and the scientific method.

in spite of a lack of supporting evidence

There is an abundance of evidence to support the existence of waste disposal systems in addition to a large number of basic systems.

This is actually a very typical situation when we're comparing two different fictional things - there's a great deal which is either underdetermined or overdetermined, and we have to step back to consider which of our options is most plausible.

You still need evidence if you put forth the claim. I will give you an example: Governors on the Rhino Chassis.

If I used your method, I could simply say that it is plausible that they are heavily governed on paper to reduce track wear, thus explaining the difference between their speed when seen in action and their speed in supplements such as Imperial Armour. However, until I provide evidence that is simply unfounded conjecture and can safely be ignored since there is no proof of it to back up my assertions.

When I provide enough proof, then it becomes a plausible and reasonable explanation for the difference. The Rhino chassis utilizes four powerplants with two paired on each track. A single powerplant on each side is more than enough to power the entire vehicle including weapons with zero loss of mobility. Furthermore, adding 60% more weight reduces the stated maximum speed by only a single KPH. This plus a whole suite of additional evidence I have, is plenty of proof for there being a large amount of unused power.

Your claims for the mortar and artillery are simply unfounded conjecture along the lines of the Imperium having CWS mounted heavy bolters on every tank we don't see. Should they have them? Yes without a doubt. Do they actually have them? No, not according to any canon we have.

[Jedi Master Spock]

What you are describing is negative proof, which goes against basic reason and the scientific method.

If there is no proof against, there remains the possibility - not the necessity, mind you, that would be a fallacious negative proof, but the possibility.

In the absence of any definitive evidence for or against a conjecture, we should weigh the case for and the case against with even hands - for the negative of that conjecture is also itself a conjecture.

You might be minded to dismiss that as absent philosophizing, but it's quite true. To every claim there is a counter claim, and both are usually being pushed in a contested debate.

The first conjecture offered in this thread on the topic of artillery was actually the claim that Starfleet will not have any effective artillery to answer the Orks' artillery; the evidence offered for that was that we don't see the Federation support its infantry with effective artillery in the TNG era.

In other words, Opecoiler cited a lack of disproof for his claim, precisely what you complain of me doing.

There is an abundance of evidence to support the existence of waste disposal systems in addition to a large number of basic systems.

The only evidence we have is implicit. Humans produce waste, ergo they must have toilets or something serving the same purpose somewhere.

You still need evidence if you put forth the claim. I will give you an example: Governors on the Rhino Chassis.

If I used your method, I could simply say that it is plausible that they are heavily governed on paper to reduce track wear, thus explaining the difference between their speed when seen in action and their speed in supplements such as Imperial Armour. However, until I provide evidence that is simply unfounded conjecture and can safely be ignored since there is no proof of it to back up my assertions.

Actually, it shouldn't be ignored at that point. We should consider the possibility, and keep an eye out for possible tests. Every good theory starts off as an untested conjecture.

When I provide enough proof, then it becomes a plausible and reasonable explanation for the difference. The Rhino chassis utilizes four powerplants with two paired on each track. A single powerplant on each side is more than enough to power the entire vehicle including weapons with zero loss of mobility. Furthermore, adding 60% more weight reduces the stated maximum speed by only a single KPH. This plus a whole suite of additional evidence I have, is plenty of proof for there being a large amount of unused power.

Your claims for the mortar and artillery are simply unfounded conjecture along the lines of the Imperium having CWS mounted heavy bolters on every tank we don't see. Should they have them? Yes without a doubt. Do they actually have them? No, not according to any canon we have.

Actually, again, see "Arena." We've seen a small grenade launcher that can probably launch things a mile. This is artillery, albeit short ranged.

We also have Klingon artillery from far away in "Nor the Battle to the Strong." Unlike the photon grenades, these don't appear to have high yields, but it's an artillery system used by one of the Federation's closest allies and enemies.

We do have evidence that Starfleet knows about the concept of artillery and how to develop and deploy it; after all, Starfleet canonically develops out of our future, and history has not been lost.

