| Subject: Re: Phasers vs. Blasters |
Author:
capn hayes
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 15:01:38 08/30/02 Fri
Author Host/IP: NoHost/207.14.48.2
In reply to:
BabyBel
's message, "Re: Phasers vs. Blasters" on 12:12:00 08/29/02 Thu
>>3.Due to problems 1 and 2 it's range is drastically
>>reduced because it lacks any kind of sighting device
>>and it's crappy handgrip make it very difficult to aim
>>at far away targets.
>
>Of course, we've seen there are absolutely no problems
>aiming at targets some distance away in such exampels
>as DS9 the circle/the siege, FC, and DS9 Rocks and
>shoals
>
>
>>4. The only reason phasers make people disappear is
>>due to their NDF effect allowing them to be very
>>effective against organic materials not because they
>>have enough power to actually vaporise someone. It
>>should also be noted that against dense materials such
>>as armour their effectiveness drops drastically.
>
>However, Phasers do have a basic "raw power" of just
>over 1MW (as per TM and TNG The Mind's Eye). Anything
>else is just an added bonus
>Hey I thought the TM wasn't "cannon", guess that only works when it's convenient!
>
>>Now let's take a look at blasters.
>>
>>3.A blaster has a longer range because it has sights
>>and acutal hand grips that don't force it's user to
>>hold it in an awkward position.
>
>Actually, no. Blasters do not have longer range. We've
>seen them used, and they miss people who are only a
>short distance away. Their stated max range is
>120m(pistols) and 300m(rifles) - clearly, comparable
>with phaser pistols and rifles in actual useage (I've
>ignored tripod-mounted weapons until we have a
>comparable weapon from Trek, though the range of the
>E-web is only 500m)
>Actually phaser range isn't any better than a baster of comparable size and power.
>
>>4.All one has to do to see the blasters are more
>>powerful than phasers is to is look at the scene in
>>ANH where Han uses his blaster agaisnt the
>>stormtroopers in the Mos Eisley spaceport where it
>>blast torso-sized chunks out of the docking bay walls
>>showing it's knock down power is more like a grenade
>>laucher than a handgun.
>
>Han Solo's blaster is rated at about 50kJ(thats only a standard shot). Compare
>with phasers rated at 1MW (max power for them)or more.
>Even E-11 blaster rifles (using a standard shot)are less powerful than phaser
>rifles (at full power).
>(ref www.trek-wars.info/swwpower.html)
Sorry the bar graphics were not an acurate way to gage the weapon power levels, just speculation.
>
>Phasers are more powerful than blasters.
>Phasers, in actual useage of like-for-like weapons,
>have comparable range to blasters.
>
>The upside is, Phasers have the added bonus of NDF, on
>top of their raw power.
The downside is that there has never been an actual figure given of how powerful a blaster is, only examples of what they can do (shown in the films). Speculation based on what we have seen on screen is all we really have to go on. Unless you count "non-cannon" sources. Oh yeah we aren't supposed to do that, so what's left?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 