ops.uci%Rand-Relay@sri-unix.UUCP (08/25/83)
From: 750a Ops <ops.uci@Rand-Relay> I agree with the previously expressed opinion that resolving Star Wars (Star Trek, Sherlock Holmes, etc.,etc.) bugs is fun and good light mental exercise. And since this question of the useless armor seems to be one of the big bugs of SW, here is the (read: my) final word on the subject. Imperial Combat Armor is a selfcontained life-support/environmental system, protecting the wearer against all chemical and biological weapons and all types of dangerous radiation. It is also proof against all hand/tentacle/ pseudopod-held edged weapons and missle weapons with a terminal velocity of less than (CLASSIFIED) meters per second. Although the armor is not proof against point blank fire by energy weapons. It is resistant to energy weapons fired at a deflection angle of (CLASSIFIED) degrees and is proof against energy weapons fired a deflection angle of greater than (CLASSIFIED) degrees. To compare, the steel helmet worn almost universally by combat forces of this planet is not proof against bullets, bomb splinters or shrapnel (sp?) or any of the other deadly missles one is liable to encounter on the battle- field. It is resistant to the by-products of explosions (dirt, rocks, wood splinters, etc.) and (and this is the important part!) it's better than nothing. (It also keeps the rain off.) Body armor is not worn on Earth today because the price one pays in maneuverability is no where near worth what one gets back in protection (even so, "flak jackets" are issued here and there around the world). Maybe the trade-off is worth it to the Imperials. AND! Has anyone actually seen Imperial armor that had been penetrated by energy weapons? (I seem to recall some Ewok arrows getting through, but those are missles.) How do we know that the stormtroopers felled by Luke, Han and Company are actually dead and not merely wounded or even stunned by blaster fire? Granted this would be less than ideal, but as I stated above, it could be better than nothing. Thanks for letting me ramble-on on a trivial subject. tom johnson (tlj) <ops.uci@rand-relay>