StarDestroyer.Net BBS

They *were* CGI, all of them. Temura Morrison was the only actual human clonetrooper that appeared onscreen.

Elheru Aran wrote:They *were* CGI, all of them. Temura Morrison was the only actual human clonetrooper that appeared onscreen.

wrong there's was that other who played the mature clones in AOTC (Bodie "Tihoi" Taylor(I checked from SW.com)), he seen briefly during during the Utapau briefing as young unhelmeted trooper (with Morrison playing Cody and other older troopers)

Ok, so blasters CAN go fully auto. Regardless of whether its more efficient in single fire, what possible benefit could there be to actually removing the full auto function from any weapon? Weapons in RL have PROGRESSED from single shot weapons to fully automatic rifles, because fully automatic rifles have that extra functionality that IS more useful in certain situations.

Lord Revan wrote:

Elheru Aran wrote:They *were* CGI, all of them. Temura Morrison was the only actual human clonetrooper that appeared onscreen.

wrong there's was that other who played the mature clones in AOTC (Bodie "Tihoi" Taylor(I checked from SW.com)), he seen briefly during during the Utapau briefing as young unhelmeted trooper (with Morrison playing Cody and other older troopers)

I was referring to RotS, considering that the carbine version of the DC-15 appeared in that movie. Should've made that more specific; you're correct, though.

Lazarus wrote:Ok, so blasters CAN go fully auto. Regardless of whether its more efficient in single fire, what possible benefit could there be to actually removing the full auto function from any weapon? Weapons in RL have PROGRESSED from single shot weapons to fully automatic rifles,

And have had that function taken away again on occasion because it wasted lots of ammunition for little to no gain. About the only purpose full auto has is suppression fire, and that's what SAWs are for, or killing unarmoured vehicles, which again isn't the job of a rifle. This has all been said before.

because fully automatic rifles have that extra functionality that IS more useful in certain situations.

Situations it isn't suited for in the first place and at the risk of the soldier wasting lots of ammo on targets that don't warrant it, without hitting much of anything as often as not. They didn't take full auto away from the M-16 just to spite the soldiers.

Batman wrote: And have had that function taken away again on occasion because it wasted lots of ammunition for little to no gain. About the only purpose full auto has is suppression fire, and that's what SAWs are for, or killing unarmoured vehicles, which again isn't the job of a rifle. This has all been said before.

Your forgetting about close quarter fighting, if you burst into a room and the enemy is before you, you do not want to try to kill them with three round bursts, you want to spray them until they are all dead.

Situations it isn't suited for in the first place and at the risk of the soldier wasting lots of ammo on targets that don't warrant it, without hitting much of anything as often as not. They didn't take full auto away from the M-16 just to spite the soldiers.

They took it away because it was easier then improving training standards. The M16A3 however retains full auto, as does the M4A1 and there are only a very few other assault rifles in the world which have no fully automatic setting. As iti s three round burst is pretty pointless, since by every single account from every person I've ever talked to who has used it, its impossibul to hold more then the first two rounds on target. Often only the first bullet hits.

Your forgetting about close quarter fighting, if you burst into a room and the enemy is before you, you do not want to try to kill them with three round bursts, you want to spray them until they are all dead.

Considering the stormtrooper's role by the time of the OT, largely shipboard defense, urban combat, and peacekeeping, having an automatic setting on a weapon like the E-11 would be essential, which is likely why the gun is their primary sidearm.

Sea Skimmer wrote:They took it away because it was easier then improving training standards. The M16A3 however retains full auto, as does the M4A1 and there are only a very few other assault rifles in the world which have no fully automatic setting. As iti s three round burst is pretty pointless, since by every single account from every person I've ever talked to who has used it, its impossibul to hold more then the first two rounds on target. Often only the first bullet hits.

I don't understand why the three-round burst became the standard instead of the two-round burst featured on some SMG's and assault rifles. Are there technical reasons, or something, that make it easier to achieve?

Master of Ossus wrote: I don't understand why the three-round burst became the standard instead of the two-round burst featured on some SMG's and assault rifles. Are there technical reasons, or something, that make it easier to achieve?

Could you be bothered to elaborate? I didn't even KNOW there's such a thing as a 2-round-burst. I know of the 'double-tap' which is two semi-auto shots in quick succession but I've never heard of your variant.