What we don't have is evidence that launchers or mortars are actually widely deployed.

On the whole, it's more plausible that they either have, or will soon have, artillery, than they will lack artillery throughout. So, I conclude the Orks shouldn't be granted any advantage of note over Starfleet by definitely, instead of probably, having artillery.

They still have other advantages, of course, such as the ability to heal pretty much any wound short of the disintegration offered by a high-setting phaser, and right now it's looking pretty likely that my initial guess of 5 million - for which I offered only a narrow margin of ultimate victory for Earth - was too low.

[Thanatos]

In other words, Opecoiler cited a lack of disproof for his claim, precisely what you complain of me doing.

No, stating something does not exist unless there is proof for it is not even remotely close to assuming something to be correct unless it is contradicted. It doesn't matter though, since I am not in any way addressing Opecoiler, so you can quit that divide and rule attempt.

All your purple prose and padding doesn't change the fact that the bulk of your "points" are made up of pure conjecture, assumptions and just making things up. Even when you have the tiniest morsel, you just make up a huge variety of additional properties. The only mortars ever shown have zero autoaiming functionality at all. They can't even get a pinpoint range in Arena.

You quite simply, have zero proof for what you have made up. You can attempt to lie to yourself all you want by saying its "probable" and "reasonable" but the basic truth remains: You have made shit up.

[Who is like God arbour]

Thanatos,

have you ever heard, that conclusions and derivations in consideration of probabilities and statistics are a scientifical method. Real life is not an experiment, that one can do unter controlled conditions in a laboratory. In real life situations, there are so many outside influences, that it is near impossible to ascertain, which single outside influence has caused or will cause which effect. One is depend on conclusions and derivations in consideration of probabilities and statistics.

• • • As Jedi Master Spock has said, we know the history of Starfleet in the 24th century. It's our own history, present and fictional future. That's why we also know, that the militaries on Earth in the past of Star Trek has had artillery. That's our own history and present.
      
      We know that Starfleet has developed from these militaries. That's why we know at least, that early Starfleet personal has known the concept of artillery.
      
      Furthermore, we have no convincing indication, that Starfleet has lost that concept. The fact, that we have not seen them using artillery is indeed an indication, but it is very weak and not convincing because there were - if at all - very few opportunities shown, in which they could have used artillery.
      
      The by far much stronger argument would be, that they have no use for traditionally artillery anymore because they can do the same with their ship weapons. But although such an argument would be stronger than the fact, that we have not seen them using artillery, it still would not be convincing because ground forces have to be independent from support of starships to a certain degree because it‘s not always possible, that they can get support from a starship.
      
      But such a development would explain, why artillery is not seen, even if there would have been an use for it. The fact, that there would be only seldom an use for artillery, because usually a starship can do, what the artillery would do, explains, why their ground forces are not equipped with artillery by default. It would be inefficient and uneconomic to equipp each unit with artillery, although the probability that they would ever use it, is very slim.
      
      And furthermore, such a development would only indicate, that they don’t use artillery anymore, but not that they have forgotten that concept. Insofar, we have no support for the assumption, that Starfleet don’t know the concept of artillery and we have therefore to assume, that they still know it.
      
      Furthermore, even if we would assume that Starfleet is indeed not using artillery anymore and that it doesn’t train its staff in this military field, so that we could assume, that Starfleet as an institution doesn’t know the concept of artillery officially, we still know nevertheless, that the concept of artillery is known from history and that some Starfleet officers have studied history.
      
      Even if we would assume, that Starfleet is indeed not using artillery anymore – although the concept of artillery is known - we have to conclude, that they would be able to build with their historical records and understanding at least artillery equipment from the 21th century the same way, historians from today are able to emulate trebuchets.
      
      But we can go further and can assume, that they would be able to enhance such – for them historical - artillery equipment with their advanced technology.

All that is coming from only a few known facts: that real militaries fom today are using artillery and that Starfleet is the (fictional) future of these militaries.

