Thrawn vs...

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2002-10-21 09:57am

General George S. Patton Jr.

Scenario 1: Two Tank battalions (1 each) battle in the Sahara Desert, assume thrawn knows how each of his units work etc. And that all appropriate support personell/equipment available to both sides.

Scenario 2: Two sector fleets (1 each) do battle in the Hoth System. Assume Patton has full knowledge of his ships capablities/armaments.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-10-21 10:14am

Does George own any art work? If so, this is a no brainer he is royally screwed! But then again I don't know too much of him, so this is in essence a fanboy reply...

Failed Glory · Post by **Failed Glory** » 2002-10-21 02:51pm

Is the Sahara supposed to be Patton's ideal site for battle?

Comparing a general whose bravery aside is hardly worthy of mention to Thrawn is insulting. Patton had far better supplies and superior numbers against the Afrika Korps.

I pose the question, why compare Patton to anyone?

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2002-10-21 03:28pm

Failed Glory wrote:Is the Sahara supposed to be Patton's ideal site for battle?

Comparing a general whose bravery aside is hardly worthy of mention to Thrawn is insulting. Patton had far better supplies and superior numbers against the Afrika Korps.

I pose the question, why compare Patton to anyone?

Good point; Patton was more of a tactical to operational-level general. He was more a balls-to-the-walls commander than a strategist. His staff pulled his bacon out of the frying pan more than once, but then that is generally the case, since a commander is often only as good as his staff.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2002-10-21 09:18pm

Um you people are SADLY mis-informed about the greatest Military Mind the U.S. has ever known.

Even if you buy into the myth that he didn't do strategy, a battle is the tactical side anyway not strategy.

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-10-21 09:33pm

Admiral_K wrote:Um you people are SADLY mis-informed about the greatest Military Mind the U.S. has ever known.

Please enlighten us then.

Even if you buy into the myth that he didn't do strategy, a battle is the tactical side anyway not strategy.

You can win wars while losing battles. You can win battles while losing wars. -Sun Tzu.

See my point?

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2002-10-21 09:35pm

IG-88E wrote:You can win wars while losing battles. You can win battles while losing wars. -Sun Tzu.

Also explains the outcome of the Vietnam war, during which US forces won the majority of the battles. Despite the victories in battle, we all know the final outcome.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2002-10-21 10:02pm

jegs2 wrote:
Failed Glory wrote:Is the Sahara supposed to be Patton's ideal site for battle?

Comparing a general whose bravery aside is hardly worthy of mention to Thrawn is insulting. Patton had far better supplies and superior numbers against the Afrika Korps.

I pose the question, why compare Patton to anyone?
Good point; Patton was more of a tactical to operational-level general. He was more a balls-to-the-walls commander than a strategist. His staff pulled his bacon out of the frying pan more than once, but then that is generally the case, since a commander is often only as good as his staff.

True; Patton's idea of leading was quite literally to be out in front of his troops. I'm reminded of the following anecdote:

Patton walks into a staff briefing where several of his officers are intensely scrutinizing a small stream on a map, complaining that they don't know how deep the stream is. He gets their attention, and says, "It's this deep." pointing to the water-line on his trouser legs.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 2002-10-21 10:41pm

I think Patton will win the tank battle. General Patton was one of America's greatest Generals. He knew how to inspire his soldiers and make them perform to their fullest. His knowledge of tank warfare would be superior to Thrawn. Thrawn is probably used to using At-At's and other Imperial armored vehicles. Imperial armor strategy won't work with modern battle tanks.

I don't believe Patton could defeat Thrawn in a fleet engagement. Even if Patton understands how the equipment and warships function, he would not know the nuances of space warfare.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2002-10-21 10:44pm

Commander LeoRo wrote:I think Patton will win the tank battle. General Patton was one of America's greatest Generals. He knew how to inspire his soldiers and make them perform to their fullest. His knowledge of tank warfare would be superior to Thrawn. Thrawn is probably used to using At-At's and other Imperial armored vehicles. Imperial armor strategy won't work with modern battle tanks.

