How long do hand phasers take to recharge between two full-power shots? Firing a drilling-mode phaser rifle at an AT-AT's neck would vaporize parts of both head and body.
I know that a mere widebeam-kill setting would vaporize an AT-ST's joints, and widebeam-kill settings would not take as long due to the lower yield.
Originally posted by FE ExpertI dunno that they have recharge time; so long as there's power in the storage cell, the phaser can fire.
How long do hand phasers take to recharge between two full-power shots? Firing a drilling-mode phaser rifle at an AT-AT's neck would vaporize parts of both head and body.I know that a mere widebeam-kill setting would vaporize an AT-ST's joints, and widebeam-kill settings would not take as long due to the lower yield.
Originally posted by FE ExpertAccording to TNG tech manual (admittedly lesser canon), a phaser on setting 16 uses 1,550,000 MJ in 0.28 seconds. The storage capacity of a Type 2 cell is 45,000,000 MJ. Therefore, a phaser carrying a full charge should be able to fire continuously at max setting for 8.13 seconds.
How much energy is there in a storage cell, anyway?
I believe both the storage cells and the phaser energy usage were upgraded by the VOY era and later movies (up to the year 2379), so the most recent phasers probably get better mileage than the TNG era models (around the year 2366), especially when you consider all the preparations and advancements made during the Dominion War.
Hmm, I just looked at the Ds9 tech manual, which confirms that the sarium-krellide cells that power type-2 phasers have been upgraded. The old cell held 45,000,000 megajoules. The new type II cells hold 87,900,000 MJ and the rifle cells hold 345,000,000 MJ.
How many shots is that? Well, a maximum setting phaser blast (setting 16) apparently uses up 1,550,000 MJ. You could get off about 56 shots at maximum setting with Type II and 222 shots with the rifle.
Would a phaser need to be at setting 16 to best match the damage done by blasters? Not at all. At that setting, even an armored humanoid would be instantly and totally vaporized. We've never seen a hand-held Blaster do that.
We do get a pretty good idea of the damage blasters do against organic targets (Leia in RotJ, Greedo in ANH, and Alderaan crew aboard the Tantive IV). We see impressive thermal effects, severe burns, and charring of the body around the area of impact.
The above description best fits the parameters of setting 6 for the phaser, which uses 2,700 MJ per shot. At this setting, a modern type II could get off 32,555 shots. The Phaser rifle could fire 127,777 shots. This explains why you rarely see Starfleet personnel swapping power cells in the field!
What kind of mileage do Star Wars hand-held weapons get? Since we don't have any official numbers for the capacity of Star Wars hand-held blasters, I am forced to use the EU for the purpose of comparison. Bill Smith's "Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology" gives blaster pistols about 100 shots per power pack. An E-11 blaster rifle pack contains the same number of shots.
Assuming neither of these book sources are overruled by onscreen evidence, it appears to be 100 shots for the Blaster vs 32,555 shots for the Phaser. I'll take the phaser, thank you.
And yes, I am a dork.
And to be equally fair, Star Trek has more hand weapons than just phasers. These include Sulu's retractable sword (seen in the new movie) to the Breen CRM-114 to photon grenades. My favorite weaopn is actually the Starfleet's TR-116, which could teleport high-speed tritanium slugs directly into (or immediately in front of) a target. Its scope allows the wielder to target any object within a kilometer radius, even through rock, armor, or bulkheads. Line of sight was not necessary, making the TR-116 the ultimate sniper weapon.
So, I would say Trek has just as many diverse weapons as Wars. In my above post, I simply wanted to compare the two most well known ranged hand weapons.
Originally posted by Acrosurge
And to be equally fair, Star Trek has more hand weapons than just phasers. These include Sulu's retractable sword (seen in the new movie) to the Breen CRM-114 to photon grenades. My favorite weaopn is actually the Starfleet's TR-116, which could teleport high-speed tritanium slugs directly into (or immediately in front of) a target. Its scope allows the wielder to target any object within a kilometer radius, even through rock, armor, or bulkheads. Line of sight was not necessary, making the TR-116 the ultimate sniper weapon.So, I would say Trek has just as many diverse weapons as Wars. In my above post, I simply wanted to compare the two most well known ranged hand weapons.
I'd still go with the Tenloss disruptor over the transporter gun...A gun which can fire energy at the speed of light and can disintegrate a person much like the high powered phaser shots.
Originally posted by Acrosurge
No offense, but you are aware that the Tenloss DX-2 Disruptor pistol has a maximum range of only 7 meters, right? And it drains its entire power pack in just five shots? AND the wielder must wait five seconds between each shot to safely fire again?
Originally posted by Acrosurge
And to be equally fair, Star Trek has more hand weapons than just phasers. These include Sulu's retractable sword (seen in the new movie) to the Breen CRM-114 to photon grenades. My favorite weaopn is actually the Starfleet's TR-116, which could teleport high-speed tritanium slugs directly into (or immediately in front of) a target. Its scope allows the wielder to target any object within a kilometer radius, even through rock, armor, or bulkheads. Line of sight was not necessary, making the TR-116 the ultimate sniper weapon.
Originally posted by Acrosurge
No offense, but you are aware that the Tenloss DX-2 Disruptor pistol has a maximum range of only 7 meters, right? And it drains its entire power pack in just five shots? AND the wielder must wait five seconds between each shot to safely fire again?