If you don't agree, you have to show, why we have to assume, that Starfleet - as successor of the real militaries fom today - should have forgotten the concept of artillery or should not be able to emulate at least artillery equipment from the 21th century or why it should not be able to enhance such with their advanced technology.

Otherwise, we have necessarily to assume, that Starfleet would be able to leverage artillery.

[Gniops]

Except that size ~ the cube of dimension. If the four BattleKroozers carry 250,000 troops each, and are 5 km long, and the escorts are 1.6 km, we'd expect each escort to carry ~8,000 troops, for 1.6 million troops in escorts - i.e., barely more than in the four BattleKroozers.

I see basic maths has escaped your grasp with this post.

2000 escorts multiplied by 8000 doesn't equal 1.6 million, thats 1600000.

2000*8000 equals 16 million, thats 16 with 6 zeros after it.

Even with only a thousand orks on each escort, the orks would have 2 million troops.

How many do you think are onboard a single spacehulk that could be 30 times as large ?

It's quite possible that our base assumption is wrong, of course, in which case all estimates are out the window, but it's a reasonable assumption.

"our" assumption ?

"reasonable" ?

Whats 2000 times 8000 ?

Can you develop the order of battle a little better?

I'm beginning to get the impression you aren't reading my posts very well.

I'm genuinely curious as to what difference to expect between a high-ex Slugga and a black powder Slugga.

uh...thats nice ?

The episode is reasonably clear and the assumption of scalable power underlying it perfectly reasonable.

Oh, thats fine then, I guess I'll just take your word for it....

Oh wait, you can't do basic math.

It's not reasonable to assume it applies to Orks.

Why not ? Is this bloke physically stronger than Orks, does he have some sort of energy weapon, telekinetic powers, what ?

Nothing more specific than what I mentioned before.

Yeah, given that you basically made those numbers up, they weren't of much use.

As I recall you don't even know what the population of Earth is, so you just went with ten billion and assumed that the Feds could arm them all with phasers.

Assuming that the asteroid can collapse inward on itself faster than a couple cm/s gives you a Pegasus asteroid large enough to justify gigaton yields.

You need to explain how the fuck this is supposed to mean anything to me.

Actually, we're talking about a device much more sophisticated than a basic drive system.

A tricorder is more sophisticated than a FTL drive ?

Right. The question of acquiring improved sensors may not even come up.

Unless the orks want to build a rapid fire photon grenade launcher program eh ?

You're giving me the runaround. Discussion of phasers can be found around here very easily; discussion of Orkish gun wagons cannot.

I've found examples of Phaser firepower very easily, Worf shooting some rocks at setting 16, from the horrible lying bastards at SD.net.

This doesn't make me think of Battleship yields in any shape or fashion Spock.

A manually operated phaser rifle isn't even the only option on the table, and because the Feddies may have close-air superiority in any case.

Ah right, now there is a dedicated automatic phaser weapon installation involved!

Reverse gear engaged huh ?

Actually, we can expect infantry operated anti-aircraft weaponry.

Oops, looks like you were just going back to first.

Where do these man portable anti-aircraft guns come from ?

What we don't expect is that such weaponry is much more powerful than a gigajoule range phaser blast. Got it? Now, are you going to actually cough up anything resembling specifications, or should we just assume that any old shuttlepod is going to nail an Ork aircraft, and that accordingly there won't be any operating close to the surface in most battles?

Let me get this straight, you've handwaved into existence manpack anti-aircraft guns to go along with the planetary shield (whose existence is "proven" by the name of an episode, no actual specifics as to its capabilities or whether or not earth has one, or whether or not it was Earth that even built it).

You've also decided, and flat out refused to prove your calculations/sources for anything ranging from weapons output to shield strength, or even the number of armed shuttles.

You've demonstrated dishonesty (ten billion combatants) and an inability to perform basic mathematical calculations (2000*8000 equals 1.6 million??!)