Two round burst is not that common, but there are weapons that come equipped with it. The idea is to fire two rounds in rapid succession, so both rounds hit the same point. It's used to defeat body armor. Body armor is not that rare on modern battlefield anymore, and this is one solution in defeating said armor. Even if the first round penetrates the armor the target doesn't always go down because armor slowed the bullet enough so it didn't reach anything vital. Two hits in the same area increases chances that the target goes down and stays down.

-Gunhead

Batman wrote:

Master of Ossus wrote: I don't understand why the three-round burst became the standard instead of the two-round burst featured on some SMG's and assault rifles. Are there technical reasons, or something, that make it easier to achieve?

Could you be bothered to elaborate? I didn't even KNOW there's such a thing as a 2-round-burst. I know of the 'double-tap' which is two semi-auto shots in quick succession but I've never heard of your variant.

The AN-94 is an example, it has a two round burst, as well as semi and automatic fire. It also fires the two round burst at 1800rpm so you don't feel the recoil of the first round until the second is fired. Of course that makes it a complicated rifle.

Master of Ossus wrote:
I don't understand why the three-round burst became the standard instead of the two-round burst featured on some SMG's and assault rifles. Are there technical reasons, or something, that make it easier to achieve?

Because, statistically after the 3rd round, the recoil of the weapon affects the trajectories of the following rounds. Technically, the recoil affects #2, but at 'normal ranges' its not a big factor. After #3 you start to see major movment on the ordinate of the round.

By round 4 or 5, you've shifted the aim point off the target completely. That is why the US did the 3 round burst.

Knife wrote:Because, statistically after the 3rd round, the recoil of the weapon affects the trajectories of the following rounds. Technically, the recoil affects #2, but at 'normal ranges' its not a big factor. After #3 you start to see major movment on the ordinate of the round.

By round 4 or 5, you've shifted the aim point off the target completely. That is why the US did the 3 round burst.

Yeah, but why use three rounds instead of two rounds?

The MP5 also has the two-round as an option.

Master of Ossus wrote:

Knife wrote:Because, statistically after the 3rd round, the recoil of the weapon affects the trajectories of the following rounds. Technically, the recoil affects #2, but at 'normal ranges' its not a big factor. After #3 you start to see major movment on the ordinate of the round.

By round 4 or 5, you've shifted the aim point off the target completely. That is why the US did the 3 round burst.

Yeah, but why use three rounds instead of two rounds?

The MP5 also has the two-round as an option.

Because at realistic ranges (~300 meters) the third round is still viable. We're talking a few inches at ~300 meters. While at a point target, that is a lot, on a area target (say an advancing squad of enemy) it's not. It is the 4th round that statistically out of bounds.

That was most enlightening. Thanks people.

Lord Revan wrote:

Elheru Aran wrote:They *were* CGI, all of them. Temura Morrison was the only actual human clonetrooper that appeared onscreen.

wrong there's was that other who played the mature clones in AOTC (Bodie "Tihoi" Taylor(I checked from SW.com)), he seen briefly during during the Utapau briefing as young unhelmeted trooper (with Morrison playing Cody and other older troopers)

In the commentary track on ROTS, they said the stuntman playing the clonetrooper who jumped on top of the droid and fired full auto was an ex-SEAL.

It just seems strange that they would have an actor or stuntman holding a helmet for closeups and then use CGI to place a blaster in his hands.

Elfdart wrote:

Lord Revan wrote:

Elheru Aran wrote:They *were* CGI, all of them. Temura Morrison was the only actual human clonetrooper that appeared onscreen.

wrong there's was that other who played the mature clones in AOTC (Bodie "Tihoi" Taylor(I checked from SW.com)), he seen briefly during during the Utapau briefing as young unhelmeted trooper (with Morrison playing Cody and other older troopers)

In the commentary track on ROTS, they said the stuntman playing the clonetrooper who jumped on top of the droid and fired full auto was an ex-SEAL.

It just seems strange that they would have an actor or stuntman holding a helmet for closeups and then use CGI to place a blaster in his hands.

The reason to hold the helmet would be to get the body angles just right. Holding a rifle is common enough that it can be done easily by CGI, but placing a helmet under one's arm changes your entire posture.