Zombie Inflationism III: Other Weapons

[Firmus Piett]

PS: greetings to GMD! :)

GMD, what is GMD?

[User15083]

PS: greetings to GMD! :)

GMD, what is GMD?

I'm a GMD Grand Moff Dewey!

and thanks for the warm welcome!

Oh hey look its Piett! The guy who thinks that the blasters some how have a magical powersetting on them

[theta_pinch]

PS: greetings to GMD! :)

GMD, what is GMD?

I'm a GMD Grand Moff Dewey!

and thanks for the warm welcome!

Welcome to starfleet jedi Grandmoffdewey; please do not fire the Superlaser at earth like your predecessor did with Alderaan or else Starfleet will be forced to destroy the Death Star with tricobalt devices.

[Mike DiCenso]

Actually, battleships of WWII were designed with plunging fire in mind... angle at which a projectile might arrive was from just above 0* to just below 90*, but there was a "zone of immunity" in which ship was supposed to be capable of resisting its own weapons. This zone changed through time as fire control improved (and eventually doomed the Hood as she wasn't designed for long-range engagements) but battleships were well-armored at the sides and somewhat less well at the top.

Regarding spaceships, it depends. Since space battles are 3D, hull shape will play a lesser role, but limiting armor to the "citadel" containing essential systems and leaving everything else unarmored could still be a good idea as it would allow better armored protection for weight. On the other hand, as you said, preventing a penetration alltogether might be a better idea. And question could be structural too... modern aircraft typically have a monocoque design in which skin is stressed (load-bearing). If starships are built that way, then external hull will be armored by default, while internal structure could be paper-thin. On the other hand, if both hull and internal bulkheads are stressed, then bulkheads may have to be strong enough to automatically act as armor.

Actually, you might want to take a look at this analysis of the hull thickness of the refit Enterprise I did a couple years ago and the subsequent discussion. That hull is much thicker than most people realize.
-Mike

[Mike DiCenso]

The correct answer may be that some have them.

Luke heard, but he was absorbed in running from one cell to the next
and studying the numbers glowing above each doorway. The cell 2187, it
appeared, did not exist. But it did, and he found it just as he was about to
give up and try the next level down.
For a long moment he examined the featureless convex metal wall.
Turning his pistol to maximum and hoping it wouldn't melt in his hand before
it broke through, he opened fire on the door. When the weapon became too hot
to hold, he tossed it from hand to hand. As he did so the smoke had time to
clear, and he saw with some surprise that the door had been blown away.

I'm sure some do in the Star Wars universe. But the point is and this sets a major pressidence is that the ones in the Clone Wars do not have a power setting.

So we know that every time a clone trooper or a someone shoots a humanoid with a blaster it is always at full power.


That also means every time a wall or rock explodes it is also at full power.

So that leaves us with a question. We have 2 different reactions from a blaster (humans and rocks) but both are fired at with the same strength.

So why are there 2 different reactions if the power level is the same?

Since the only variable is the materiel used that must mean it is the interaction of the blaster bolt and the material that causes the explosion.


I mean If i fired a M-16 at a person and then at a barrel full of dynamite which of course explodes, would you think that the M-16 has the ability to fire explosive bullets?


Oh and that part from the New Hope Novel isn't canon anymore.

Del Ray did tweet that the novelizations are still canon but then quickly tweeted this after
https://twitter.com/DelReyStarWars/stat ... 7341840384

The Novels are only canon when they align with what is on screen. Meaning that if it isn't shown in the movie it isn't canon.

On that note, I see that the Star Wars screencap site is back and I don't like the new format. Would prefer one more like TrekCore to make linking to images easier, but this will have to do. Anyway, here's a set from TESB with the main blasters, and only the main blasters firing with notably thicker beams (its topmost row, middle image). So this clearly helps to define "maximum firepower" to mean higher power setting rather than just have all four guns on the AT-AT fire at once.
-Mike

[2046]

While I don't have a problem with variable firepower on the AT-AT, I do feel it necessary to point out that the notion of the thing only having four guns is not really necessary.

I haven't done it in HD, but as I recall a close look at the film suggests bolts coming from places other than the four big tank guns, which only makes sense. (Indeed, you could hide several blasters under the big cowling of the main guns.)

I would need to see a bolt unquestionably emerging from the main guns and then a way bigger one doing the same before accepting that, though I would be perfectly pleased to see it.

I'll try to look in HD at some point.

[User15083]

The upper limits of a DC-15s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLJGeodIy4E

[User15083]

PS: greetings to GMD! :)

GMD, what is GMD?

oh hey you should stop being dishonest and cherry picking your data in your videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBJy1Anw5wA