Star Wars Universe - why is military training so ineffective?

jimmifett

Banned
Banned
Watched ANH recently, drives me nuts that no one is looking down their sights and just firing from the hip. No wonder no one can hit :):):):). Slight misalignment of weapon in the hands is practically a guaranteed miss.

If they at least said the weapons' targetting was linked to helmet based HUD... but then you'd expect better shooting.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Argyle King

Legend
It's not just limited to Stormtroopers though. Part of my Rogue One comment was generated by the main characters.

I think I noticed it a little more in R1 because it was (supposedly) a war movie.
 

RachaelHartz

First Post
Light Sabres only work because the Star Wars universe has somehow achieved a means to generate a stable field 'sheath' to contain the high energy plasma. (it should also generate significant heat which explains why only Jedi can use them)
Why do you say that only Jedi can use Light Sabres?
I think that you are wrong. Because Siths also can.
And some peoples have Light Sabres in there culture, despite they don't have any Force powers.
 
Last edited:

Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
Why do you say that only Jedi can use Light Sabres?
I think that you are wrong. Because Siths also can.
And some peoples have Light Sabres in there culture, despite they don't have any Force powers.

"The Sith and the Jedi are alike in almost every way"

but yeah just read Jedi as shorthand for force user
 


tomBitonti

Adventurer
Not sure if a tangent, but how far are we from having self targeting weapons?

That would be, a helmet with an overlay display which plugs into a rifle, with software that does image stabilization and target tracking, and that keeps to a target once one is identified and stays in view? And that auto-selects bursts for shots which are at marginal accuracy?

I would expect that after not too long we we have exactly that, if not already in principle, at which time much of ranged weapon based combat by dedicated forces changes dramatically from what we have today.

In which case, most sci-fi ranged fights, as depicted, are nonsense. Barring countermeasures, well equipped soldiers should hardly ever miss. And then Star Wars is completely silly.

Thx!
TomB
 

If you look at "Rogue One", the Stormtroopers are incredibly deadly. Some people have opined that they have been less effective in other movies because they're dealing with heroes who are "strong with the force", which I presume means "incredibly and impossibly lucky."

There's also the factor that their blasters (they're not lasers for this obvious reason) fire a bolt that doesn't seem to be any faster than an arrow, as launched from a traditional bow. They would be better off with gunpowder weapons.
Depends - it doesn'T seem like you really need to reload those blasters much. Could be the reason they are used - far superior logistics to all the alternatives.
 

Hand of Evil

Hero
Epic
Not sure if a tangent, but how far are we from having self targeting weapons?
Don't know if I would call the self-targeting but we do have weapons systems like: TADS (target acquisition designation sight) which has been in use on the Apache helicopter since 1989 and that has been replaced by a system called Arrowhead in 2005.

Plus, we are starting to get smart bullets. this tech started research in 2008.

So, it is kind of scary what we could have now. But, this is bullets, not blasters. :)
 

The Stormtroopers on the Death Star are purposefully inaccurate. (Leia: "They let us go. It was the only reason for the ease of our escape.") The plan was to make it look good, but the heroes had to escape to lead Vader back to their Rebel Base.

And here's an interesting article about modern warfare (https://jonathanturley.org/2011/01/10/gao-u-s-has-fired-250000-rounds-for-every-insurgent-killed/) that establishes that the US military... who we can assume is a baseline for trained military... has fired 250,000 rounds for each combatant killed. By that standard, Stormtroopers aren't doing too bad...
The first half is, as far as I know, correct; Darth Vader was deliberately using the Force to ensure that the heroes escaped. In the full movie, we learn later that there was a tracker placed on the Millennium Falcon. From there, fanon spread, as it often does; was accepted as fact; and finally entered the franchise official, as sometimes happens.

This statistic was derived by taking the total rounds expended, and dividing by the number of enemy combatants killed. It has a few flaws:

1) It includes all rounds fired in training, which typically includes most of the career of a soldier, and the vast majority of rounds fired.
2) It seems to include only killed enemy combatants. The NATO 7.62mm round is designed to wound, rather than kill, on the grounds that a wounded enemy requires more resources; while a dead enemy can be buried, a wounded enemy requires medical care, food, and housing.
3) A minor point; however, most rounds fired in combat are still not fired with the intention of killing the enemy, but rather to suppress them so that flanking movements can get into range to kill them.

Simply eliminated the rounds used in training from consideration reduces the number of rounds under consideration by at least three orders of magnitude.
 

trancejeremy

Adventurer
So, it is kind of scary what we could have now. But, this is bullets, not blasters. :)

That's actually the thing about most screen science fiction. The energy weapons depicted are vastly inferior to firearms, at least as anti-personnel weapons. Even old firearms, like a level action rifle or a Tommygun.

They are great at blowing up doors and consoles and throwing sparks everywhere though.

About the only Sci-Fi things that have ever acknowledged this is Stargate SG-1 and strangely, some of the Star Trek movies where they are used against the Borg
 

Remove ads

Top