Star Trek Disruptors vs. Star Wars Disruptors

[TrekWarsie]

What are the differences between the disruptors in the two universes?

[Stormbringer]

What are the differences between the disruptors in the two universes?

Stars Wars disruptors are hand gun weapons. Basically souped up blasters.

Trek Disruptors seems to be a brute force type of phaser technology.

[Mr Bean]

Disrupters are almost a brand name of weapon rather than anything brand new, Its noted however they have pretty similar power to Blasters with the exception that they can serve as Anti-Ship weapons... for one shot anyway(We have a recoreded case of a Disrupter being fielded modifed to take out a Miltary Hover Van)

[Ender]

... Um no, to both of you.

Disruptors in Star Wars are disintigration guns. You shoot anything with it, and it disappears. Apparently uses technobabble because No limits or energy effects are mentioned.

Disruptors in Trek are part energy, part nadions, just like phasers.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Um, no to you. EGTWT clearly states what disruptors are. Overpowered blasters.

[Illuminatus Primus]

... Um no, to both of you.

Disruptors in Star Wars are disintigration guns. You shoot anything with it, and it disappears. Apparently uses technobabble because No limits or energy effects are mentioned.

Stop playing Jedi Knight 2.

They're overpowered blasters that can reduce whole human being into flaming carbon ash and blow holes through TIE fighter cockpits (of course this was a Royal Guardsman's personal disruptor). They have shit range though. The energies are so intense that a near miss will cause nerve damage that's fatal if not immediately treated.

[Master of Ossus]

Disruptors in SW are basically incredibly powerful blasters. They sacrifice range and ammunition capacity for firepower, but the exchange yields extraordinary results. The weapons can easily punch through meters of duracrete, cause extraordinary nerve damage that is fatal and incredibly painful, and damage small starships. Disruptors are highly illegal under all recent Galactic governments, and are produced primarily by crime syndicates.

Disruptors are the primary weapons of both the Klingon and Romulan Empires. They appear to have operating parameters relatively similar to Federation phasers, though it is sometimes speculated that they are in fact more powerful and less reliable than phasers, or that they offer slightly decreased range.

[Ender]

Um, no to you. EGTWT clearly states what disruptors are. Overpowered blasters.

Since my copy is half the country away, I'll take your word on it, even though I thought I got that from the EGWT

[Publius]

Mr Bill Smith wrote (p. 24) in The Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology:

Among the most controversial and reviled hand weapons in the galaxy, disruptors are energy weapons whose blasts are so powerful that they break down objects at the molecular level, leaving only a smoking pile of ash.

These small handheld pistols can disintegrate a one-meter by one-meter durasteel plate up to half a meter thick or penetrate force fields, personal battle armor, and vehicle and starship hull plating -- they are virtually unstoppable. Against living targets these weapons almost always cause instantaneous death, and even a glancing blast causes horribly painful injuries that must be treated immediately in order to prevent irreparable nerve damage.

Most disruptors utilize brute force rather than technological innovations to produce their lethal blasts. The oversized XCiter and the actuating blaster module process a much greater volume of blaster gas, while the barrel's series of galven cylinders tightly focuses the beam, oncentrating the blast's high-energy particles. However, because of their crude design, disruptors tend to have short ranges and limited ammunition capacity [...]

[...]

While disruptors are militarily impractical because of their limited range and ammunition, [...]

Disruptors are banned on most New Republic worlds; on some planets mere possession is grounds for the death penalty. Even under the Empire only a very small number of Imperial officials -- Imperial Security Bureau interrogators and inquisitors -- were allowed to carry these inhumane weapons. During the rule of the EMpire some weapons manufacturers were authorized to produce these weapons in limited quantities, although most companies ceased production under New Republic law.

However, the Tenloss Syndicate and many other criminal organizations maintain back-alley labs to build disruptors and reap tremendous profits from black market sales.

In the Star Trek context, disruptors appear to be comparable to phasers in at least form and function (although disruptors are usually green, whereas phasers vary from blue to red to orange to yellow). It is generally accepted that disruptors lack the technological sophistication of phasers, but compensate by being more energetic. This is not, however, canonical, and is conjectural.

