MainMy profileRegistrationLog outLogin
Friday
10.1.2025
11:28 AM
| RSS Main
[New messages · Members · Forum rules · Search · RSS ]
  • Page 1 of 1
  • 1
Why Slugthrowers are inferior to Blasters
Jamie_the_HuttDate: Friday, 24 Aug 2012, 11:22 PM | Message # 1
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 392
Awards: 0
Reputation: -4
Status: Offline
1. They're less accurate than a blaster - blasts don't drop off over distance, have to adjust for wind etc.. just point and click.

2. They're vastly more expensive in the long run - blasters are easily and cheaply recharged, each round from a Slug thrower is larger and heavier than the gas and electricity which make up a blaster bolt - this means lugging around 10mm ammunition (much more costly in itself) in the case of Stark's new rifle which would be an absolute nightmare - even a couple of hundred 5.56 way a fair bit.

3. Simplicity - Blasters do nor require extensive oiling etc due to moving parts. I.e. Vastly less stoppages.

4. Range - The Clone DC-15A has a maximum range of 10KM. The Pule rifle being plagarized here has a range of 500m.

5. Weight - A DC-15A weights 4.3KG, one of Starks rifles weights 4.9. Also worth noting on ammunition, 100 rounds of Starks ammunition (not including weight of propellant) is around 1.3KG by projectile weight - that's already more than 100 modern 5.56 rounds (by circa 20 grams). The Blaster has two forms of ammunition, charge cells (very light - good for 50 blasts) and gas canisters (unknown weight but included in that of the rifle), so carry ammunition for a DC-15A is much cheaper due to mass production. On a further note, these "pulse rifles" seem to also have to carry batteries so any possible advantage from only one sort of ammunition being required is mitigated. This means a soldier armed with a blaster can more easily carry a larger number of shots into battle and thus has the advantage in a prolonged engagement.

6. Firepower - The DC-15 is stated as being able to penetrate -most- infantry armour wheras the Stark rifle makes similar claims. However, unless this is taking into account the grenade launcher the sheer firepower advantage must be conceded to the blaster.

DC-15A - A weapon with a 10km range and the ability to select power appropriate to the target - the kind of flexibility you don't get with a "one size fits all" clip of rifle rounds.
"On maximum power, a shot from a DC-15A could leave a 0.5 meter hole in any ferroconcrete wall"

Stark Rifle - Explosive tipped blah blah - basically achievable with modern technology.

7. Rate of fire - Both capable of fully automatic fire - however - the blaster doesn't kick.

8. Reliability - Blasters don't get stoppages aside from in exceptional circumstances wheras they're not uncommon in mechanical systems.

9. Versatility - Blasters can be fired almost anywhere, including in the void of space. Projectile rifles are heavily dependent on atmospheric conditions for their effectiveness.

10. Additional points to note -

Slug throwers were noted for being ineffective against durasteel armour on Battle droids in the Clone Wars, even with an explosive round I'm unconvinced the result would be any different - or why didn't the Republic pick the more effective technology? Equally, many blasters have an electromagnetic effect on impact which is highly effective on disrupting droids.

Blasters are vastly more humane - they impart energy to the target (usually causing a burn which cauterizes rapidly) a slug thrower blows chunks out of you causing a great deal of uncivilized mess. Blasters also have a convenient stun option meaning it's rather safer to use blaster armed troops for riot control etc.

Power packs for blasters are generally inter-compatible and robust - meaning it's easy to scavenge for them in a battlefield situation than bullets. You find one, you have 50 more shots - good luck scrabbling around for 50 scattered rifle rounds.

You can't easily use a blaster for assassination work as it's pretty simple to see where a round came from - unless you get one of those ridiculously expensive invisible beam blasters but they're an exception to the rule. However, most slug throwers have a muzzle flare which has a similar effect at night - equally the same applies if tracer rounds are used.

The prosecution rests with the statement the Blasters are and should remain little used, archaic weapons in this time period, appropriate to perhaps Dantooine or Mowgle but not to the likes of anyone with any pretention of being a serious and modern military force.
 
Alyn_StarkDate: Saturday, 25 Aug 2012, 4:40 PM | Message # 2
Generalissimo
Group: Users
Messages: 1359
Awards: 2
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
Jamie, man... I'm not even going to get into this one really. We all know the blaster is largely superior to the slugthrower, with a few exceptions, but I'm sticking with slugthrowers here.

Added (25 Aug 2012, 4:40 PM)
---------------------------------------------
Okay, now that's I'm a little more fed and relaxed, I'll try to answer your points Jamie.

1. True. Can't counter that one.

2. These aren't meant for mass sale; these will be specific to the Stark Defense Conglomerate Security Corps.

3. Not all slugthrowers require extensive oiling, and even spit works in many cases (I've done this personally).

4. Yup, got me beat here, but I don't see company defense forces needing to fight at that distance.

5. Security forces for company assets aren't likely to see prolonged combat as a true soldier, such as a stormtrooper would. The excess weight simply means they'll just have to get used to having stronger legs.

6. Granted, a DC-15 is going to have better range and armor-penetration, but it's nothing the MX8 won't do at shorter ranges, especially with armor-penetrating explosive-tipped rounds.

7. Recoil compensation within the MX8 series lower recoil, although do not eliminate it. Instead, users learn the value of accurate shots and do not waste rounds.

8. With a makeup of a titanium exterior and plasticized parts that are highly heat resistant and rugged, I don't foresee a great amount of stoppages. These things are built to last, much like the AK-47 which can go through hell and still be fired, unlike the American M-16 and M4 counterparts.

9. A slugthrower utilizing an electrochemical propellant can still be fired in space as it doesn't use traditional combustion, although the blaster still has the greater range.

10. I'll get these in order.

A) As you mentioned, slugthrowers are more expensive and the ammo loadouts for prolonged fights are extensive. This is likely one of many reasons the Republic opted for blasters. I don't see a 10mm armor-piercing explosive-tipped round being truly any less effective against basic battle droids, though the odds of Stark's defense forces encountering an army of such are slim. Their opponents are likely to be hijackers and raiders and the ammunition they use is more than sufficient to handle such.

cool Blasters may be more humane, but there's also such things like sonic stunner pistols that would be issued as backup weapons if the need arose. By and large, any hijacker can simply be shot on sight. Dead is dead whether from a bullet or a blaster bolt.

C) Pack extra ammo.

D) The SDCSC is not an assassination organization.


Alyn Stark
Lord of Kinyov
Senior Captain, Retired, Republic Navy
Head of House Malos (former)
Licensed bounty hunter
Majority shareholder, Lorrd Engineering
Owner, Stark Defense Conglomerate
Civilian Medal of Honor recipient
Representative, Lorrd (10 BBY-9 BBY)
 
Jamie_the_HuttDate: Sunday, 26 Aug 2012, 4:09 AM | Message # 3
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 392
Awards: 0
Reputation: -4
Status: Offline
Ain't an objection to your slug throwers... They're just an example that cites the weaknesses of even the most sophisticated (your) infantry rifles.

Added (26 Aug 2012, 4:09 AM)
---------------------------------------------
But I would say that a 10mm explosive round would likely not penetrate either the armour of a B2 or a Stormtrooper.

 
  • Page 1 of 1
  • 1
Search:


Copyright MyCorp © 2025
Create a free website with uCoz