Now you absolutely need to know the full technical readout of an orkish bomber to conclude whether or not some blokes with nonexistent anti-aircraft phasers/whatevers can shoot them down, and if I don't give them to you, including might I add a "heat profile" you are going to assume that aerial superiority of shuttles means no aircover for the orks, based on the nonexistent planetary shield which you refuse to justify in debate, instead more or less implying that I should buy the episode and watch it, then follow your "Logic" and come to the same conclusion, then we've also got non-existent anti-aircraft hand phasers/guns.

Oh, and you can't prove how many armed shuttlepods there are, given that the Orks numerically outnumber the feds in every other aspect, I'm going to "assume" that despite shuttles potentially being able to shoot down lots and lots of Ork fighters, soopa bombers etc, the fact that there are tens of thousands will mean they will achieve their goal of destroying any shield generator quite handily.

No, I'm not. I'm genuinely curious about whether or not most of the Ork fleet would be hanging around in Earth orbit for months waiting to get hammered.

What is this shit ?

They'd bugger off if they'd won, leaving native orks and any stragglers behind they'd hang around if it was a fight that worth a damn.

In other words, you can stop trying to imply that the orks are simply going to dump their troops on earth then piss off leaving them without orbital cover.

Except that I now have the BFG rulebook that he quoted, and it very definitely says Roks can't enter the Warp.

Oh gosh, I must have been lying!

BZZZZT

Go read what I posted, specifically the portion about Ork roks being in the tail of the attacking fleet, and the orkish traktor beam tech.

Armageddon is also a major Imperial system for the region, the argument that they simply didn't notice a hundred roks crewed by aggressive aliens with their unsubtle power systems and weaponry being constructed is ludicrous, particularly in the face of Thrakas fleet consisting of lots of technically advanced high end examples of Orkish technology.

And what size does that give?

Its four posts down.....

It's not a question of explicit numbers.

To tell you the truth, this isn't a shock to me.

It's not a question of explicit numbers. We have thousands of ships projected lost in victorious action against the Dominion. We have 30,000 Dominion ships, which outnumber the Klingon's fleet 15:1 (echoing the rough figures given in the Klingon civil war, in which at least 8 squadrons on the side of the Moghs and 7 squadrons on the side of the Duras means that most of the fleet is still uncommitted, i.e., the fleet has >30 squadrons, with each squadron being enough to control multiple sectors.)

We have, fairly consistently, Dominion forces outnumbering F-K-R forces by close to 2:1 in key battles.

We also have the NCCs, too. All of it adds up fairly well to indicate that the order of magnitude of the Federation fleet is e4.

You posted that the Feddy combat fleet would be 20-30k, these numbers are on the face of it, contradicted by what you've said here.

Actually, the "throwing eggs at a brick wall" quote is almost certainly hyperbolic.

Gosh, you think?

must be utterly useless then

The "roasting continents" bit is what's used to quantify the Strike cruiser's bombardment cannons, is it not?

No.

Because most of it is right here, and also because I tend to assume (perhaps mistakenly) that people here already have some familiarity with Star Trek. The thread about Trek reactors is a particularly good read.

"some familiarity" doesn't mean, by any sane approach, that you can just reel off your conclusions and episode titles and expect to be taken seriously.

Skimming through what you've linked to indicates evidence for single digit gigaton strikes on maxium firepower for short periods.

Your torpedo number of 1 gigaton is extremely questionable given that it relies on some strange analysis of dust clouds rather than the presence or lack of a sustained fireball and other unavoidable results of detonating a one gigaton device on the surface of an inhabitable planet. And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the warheads on photon torpedos nowhere near a quarter of the volume of a photon torp ?

Then again, what do I care ? You'd need over 600 photon torpedos fired at once to bother the shields on an escort.

Something that does particularly strike me is that WH40K shields don't stop torpedos, and that WH40K torpedos aren't shielded. What, I will ask, prevents Starfleet from aiming directly for critical systems (e.g., weapons, reactors, drive units, et cetera) using photon torpedos, and disabling the ships elegantly without resorting to massed hammering?

Actually, 40k void shields can be set to defend against torpedos.

And you've pointed out the obvious problem with photons here as well, they've got energy shields, as far as defensive fields are concerned, they are an energy blast.