Publius

[His Divine Shadow]

If that 1x1x0.5m bar was iron then the pistol would have a firepower of nearly 30 gigajoules per shot, if it vaporizes it that is.

[Loki]

They're overpowered blasters that can reduce whole human being into flaming carbon ash and blow holes through TIE fighter cockpits (of course this was a Royal Guardsman's personal disruptor). They have shit range though. The energies are so intense that a near miss will cause nerve damage that's fatal if not immediately treated.

Where in Crimson Empire does it state that he was using a disruptor? Just curious.

[Illuminatus Primus]

It was conjecture based on the fact E-11 Stormtrooper blaster carbines can't even score the TIE cockpit's transparisteel, but Kanos' pistol fired clean through and killed the pilot.

[Illuminatus Primus]

It would obviously be a special, overpowered blaster to be able to achieve that firepower. Generally those weapons are called disruptors in SW.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Versus in Wraith Squadron novels where multiple shots from a blaster rifle splash harmlessly against the TIE window.

The only way for Kanos' actions to be reconciled (since novels>comics) is to assume he was using one badass pistol, hence disrupter.

[Loki]

Ah, and all this time I though he was just lucky.

[Robert Treder]

About Kanos' pistol, does anybody know at what range he scored the hit on the TIE? IIRC, the TIE was in flight, no? Aren't disruptors supposed to have limited ranges, or was his pistol just uber badass in every respect?

[Ghost Rider]

I'd say close range...given how the panel showing the pilot closing in...one can clearly see detail on Kanos, Sinn, and Sadeet. The next panel is it's beginning it's strafing run, with Kanos holding still...the next is a shot through the pilot itself and the cockpit window.

I have no real idea of range...hmm anyone know the size of a TIE interceptor from the wingtips to cockpit?

Either way...the pistol Kanos use is outlandish to do what it did. I mean he took one shot and it went through the cockpit.

[THEHOOLIGANJEDI]

I remember in the Essential guide to Weapons and Technology. That disruptors disintergrate things at a molecular level, and can disintergrate through almost anything. They are overpowered blasters, were in the EGWT does it even allude to that? Wong's site even shows that quote and someone posted the entire explanation from the EGWT on this thread.

BTW SW Disruptors are more powerful the ST ones, But are far less efficient.

[Boba Fett]

I laughed my ass out when I read EGWT.

It said these inhuman weapons (disruptors) are forbidden in the NR.

So it's inhuman to incinerate someone with a disruptor but it's not a problem if you shoot someone dead with a normal blaster!

Suuure...

[Patrick Ogaard]

I laughed my ass out when I read EGWT.

It said these inhuman weapons (disruptors) are forbidden in the NR.

So it's inhuman to incinerate someone with a disruptor but it's not a problem if you shoot someone dead with a normal blaster!

Suuure...

Don't be too quick to roll those eyes.

In the real world, it's perfectly legal for a soldier to shoot an enemy soldier in the head using a jacketed bullet, but it's a war crime for that soldier to use a hollow-point bullet to do the same thing.

[Boba Fett]

I laughed my ass out when I read EGWT.

It said these inhuman weapons (disruptors) are forbidden in the NR.

So it's inhuman to incinerate someone with a disruptor but it's not a problem if you shoot someone dead with a normal blaster!

Suuure...

Don't be too quick to roll those eyes.

In the real world, it's perfectly legal for a soldier to shoot an enemy soldier in the head using a jacketed bullet, but it's a war crime for that soldier to use a hollow-point bullet to do the same thing.

Ahem...if you use the jacketed bullets he have approx. + 5% chance on surviving...That means it's humanic?!

*instantly starts uber eye rolling*

[Seggybop]

Nevertheless, that is the reality...

[Patrick Ogaard]

I laughed my ass out when I read EGWT.

It said these inhuman weapons (disruptors) are forbidden in the NR.

So it's inhuman to incinerate someone with a disruptor but it's not a problem if you shoot someone dead with a normal blaster!

Suuure...

Don't be too quick to roll those eyes.

