Jump to content
News Ticker
  • IPB version 4.2 installed!

Vince

Members
  • Content Count

    571
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Vince last won the day on June 28 2014

Vince had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

520 Excellent

About Vince

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. "Years of orbital bombardment and beam-weapon assaults". The Clone Wars lasted some years, so I'm assuming we're looking at the cumulative effects of many bloody ground wars and tactical bombardments from orbit. Later we have 700-800 meter wide "bomb craters". So probably nuclear scale weapons in excess of 1 megaton yield were being used at some point.
  2. Vince

    Star Wars Vessel Densities

    Interesting, although it's hardly a lower limit. Considering the world is artificial is it not possible that there is some kind of artificial gravity?
  3. That's fair enough. The problem comes when people start filling these gaps arbitrarily, or worse, start defining just how good (or how much better) these fillings are than those which are represented in other shows. I wouldn't assert that the Federation does not have any tanks or whatever, but I wouldn't claim to believe that they do either. That's not to say that if we heard that the Federation do have artillery, or MBT's, then we couldn't make some educated guesses on how effective they may be, but just assuming that they must exist without any evidence for the purposes of debate is hardly fair. I see this kind of thing going on all the time in debates, but to be fair I don't often see it in Trek. The real fanatics usually claim red-shirts with phasers are enough xD.
  4. Oh yeah, how could I forget the dune buggy.
  5. I agree, a bullet would have been more damaging. And FYI similar wounds are seen in the Clone Wars even when fabrics are not present. Check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Acvw6WXcqAM .... No. This was not my point at all. I had meant to point out that you did not make a distinction between shots which put penny sized holes in a fleshy target and those other shots (from the same guns) which blast torso sized holes or craters into walls and metals. You focussed solely on the examples of "blasters can kill" or Leia's arm, and omitted to point out that these other shots would not just kill a human target, but blow one to bits! I'm sure you have seen my scaled comparisons before? http://www.galacticempirewars.com/e-11-superheated-metal http://www.galacticempirewars.com/dl-44-wall-fragmentation You missed the point Are you accusing me of twisting it? And hurling insults? http://weblog.st-v-sw.net/2014/07/st-v-swnet-past-and-future.html This one is a bit long for a casual read.
  6. This is all the ground combat tech I can think of from Trek (or the Federation, specifically). Pistols Rifles Immobile cannon Bazooka (only low firepower seen, but perhaps it has greater options / ordinances) Photon grenades Mortars Shuttles Sure, it's not as "un-represented" as described on SD.net's comparison, but still rather lacking compared to a few other franchises, where larger scale ground battles are more prevalent.
  7. I made this point in an email the other day because indeed, phasers and blasters do not over penetrate human bodies on lower settings either, but we know both are capable of much greater effect. And may I ask where he called you a cherry picker for this? I have in the past (in context to this page) because after-all, you did say you'd "rather use bullets" and never hinted that the E-11 may possess much firepower in other scenes thus hinting to a range of power settings on blasters (grapefruit sized craters in Bespin walls and torso sized holes in metal grates, for examples). That page certainly implied that you considered blasters (or at least stormtrooper carbines) to be less powerful than modern firearms to anybody who has read it, which is demonstrably false by quite a large margin. If this is not what you wanted people to think that you had meant to conclude, then perhaps you should have been a little clearer when writing that particular "place-holder".
  8. Vince

    Star Wars Vessel Densities

    An AT RT is relatively small, fast and nimble, whereas the AT ST is as wide as a truck, taller than a house and relatively lumbering; I think it is safe to assume that the AT ST's armour protects it from common small-arms fire. Then to beyond reasonable doubt Blaster bolts can result in explosive fireballs and fragment wall or rock; these feats represent impressive firepower regardless of whether they are secondary effects to flash vaporization, or the primary effects of "explosive bolts". That phasers can can explosively blast or disintegrate rock? I agree with those points. And I didn't consider it a change of subject. The discussion was about whether a hand-held phaser could destroy an AT ST, and the precise firepower and mechanics of phasers is only one side of that discussion. I simply meant to point out that blasters aren't too far behind phasers on the wall blasting side of things, so that when it comes to explosive fragmentation these weapons are of similar magnitude, which by extension also implies that blaster resilient armours may be resilient to phasers. But phasers have the option of disintegration (or "clean vaporization" as you call it) on the same maximum setting, which would be an OCP for armour in star wars. Indeed. Quite a few pots and pans there.
  9. Vince

    Star Wars Vessel Densities

    I agree with Tyralak, the Breen rifle would probably blast an AT ST easily, but not a hand-held phaser. AT ST's have been proven to be relatively susceptible to kinetic impacts like falling logs, but this tells us nothing about their resistance to DEW's like blasters or phasers. Iit can however be inferred that the AT ST is in-fact highly resilient to blaster fire, and phasers are not THAT much more powerful than blasters, when both weapons are set to maximum setting. Blasters, like phasers, would be anti-vehicular weaponry in the real world when on the highest settings, probably capable of taking out humvees and the like. So are blasters. It is pretty decisively demonstrated that blaster pistols and blaster carbines can rival modern day 40mm autocannons for per shot destructive firepower, when set to maximum setting. But to be fair if Han's shoot-out with the stormtroopers on Tatooine is anything to go by, then we could say that blasters are limited to perhaps only a half dozen shots or so when set to such high power, which is a limitation, but even light vehicles like AT ST's are virtually impervious to small-arms blaster fire regardless. So yes, phasers can destroy a larger volume of material by a marginal degree (although the method is more commonly disintegration) but the difference isn't great enough to start asserting that the standard hand-held phaser in star trek is an anti-vehicle weapon in star wars. especially when said vehicles handle blaster fire with such ease. Not unless you start arguing that AT ST's have little resilience to phaser-style magic disintegration, but such an assertion would be rather arbitrary and difficult to prove, since phasers (like most weapons) quite clearly vary in performance depending on the type of metal they are firing upon in star trek - and vehicles in star wars never face disintegration style weapons in the canon. Dynamite-like effects: There is that scene with the armoured blast door. Phasers disintegrated a wide, but very thin layer of lesser metal across the surface, but the metal beneath was impervious. That is one of the more impressive metal disintegrations that I'm aware of.
  10. Vince

    Star Wars Vessel Densities

    2K, do you still stand by all of your conclusions and assertions from STvSW? Would you still consider a handheld phaser capable of destroying an AT ST?
  11. Vince

    Test

    Was this a response test??
  12. Vince

    Test

    Was this a response test??
  13. Vince

    Star Wars Vessel Densities

    From the way they behave they must be "magical space lasers" really, although the effects are usually relatively mundane (explosions, heating). Although I'd be interested to see your ideas.
  14. Vince

    Star Wars Vessel Densities

    DSG, if and when I get around to fleshing out the acceleration pages I assure you they will contain neither the Falcon take off scene nor the broken TCW video .
×