Plus, its not like Ork ships aren't extremely heavily armoured, if you've got the BFG rulebook, you should have noticed that "armour" means that offensive weaponry can in some cases not even count as "hitting".

The amount of fuel they'd burn in such conditions would be staggering.

Does it matter ?

In the end, not really.

What other known calcs? I'm genuinely curious here, Warhammer data seems remarkably sparse. I've done a few searches to find out what fanalysis has already been done, but it seems pretty minimal.

Given that you can look at a page and pick out the random opinion of some bloke, then completely miss a more detailed explicit reference four posts down, is this really a shock to anybody?

[Roondar]

I've found examples of Phaser firepower very easily, Worf shooting some rocks at setting 16, from the horrible lying bastards at SD.net.

Well, you got one thing right there. The people at SD.net are indeed horrible lying bastards when it comes to Trektech. I've pointed that out before, but hey... By all means keep ignoring it and pretending they give a nice, factual display of high end capabilities of phasers. Or anything else for that matter.

Especially since the cold hard math -not to mention the visuals- on the rock-blasting (For instance the phaser vs the rockface in ST:Inssurection, which IIRC they didn't show for their little show of weak-phasers) actually does put phasers squarely in the 'Modern tank or better' category when it comes to blowing stuff up.

Unless you really believe a modern rifle will blow up a chunk of rock the size of the average living room wall.

Only goes to show that even when we've admitted your Orks are rather likely to win you still won't accept Trektech might actually be potent.

[Jedi Master Spock]

It would be conducive to polite discussion, I believe, if you two refrained from calling the posters at SDN "horribly lying bastards."

2000 escorts multiplied by 8000 doesn't equal 1.6 million, thats 1600000.

2000*8000 equals 16 million, thats 16 with 6 zeros after it.

My bad. 16 million in escorts indeed.

Even with only a thousand orks on each escort, the orks would have 2 million troops.

How many do you think are onboard a single spacehulk that could be 30 times as large ?

Hard to tell, especially as space hulks aren't near the same kind of ship. Our most plausible guess is to go with about ~30 times as much, though there's much less certainty attached to that. What I'd really like to hear about is the average size of these other 400 ships, frankly.

So we do indeed have probable cause - if not, as Thanatos might wish to point out, proof - of the assertion of more than ~100 million Orks, which is, as I stated earlier, clearly sufficient to conquer Earth in a week or two. I'll reply to the rest later, Gniops.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Please, could someone make a summary of what that battle is supposed to be, from the moment the Orks pop in a Trek system, to the moment where, for some reason, only Ork troopers are found on the surface?
Thank you.

[Opecoiler]

you are going to assume that aerial superiority of shuttles means no aircover for the orks

Would this be a good time to mention that Imperial Thunderbolt fighter squadrons over Armageddon got hammered in the early stages of the war?

And Thunderbolts are both dedicated fighters and built much more sturdily than Federation shuttles (they're basically flying blocks of armor with wings. Despite this, they're supersonic and quite manuverable)

[Roondar]

It would be conducive to polite discussion, I believe, if you two refrained from calling the posters at SDN "horribly lying bastards."

Appologies. I'll stick to pointing out their obvious bias and not call them liars in person again.

[Roondar]

you are going to assume that aerial superiority of shuttles means no aircover for the orks

Would this be a good time to mention that Imperial Thunderbolt fighter squadrons over Armageddon got hammered in the early stages of the war?

And Thunderbolts are both dedicated fighters and built much more sturdily than Federation shuttles (they're basically flying blocks of armor with wings. Despite this, they're supersonic and quite manuverable)

You have brought in exactly zero points of evidence that these Thunderbolts are in fact more sturdy. And no you saying they are is not evidence ;)

[Jedi Master Spock]

uh...thats nice ?

It's also very important for our better understanding of WH40K. Now,

Oh, thats fine then, I guess I'll just take your word for it....

Good.

Oh wait, you can't do basic math.

Everybody slips a decimal once in a while when they're expounding off the top of their head.