In the real world, it's perfectly legal for a soldier to shoot an enemy soldier in the head using a jacketed bullet, but it's a war crime for that soldier to use a hollow-point bullet to do the same thing.

Ahem...if you use the jacketed bullets he have approx. + 5% chance on surviving...That means it's humanic?!

*instantly starts uber eye rolling*

You're making me dizzy.

However, yes, it is true. Hollow-point bullets are banned in military service as cruel and inhumane instruments of war, whereas metal-jacketed bullets are allowed in military service as gentle and humane instruments of war. (Okay, there was a bit of sarcasm there, but bear with me.)

Which weapons are considered "acceptable" by a society depends on a number of factors, and very often these factors have nothing at all to do with cold logic and everything to do with misperception and knee-jerk emotional responses.

Other historical/real world examples:

Using tear gas is illegal in armed conflicts, as using "any" chemical agent against the enemy, even an agent that will result in fewer fatalities than if you had to shoot the enemy full of bullets, constitutes chemical warfare and thus the use of a tear gas grenade can be considered a war crime and justify dropping nukes on the enemy's cities.

When the Americans entered WW1, and brought their slide-action shotguns into trench warfare, there was serious talk on the German side, complete with newspaper articles, of shooting out of hand any Americans caught using such barbarous weapons, weapons unworthy of use by the soldiers of a civilized nation.

The British fought tooth and nail to gain an exception to the Geneva Conventions for their .455 caliber revolvers. The .455 revolvers could be loaded with flat-tip rounds that had no jacket over that lead tip. Marketed commercially as man-stoppers, which they undoubtedly were, their primary "military" use was shooting enormous holes in tribesmen in the colonies. The British finally had to give in and remove the man-stopper bullets from their military inventory, as the risk was too great that civilized soldiers might "accidentally" be shot at.

Then go a bit farther back to the particular Papal Bull that, if I'm remembering it correctly, threatened automatic excommunication to anyone who used an inhuman and barbarous weapon like the crossbow against honest Christian warriors. On the other hand, using it against godless heretics and Saracens was perfectly acceptable. It was generally believed at the time that Richard Lionheart got exactly what he deserved when he got shot through the armpit by a crossbow bolt and died thereof, as he was an enthusiastic employer of crossbowmen despite the ban and used the weapon himself. (Of course, the intrepid crossbowman was himself skinned alive by Richard's mercenaries for doing that deed, in spite of Richard's deathbed pardon.)

On a more recent and less lethal note, under German law, tear gas sprays employing CN and CS gas mixes are legal for adults to use as self defense weapons without a license, whereas pepper sprays, which have fewer potentially dangerous long term effects, are not (except against attacking dogs). The simple reason is that as a relatively diffuse spray, the CN and CS gas sprayers are not technically considered a weapon, whereas the directed stream of a pepper spray device is considered a weapon and thus requires comprehensive licensing.

It is all just a matter of what society finds acceptable and what society finds unacceptable. In a Star Trek context, the disruptor used by the mad collector who faked Data's destruction to add the android to his collection was a banned weapon and considered too cruel to use. Yet its actual effects appeared trivially different from those of a Federation phaser or Klingon disruptor.

The real, behind-the-scenes, reason for Star Wars disruptors being officially banned is obvious: blasters are powerful enough, and no one in a position of power really wants low-life criminals and disgruntled employees of the Imperial Postal Service wandering around with handguns that make blasters look like water pistols.

[Illuminatus Primus]

About Kanos' pistol, does anybody know at what range he scored the hit on the TIE? IIRC, the TIE was in flight, no? Aren't disruptors supposed to have limited ranges, or was his pistol just uber badass in every respect?

No more than 30 meters, and the TIE pilot was coasting on only repulsors or something with how slow he was going.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Adding to my previous post, when the rifle version of blasters have 10 km ranges, a 100 meter-ranged disruptor pistol would be very short range. It's all comparitive.

They are overpowered blasters, were in the EGWT does it even allude to that?

They are described as using a basically identical operating principle as they describe blasters.

The oversized XCiter and the acutating blaster module process a much greater volume of blaster gas, while the barrel's series of galven cylinders tightly focus the beam, concentrating the blast's high-energy particles.