judging by the fact that all of the bodys are still in one piece the weapons had no where near the power of a RPG, I can say for sure that a RPG battle will end far more messy then that.
Right, because we all know how much people love unleashing weapons capable of vaporizing chunks of metal in a volatile starship boarding action. Does this idiot think that the Coast Guard totes around RPG's and LAW's when they board small ships?
and look at when Han shoots greedo in ANH - the body does look like it was just hit with a pistol. (I would take a screen shot, but I don't know how)
Does this idiot not understand the concept of variable yields, or the fact that SW blaster fire VAPORIZES significant quantities of metal?
Another way to show the weakness of the blasters and other SW weapons in the battle of Hoth from ESB - most of the early battle takes place in the snow. when anything with lots of energy hits snow it have a tendency to melt or evapolrate - but we see little of that. and all of it's other propertys sure look like it's just snow.
Ask him how he thinks that this:
happened unless blasters can deliver firepower greater than that of RPG's.
All of his arguments basically boil down to: "Some SW blaster fire does not demonstrate high firepower, thus all of is crappy." What he does not understand is that the upper-limits on blaster firepower are very high, and since blasters are known to have variable settings it makes perfect sense that there would be some discrepencies.
I think that the fact that they can get knocked out by gungans just shows how weak they are. use your head here - the gungans are not very advanced.
The Gungans have personal submarines that have crush depths into the thousands of feet, and can set up cities underwater using forcefields to maintain breathable air while being selectively permeable to sentient beings. The Gungans have theater shields that are creature-portable, and can withstand the collective firepower of dozens of tanks.
Hey, look, an Apache helicopter can be taken out by some losers firing small-arms designed in the 1940's. I guess Apache's aren't very advanced.
Incidentally, I notice how he completely dodged the fact that no modern MBT could match the AAT's ability to go through heavy walls with impunity. Also, have him LOOK at how thick the frontal armor of the AAT is. Can he seriously argue that a modern RPG would go through that?
And incidentally, it is hugely unfair to be complaining that SW blaster fire isn't as good as RPG's. SW blasters and blaster carbines should be compared to SMALL ARMS when attempting to figure out whether or not a modern army could take out a SW one. Modern small arms cannot do this:
nor this:
The repeating blaster on the speeder should be compared to a light-vehicle mounted, repeating weapon on a modern vehicle. The closest comparison would be the .50 caliber machine guns mounted on Humvees. Can he seriously argue that such a weapon could tear through the observed thickness of the armor on an AAT? Even the Bradley cannons would have great difficulty punching through that thickness of IRON, much less modern armor plate.
they need to throw their weapons as their only way of getting it to their oppenents, and they need to use huge beasts as the only means of transportation. this means that napoleon is slightly more advanced then them, hell even ceasar is more advanced then them - he at least know about bow and arrow.
The atlatl delivers much greater stopping power than a bow and arrow (that's why the Spanish conquistadors were afraid of that weapon and not afraid of bows--the atlatl could penetrate their breast plates at 10 meters. A bow and arrow could not). Regardless, only a fucking moron believes that a group that can erect mobile energy shields, construct cities underwater, build personal submarines with a crush depth of thousands of meters, and which possesses javelins capable of delivering an electric charge over a distance of a half meter is less advanced than a Napoleonic army. The Gungans are an UNDERWATER CIVILIZATION. Their land-based capabilities are limited by the fact that they weren't allowed to move about on the land for hundreds of years, and so developed few vehicles for doing so. Only a moron concludes from this evidence that they're less developed than Napoleonic armies.
and so anything they throw won't be more advanced then a molotov cocktail. and so anything that get knocked out by them scores 10 out of 10 for incompetence.
In case he hadn't noticed, the Trade Federation overran the Grand Army of the Gungans quite easily after they brought the shields down and were allowed to bring their combat vehicles into the battle.
Even the piddly gun on a goddamned Naboo speeder can blow a man-sized chunk out of a tank's armour.
odd, because trees falling down will destroy stuff those guns will not. and a bradley can take a tree falling down on it with out noticing anything.
I love the way he moves from "a light vehicle can be taken out by slamming two tree trunks weighing as much as a dozen tons each into it" to "A heavy vehicle's frontal armor can be defeated by an identical attack, nevermind the fact that the same vehicle can crash through 'heavy walls with impunity.'"
And about those trees, a Bradley is an armored personnel carrier, while an AT-ST is a scout transport. Why don't we just point out how an AT-AT can withstand weapons fire that would kill a modern infantry-man and use that to conclude the superiority of SW weapons?
In case any of you are wondering, all his comparisons of Blasters to RPGs are from the fact that I stated that a blaster has roughly the firepower of a handgranade. Never did I say that it was comparable to a Rocket Propelled Granade, that is a strawman attack isn't it?
It is, but moreover it is a laughable comparison. If he's arguing that their weapons aren't quite as good as RPG's then he's already lost the debate because he's admitted that their weapons are more powerful than modern small-arms. When you think about it, he simply CANNOT argue when you force him to compare things which play similar roles in the various armies.
A light-speeder with a mounted blaster can penetrate the thick frontal armor of a SW tank. A .50 caliber weapon mounted on a Humvee could never have accomplished the same deed.
A blaster blew a thick metal door apart in ANH. It was mentioned in the dialogue that blasters could destroy doors several times, and attempted by Han and Luke (which would've succeeded except for exotic shielding that modern armored vehicles do not have). An M16A2 could not have done the same thing.
A SW armor vehicle in ESB unleashed kiloton-level firepower when it nailed the Rebel power generator from a distance of over 17 kilometers. A modern Bradley is simply put to shame by that effort.
The standard-issue body armor worn by stormtroopers can withstand a spear thrown so powerfully that the accelerative/decelerative forces nearly forced him to lose consciousness. Modern body armor, worn by MP's, would've been defeated effortlessly by such an attack.
Stormtrooper armor offers complete protection from NBC attacks. Modern soldiers have to carry specialized, very uncomfortable gear to gain ANY protection from such attacks, and even then they could never survive in hard-vacuum, high-radiation environments.
No intelligent points can be made to respond to any of these, and simply pointing out that the abilities of SW weapons are limited (ie. "blasters aren't quite as good as modern RPG's") is not a legitimate response to the argument that a modern army would be outgunned at every level if it opposed a SW army.
If the guy is just desperate for a sci-fi army that would get killed by a modern one, he need look no further than ST, whose troops have no NBC protection, body armor, heavy weapons, combined-arms tactics, or even grenades with which to fight back. If he's intent on arguing that SW ground armies would lose to a modern one, he has no case.
Edit: Disclaimer: Pics shamelessly stolen and reposted from Mike Wong.