I don't believe Patton could defeat Thrawn in a fleet engagement. Even if Patton understands how the equipment and warships function, he would not know the nuances of space warfare.

If I'm not mistaken, that's because space warfare (at least in this instance) would resemble carrier-based naval warfare. Can we substitute Nimitz for Patton?

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2002-10-21 10:58pm

IG-88E wrote:Please enlighten us then.

Um just type his name in on Google and you'll get plenty of info.

Even if you buy into the myth that he didn't do strategy, a battle is the tactical side anyway not strategy.
You can win wars while losing battles. You can win battles while losing wars. -Sun Tzu.

See my point?

What point? Strategy would have very little to do in either of these scenarios. In a battle, its about tactics. It's the strategy that gets you to that point.

I.E. It was strategy that set up the battle of Midway, but it was naval tactics that decided it.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2002-10-21 11:00pm

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:
Commander LeoRo wrote:I think Patton will win the tank battle. General Patton was one of America's greatest Generals. He knew how to inspire his soldiers and make them perform to their fullest. His knowledge of tank warfare would be superior to Thrawn. Thrawn is probably used to using At-At's and other Imperial armored vehicles. Imperial armor strategy won't work with modern battle tanks.

I don't believe Patton could defeat Thrawn in a fleet engagement. Even if Patton understands how the equipment and warships function, he would not know the nuances of space warfare.
If I'm not mistaken, that's because space warfare (at least in this instance) would resemble carrier-based naval warfare. Can we substitute Nimitz for Patton?

I think that the hyperdrive makes this substantially different from carrier based warfare. Carriers can't typically zoom away from attacking aircraft =/.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2002-10-21 11:03pm

Well, at some point they have to, you know, battle each other. That's hard to do if all you're doing is zooming.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-21 11:05pm

Of course. But it means that the tactics would be much different, which would take Patton by surprise (of course, since he's a land general and not a naval admiral, he's at a disadvantage to begin with).

I say that Patton wins on land, Thrawn wins in space. To each man his strengths and the benefit of experience.

Brother-Captain Gaius · Post by **Brother-Captain Gaius** » 2002-10-22 12:13am

Hmm.... While I fail to see what Patton vs. Thrawn has to do with SW vs ST, I believe Thrawn is the superior strategist and about equal tactician. . . So assuming every single one of the millions of combat variables are equal and its only a question of superior tactics, draw in both cases

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2002-10-22 02:40pm

Addendum to scenario: Captain Picard and the Enterprise go back in time and grab him to try and lead the Federation "military". Or just say Q did it.

There is your Star Trek vs Star wars!

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2002-10-22 02:46pm

That's pathetic.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2002-10-22 02:50pm

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:Well, at some point they have to, you know, battle each other. That's hard to do if all you're doing is zooming.

Ofcourse they battle each other but that doesn't mean that it would be anything like a typical carrier based modern naval battle. Not to mention that Nacal battles are typicall only on 2 dimensions for the warships themselves (no going up or down) unless you want to count sumbarines, where as starships would have the option of doing so.

At any rate, personally I would think that a fight between starships would be more akin to a tank battle then many of you are giving credit. The ISDs would serve as heavy armored units, and the fighters as infantry soldiers. The lighter craft ofcourse being akin to the lighter support vehicles.

Again, this is assuming Patton has full knowledge of how the ships work i.e. speed of Hyperdrive, range of weapons, weapon yields etc.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2002-10-22 02:54pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:That's pathetic.

Why should I waste time thinking of something clever just to satisfy the "trekie" argument? I've seen other posts on here regarding other sci fi series, or relating to only star trek. Its not like I came in here and posted something that had nothing to do with either star wars or trek (although again it wouldn't be the first time that's happened either).