Target the bridge

[Vanyel]

Was the Enterprise episode Twilight the only episode to show an enemy actually targeting the bridge? I know in Generations one of the Duras Sisters order the targeting of the 1701D's bridge, but never got a chance to fire. Side note here, of all the mistakes made in that battle (like not setting the shields frequency to rotate randomly or unleashing a full weapons barrage at the BoP) not targeting the bridge immediately was the biggest mistake.

Back to my question, any other times when the bridge of a Starfleet ship (either Earth's Starfleet or the Federation's Starfleet) has been directly targeted for destruction?

 

[SPCTRE]

Well, in ENT's "Twilight", the NX-01's bridge is successfully targeted and destroyed (before the reset button ).

 

[Finn]

^Did you read the OP's post?

 

[SPCTRE]

^ Yeah I did. Don't ask me how I missed that. In my defense, I'm a bit tipsy right now

Edit:

Back to my question, any other times when the bridge of a Starfleet ship (either Earth's Starfleet or the Federation's Starfleet) has been directly targeted for destruction?

I think it's safe to assume that in NEM, the Scimitar was purposefully targeting the bridge of the E-E when the frontal area (i.e. the viewscreen) disintegrated and the helmsman was blown out into space.

 

[Avon]

shooting the bridge is awfully unsporting

 

[JWD75]

It always bothered me that the ships in Star Trek usually have their bridges placed in such a vulnerable position rather than deep in the bowels of the ship were there would be more protection.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ It's not the job of a ship's hull to protect the bridge. That's what shields are for.

Any attack powerful enough to punch through a ship's shields will be able to hit the bridge no matter where it is.

 

[TheLobes]

If possible, its always better to capture rather than destroy. I know this doesnt go for everything, especially the big ds9 battles, but a lot of the time we just saw ship to ship action.

If you capture the ship you get to study its technology, and try and access the restricted information. Can you imagine how much more advantageous it would be for, say, the Romulans to capture a federation ship rather than destroy it? Same the other way round, the information gained could be worth much more than simply destroying the ship. Thats why a lot of the time they attack shields or engineering, and then they beam people into the bridge to try and capture it. If they capture the bridge theyve essentially taken the ship, probably with less losses and less structural damage than if theyd just tried to destroy the thing. As I said, this doesnt count for all trek instances, but the relative ease of capturing a ship without inflicting too much damage means the general principles of ship-to-ship action seem to have shifted.

 

[Vanyel]

If possible, its always better to capture rather than destroy. I know this doesnt go for everything, especially the big ds9 battles, but a lot of the time we just saw ship to ship action.

If you capture the ship you get to study its technology, and try and access the restricted information. Can you imagine how much more advantageous it would be for, say, the Romulans to capture a federation ship rather than destroy it? Same the other way round, the information gained could be worth much more than simply destroying the ship. Thats why a lot of the time they attack shields or engineering, and then they beam people into the bridge to try and capture it. If they capture the bridge theyve essentially taken the ship, probably with less losses and less structural damage than if theyd just tried to destroy the thing. As I said, this doesnt count for all trek instances, but the relative ease of capturing a ship without inflicting too much damage means the general principles of ship-to-ship action seem to have shifted.

Just because the bridge is destroyed, doesn't mean technology or information can't be stolen from other areas or computer terminals throughout the ship.

 

[TheLobes]

No, but the bridge is the central command centre, from where the whole ship is run, destroying that would probably disable a lot of the systems. It would be a lot easier to simply beam over a boarding party then have to deal with all that crap. Its not that you couldnt get your information elsewhere, it would just be easier that way. Also, assuming you do want to capture the ship, its going to be a lot easier with the bridge intact because youve already got em by the balls.

 

[The Wormhole]

It always bothered me that the ships in Star Trek usually have their bridges placed in such a vulnerable position rather than deep in the bowels of the ship were there would be more protection.

Roddenberry's Rules of Starship Design (scroll down a bit) say that the bridge has to be the exact centre and top of the saucer section. To do otherwise would betray those principals, just like having warp nacelles in odd numbers.

 

[Gary7]

^ Roddenberry's "arbitrary" rules, that is. The view screen is not a window--it's a screen that displays a view from various cameras situated on the surface of the ship. So, there's no need for it to be on an edge or top of a section.

But, I guess he surmised that most people wouldn't get that... so, a bridge position was chosen much like on a naval vessel. On a high position to survey the whole ship.

^ It's not the job of a ship's hull to protect the bridge. That's what shields are for. Any attack powerful enough to punch through a ship's shields will be able to hit the bridge no matter where it is.

I disagree. What if the shields are down? We've seen alien weaponry rip through the outer hull of a starship. Why put the bridge, an essential command center, situated alongside the inside edge of the outer hull? If it is deeper amidships, enemy weaponry must work harder to penetrate, if indeed their target is to take out the bridge. In most battle situations, there is limited time and so a higher priority is to disable engines and/or weapons.

Another consideration against targeting the bridge is that you may want the enemy command structure intact so that you may establish terms. If the ship's senior officers are killed, it is more difficult to keep order on board and accomplish anything. This is assuming of course that the intent is not to completely destroy the ship but to disable it so that other matters may be attended to, like negotiating surrender or getting cooperation on other concerns. The other thing is the prize of an enemy ship--destroyed it is useless but intact and captured can be a valuable asset.

