Blasters suck wth

Posting mode: Reply [Return]
Name
Options
Subject	Spoiler Image
Comment
Verification
Flag
File
Embed
Password	(For file deletion.)

File: 1726233006840-0.jpeg (36.38 KB, 828x220, IMG_0741.jpeg)

File: 1726233006840-1.jpeg (190.31 KB, 828x402, IMG_0742.jpeg)

Blasters suck wth Anonymous 13-09-24 13:10:07 No.37045

Tf fucked up reasons made these guns preferable to slug-throwers (it’s the Star Wars equivalent of an ordinary gunpowdered rifle.) This thing won’t kill anything that isn’t a point blank at that point. No wonder the empire is such a mess when such a trash piece of equipment is the primary weapon used by most of its armies. Who knows how much worse their mechanized divisions are…

Anonymous 13-09-24 13:38:25 No.37047

>>37045
I imagine it has something to do with blasters being safer to use in space. Less likely to punch a whole through the hull of the ship than a slugthrower.

Anonymous 13-09-24 13:40:12 No.37048

>>37047
The lore reason is the significant increased magazine capacity thanks to the fact that each shot is heated gas instead of a dense ball of metal. This doesn’t excuse the fact that these weapons are complete shit compared to ordinary slug throwers. Who knows how bad the range is on most of the empire’s other weapons.

Anonymous 18-09-24 23:55:54 No.37107

>>37045
OG Star Wars blasters from the first movie were way stronger than the ones that came afterwards. Han Solo casually shooting away huge chunks of concrete with a pistol sized blaster. That makes up for the lack of range it seems.

Anonymous 19-09-24 00:23:31 No.37110

>>37107
The force doesn’t makeup for the range anon. Reminder, the empire is fighting a galaxy-level war. Range matters more than force—especially if the galactic empire already has access to machines that can hit way harder and further than even the best blasters.

Anonymous 19-09-24 17:22:41 No.37118

>>37048
Another lore reason is that blasters have much better armor penetration. People meme about how stormtrooper armor doesn't stop shit but it's actually meant to stop slug throwers, not blasters. Also, most modern rifles only have an effective range of 300-600m, so the blasters aren't that much worse in that regard.

Anonymous 19-09-24 17:42:54 No.37122

>>37045
blasters have no recoil or bullet drop so you're going to be ridiculously more accurate with them for targets within their max range. i'd take that tradeoff.

Anonymous 19-09-24 17:48:18 No.37123

File: 1726768098197.jpeg (200.71 KB, 828x384, IMG_0778.jpeg)

>>37118
That’s the lethal range, the effective firing range for most firearms is often a couple to several kilometres
>>37122
Not really. The drop can often be helpful when shooting someone indirectly from behind cover. Something like that would be useful in… idk within a trench on a barren planet.

Anonymous 19-09-24 20:42:27 No.37124

>>37123
You can't hit someone in a trench with a rifle, it's not an artillery cannon.

Anonymous 19-09-24 22:33:54 No.37127

>>37124
You can on a mountain while covering behind a rock, also people did do that and still do—in the same way you’d fire shots at someone by abusing the trajectory of a projectile being shot at a high height.

Unique IPs: 10