Why not ? Is this bloke physically stronger than Orks, does he have some sort of energy weapon, telekinetic powers, what ?

Physical strength and telekinetic powers mean nothing. Roga Danar was enhanced specifically by modern Treknology to deal with modern Treknology in the context of an infantry soldier. An integral transport inhibitor is no surprise.

and assumed that the Feds could arm them all with phasers.

That was not assumed. Had I assumed that, it would have been an easy win for Earth.

You need to explain how the fuck this is supposed to mean anything to me.

Gravitational force is related to mass. The rate of gravitational collapse is proportionate to the local g field.

In order for gravitational collapse to provide a threat on the order of minutes, the local g field needs to at least be on the orders of centimeters per second. This requires substantial mass.

A tricorder is more sophisticated than a FTL drive ?

Than a basic FTL drive, yes, actually.

I've found examples of Phaser firepower very easily, Worf shooting some rocks at setting 16, from the horrible lying bastards at SD.net.

This doesn't make me think of Battleship yields in any shape or fashion Spock.

I recommend you try some other examples, like "Ensigns of Command" or "Star Trek: First Contact." The latter actually involves a phaser rifle, and involves Worf taking out what appears to be a solid metal disk 0.3-0.6 meters thick and 3-5 meters across.

Ah right, now there is a dedicated automatic phaser weapon installation involved!

You misread me again.

Where do these man portable anti-aircraft guns come from ?

Quark sells lots of interesting things in "Business as Usual."

Now you absolutely need to know the full technical readout of an orkish bomber to conclude whether or not some blokes with nonexistent anti-aircraft phasers/whatevers can shoot them down,

I need to know details about orkish bombers if we're to know anything about how effective they may or may not be. You've provided next to nothing.

Oh gosh, I must have been lying!

No. I'm assuming that your source places Roks in the tail of the Orkish fleet.

Which leaves us with a problem, because according to the rulebook, Roks can't enter the Warp.

Armageddon is also a major Imperial system for the region, the argument that they simply didn't notice a hundred roks crewed by aggressive aliens with their unsubtle power systems and weaponry being constructed is ludicrous, particularly in the face of Thrakas fleet consisting of lots of technically advanced high end examples of Orkish technology.

Where in the system did the Orks come out of Warp?

You posted that the Feddy combat fleet would be 20-30k, these numbers are on the face of it, contradicted by what you've said here.

I said 10-20K, not 20-30K. Those are supported very much by those figures.

"some familiarity" doesn't mean, by any sane approach, that you can just reel off your conclusions and episode titles and expect to be taken seriously.

Skimming through what you've linked to indicates evidence for single digit gigaton strikes on maxium firepower for short periods.

Your torpedo number of 1 gigaton is extremely questionable given that it relies on some strange analysis of dust clouds rather than the presence or lack of a sustained fireball

Actually, factoring in any other considerations increases the yield. I cap the yield at a gigaton based on the size of photon torpedos.

and other unavoidable results of detonating a one gigaton device on the surface of an inhabitable planet. And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the warheads on photon torpedos nowhere near a quarter of the volume of a photon torp ?

Photorps are pretty modular.

Then again, what do I care ? You'd need over 600 photon torpedos fired at once to bother the shields on an escort.

Actually, 40k void shields can be set to defend against torpedos.

Can at what cost? Source? The core rulebook says they can't...

... and in the time that a Warhammer 40K ship shells out a second volley, a Trek ship can have dumped its full torpedo load (275 for a TNG-era GCS, 96 for a movie-era CCS, et cetera.)

For a cavalry squadron attacking a Warhammer ship, we're easily talking about thousands of torpedos.

Given that you can look at a page and pick out the random opinion of some bloke, then completely miss a more detailed explicit reference four posts down, is this really a shock to anybody?

If you know of some good fanalysis, link me to it. Please.

[Mike DiCenso]

Slight correction here, JMS. The canon loadout for a GCS is 250 photon torpedoes as per "Conundrums" [TNG5].
-Mike