 

[The Wormhole]

The view screen is not a window

Not in the Prime Universe anyway.

 

[Vanyel]

No, but the bridge is the central command centre, from where the whole ship is run, destroying that would probably disable a lot of the systems. It would be a lot easier to simply beam over a boarding party then have to deal with all that crap. Its not that you couldnt get your information elsewhere, it would just be easier that way. Also, assuming you do want to capture the ship, its going to be a lot easier with the bridge intact because youve already got em by the balls.

TOS, TNG and I believe VOY all show that the ship can be commanded from Main Engineering. That being the case ME would have the same access to ships systems that, unless the ship were heavily damaged, would still be functioning.

Just as an example a Romulan ship attacks a Starfleet ship. The Romulans are able to take out the bridge. The Command Crew is almost all gone. The ship would be in chaos as the crew using ME tried to quickly retake control of the ship, assess damage, shield, weapons, warp drive, find out enemy status, where the enemy ship is, and most likely try to get the hell out of there. That is time the Romulans could use to blow the ship out of space or, target sections to damage it further and beam aboard to get whatever they can.

 

[YARN]

The view screen is not a window

Not in the Prime Universe anyway.

Shhhhhh.... ....if we don't think about it, it all still fits together.

 

[Saito S]

Side note here, of all the mistakes made in that battle (like not setting the shields frequency to rotate randomly or unleashing a full weapons barrage at the BoP) not targeting the bridge immediately was the biggest mistake.

I disagree, but for out of universe reasons, not in-universe ones. Star Trek, IMO, should NEVER EVER depict anyone targeting or directly doing damage to another ship's bridge, because doing so just puts a big, bright spotlight on what is an idiotic design choice. Roddenberry's "arbitrary rules," as Gary put it; this is one that makes no sense. There is no practical advantage to having the bridge on top, there are only disadvantages. However!

That said, it's one of those "Trek traditions" that - despite its silliness - I don't feel the need to change. Like the entire concept of the Universal Translator, I think that having the bridge up there (and it's not just Starfleet; it seems to be on top or up in front or similarly exposed on other ships, as well... hell, Star Wars and Babylon 5 do this too, but that's another discussion. ) should just be one of those things that we all know is silly, but we just wink and elbow each other and ignore it, because it looks good after so many years of Trek. Having the bridge be targeted/hit (either just the line, as in GEN, or actually showing the bridge get slagged, as in NEM) is a horrible idea, production/writing wise, because it shines that light onto a problem that can be otherwise ignored.

^ It's not the job of a ship's hull to protect the bridge. That's what shields are for.

Any attack powerful enough to punch through a ship's shields will be able to hit the bridge no matter where it is.

That implies that any and every hit that gets through the shields and does some damage WILL penetrate deep into the ship (i.e. deck ten on a twenty-deck ship). This is clearly not the case. Weapons powerful enough to be a threat to the ship and do damage to it's shields do impart SOME damage to the hull on impact with said shields. Shields do not have to fail completely for some damage to bleed through, especially as the battle wears on. This bleed through damage could, at times, be enough to punch a hole through the inner hull; if the bridge is on the tippy-top as it is in Trek, then you could open a hole to space in it. If the bridge is deep inside the ship, this cannot happen.

But, as my initial paragraph suggests, I'd rather just leave the "bridge on top" issue alone entirely. Don't mention it, don't call attention to it.

 

[Vanyel]

^ It's not the job of a ship's hull to protect the bridge. That's what shields are for.

Any attack powerful enough to punch through a ship's shields will be able to hit the bridge no matter where it is.

That implies that any and every hit that gets through the shields and does some damage WILL penetrate deep into the ship (i.e. deck ten on a twenty-deck ship). This is clearly not the case. Weapons powerful enough to be a threat to the ship and do damage to it's shields do impart SOME damage to the hull on impact with said shields. Shields do not have to fail completely for some damage to bleed through, especially as the battle wears on. This bleed through damage could, at times, be enough to punch a hole through the inner hull; if the bridge is on the tippy-top as it is in Trek, then you could open a hole to space in it. If the bridge is deep inside the ship, this cannot happen.

But, as my initial paragraph suggests, I'd rather just leave the "bridge on top" issue alone entirely. Don't mention it, don't call attention to it.

Didn't General Chang's BoP fire a torpedo (Or disrupter blast) that cut through the saucer, entering the ventral surface and exploding out the dorsal side? Yes, I know the shields were collapsing. If it could explode through however many decks the saucer has, then it is conceivable that a torpedo or two or three could rip through one side of an unshielded hull and the explosion exit the other. If the right area is hit, a bridge, no matter how deep in the bowels of a ship, is vulnerable.

 

[Shatnertage]

Since all of the terminals in the bridge explode every time the shields get hit anyway, does it really make that much difference where it is in the ship?

 

[PsychoPere]

^ Maybe not, but I still think I'd generally use the battle bridge if I were commanding a starship that had one to avoid giving an enemy an easy kill.

 

[The Wormhole]

^ Maybe not, but I still think I'd generally use the battle bridge if I were commanding a starship that had one to avoid giving an enemy an easy kill.

I'm surprised the battle bridge wasn't used as a back-up bridge at all. It really seemed odd in TNG's Brothers, after Data locked himself up in the bridge, Picard sets up command in engineering rather than go to the battle bridge. Stranger still, the battle bridge had to have been still standing, it was used only a month or so earlier in TBOBW2.