I'm not on about the DX-2 pistol...I was referring to the DXR-6 rifle. It's a sniper rifle that can fire immense distances. Granted it only has a 10 shot capacity but it's a 1 shot kill gun.
Originally posted by jaden101Again, no offense, but "immense distances"? The DX-6 disruptor rifle has an absolute maximum range of 20 meters (less than a blaster pistol) and still can only fire five shots at most. A sniper it is not.
I'm not on about the DX-2 pistol...I was referring to the DXR-6 rifle. It's a sniper rifle that can fire immense distances. Granted it only has a 10 shot capacity but it's a 1 shot kill gun.
By contrast, the old type 2 phasers could disrupt at ranges of 60 meters (its likely the latest models can hit 90+ meters). And my fav the TR-116 can snipe targets from a kilometer away, even if they're in a bunker or starship.
Originally posted by Doctor-AlvisUh, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Someone sniped by a TR-116 would have no idea what killed them. The bullet would be transported into them from a kilometer away.
It would be if they didn't show you who killed you every time you died.
I apologize for the double post, but I just wanted to compliment Jaden101 on some great arguments throughout this thread. You know your stuff. Well done! 🙂
And that's why I'm confused. If you don't mind my asking, why did you pick a Star Wars disruptor weapon that you must know is inferior to Trek tech?
Originally posted by Acrosurge
I apologize for the double post, but I just wanted to compliment Jaden101 on some great arguments throughout this thread. You know your stuff. Well done! 🙂And that's why I'm confused. If you don't mind my asking, why did you pick a Star Wars disruptor weapon that you must know is inferior to Trek tech?
Originally I was making the point that Star wars has far more to draw upon than the standard blaster, which is obviously quite poor. The list of hand held weapons available is colossal
18 different disruptors
27 heavy blaster pistols
16 hold out blasters
5 sporting blasters
60 other blaster pistols
6 laster weapons
a whole host of maser, electronic, concussion, sonic, projectile and other types of rifles and blasters.
I chose the Tenloss because I loved using it in Jedi Outcast. It's range was huge and just watching bad guys disintegrate even though they were a tiny spot even through your scope was highly impressive.
I did love that gun.
Again, no offense, but "immense distances"? The DX-6 disruptor rifle has an absolute maximum range of 20 meters (less than a blaster pistol) and still can only fire five shots at most. A sniper it is not
20 metres?...Have you even played Jedi Outcast?....It's a sniper rifle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtuJKHmd5Dk
watch that at about 2:30....
Originally posted by jaden101Have you read "Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology" by Bill Smith? It specifically states the range for the Tenloss Disruptor rifle as it appears in various Star Wars novels. The video game would appear to contradict this information. In the Star Wars EU canon, is it appropriate to use video game information over written/novel sources? Game mechanics perhaps? I dunno. *shrugs*
I chose the Tenloss because I loved using it in Jedi Outcast. It's range was huge and just watching bad guys disintegrate even though they were a tiny spot even through your scope was highly impressive.I did love that gun.
20 metres?...Have you even played Jedi Outcast?....It's a sniper rifle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtuJKHmd5Dk
watch that at about 2:30....
If you're looking for disintegration, I'd stick to a phaser. Better range, no lag time between shots, and more ammo.
Star Wars disruptors do bring up a good point about technology, however; they are stated to break materials down at the molecular level much like Trek phasers/disruptors. A Tenloss pistol can disintegrate 1 cubic meter of durasteel in a single shot. It is also stated to be unhindered by starship hull plating. Doesn't this suggest that Trek disruptors would also be able to penetrate Star Wars armor with equivalent ease, since the weapons appear to operate on the same principle of using exotic particles to break down atomic bonds?
Originally posted by AcrosurgeStar Wars disruptors do bring up a good point about technology, however; they are stated to break materials down at the molecular level much like Trek phasers/disruptors. A Tenloss pistol can disintegrate 1 cubic meter of durasteel in a single shot. It is also stated to be unhindered by starship hull plating. Doesn't this suggest that Trek disruptors would also be able to penetrate Star Wars armor with equivalent ease, since the weapons appear to operate on the same principle of using exotic particles to break down atomic bonds?
Good point although one of the main problems when comparing 2 different fictional stories is the exotic metals named...Too many people use the completely pointless and unprovable argument of "ah but would a lightsabre be able to cut adamantium" type rhetoric.
I don't think that these things should even be considered. In my opinion, it would be taking the debate a step too far. There's also the possibility that one universes exotic names for metals are just different names for real world metals.
Originally posted by jaden101You're right. I don't think a defining argument should be based around equating the Wars disruptor with the Trek disruptor. Its just an interesting fact that in the EU Wars universe, disruptors are pretty much unstoppable when compared to EU Wars defenses.
Good point although one of the main problems when comparing 2 different fictional stories is the exotic metals named...Too many people use the completely pointless and unprovable argument of "ah but would a lightsabre be able to cut adamantium" type rhetoric.
Originally posted by Acrosurge
Uh, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Someone sniped by a TR-116 would have no idea what killed them. The bullet would be transported into them from a kilometer away.
Originally posted by jaden101
I chose the Tenloss because I loved using it in Jedi Outcast. It's range was huge and just watching bad guys disintegrate even though they were a tiny spot even through your scope was highly impressive.I did love that gun.