StarDestroyer.Net BBS

How would standard Imperial Army Troopers (NOT Stormtroopers) fare against in comparison to soldiers of the Rebel Alliance man to man and equipment-wise?

Well, I'm not very familiar with the capabilities of Imperial Army Troopers. Its usually Stormtroopers and Navy Troopers we see in action in the films. The only time I can think of when they showed up was in The Last Command, when a force consisting mainly "of about thirty Imperial army troops" supported by two Chariot command speeders and four stormtroopers was sent to go after the smugglers. They didn't do too well then, being wiped out while inflicting only one fatality on their enemies.

I would imagine they'd likely be more disciplined and better equipped than the Rebels, but the Rebels would be more skilled in guerilla warfare. But that's just a guess.

Wait, Stormtroopers are supposed to be elite forces? There is an Imperial regulars army?!

adam_grif wrote:Wait, Stormtroopers are supposed to be elite forces? There is an Imperial regulars army?!

Maybe the stormtroopers are comparable to the US Marines, and the Imperial Army is comparable to the US Army?

Stormtroopers are kind of like marines vs army. Marines are a spear point, the army is there for the duration.

According to the EU, the Rebels ground army or SpecForce was very well trained, but poorly equipped because they couldn't get decent gear, and they were always outnumbered in ground battles with the empire, so they usually lost. It wasn't because they were poorly trained though.

I always liked Tagge's line that the Rebels were '...too well-equipped, they're more dangerous than you realise.' The biggest problem with the Rebels were their small numbers and lack of an industrial base, which the Empire both had. I don't know why the EU fell onto this idea that the Rebels weren't properly equipped or something. Being outnumbered and losing is already a solid explanation, but the films explicitly say they're well equipped, at least in Tagge's estimation (and why shouldn't we believe him?).

Given the context I don't think it is fair to extrapolate his "well equipped" to mean on par with normal military units, just that they are not a bunch of rag tag nobodies that the Empire probably deals with a thousand times a day.

We hear people say the Taliban is well equipped in the media all the time, but it is relative to previous low expectations.

Agreed, when your dealing with rebels "well-equipped" doesn't mean Centurian and Abrams main battle tanks, Warrior IFVs, and Apache attack helicopters. It means they aren't a bunch of men running around with shotguns and machetes. They could have anti-armor and anti-air missiles and heavy machine guns and mortars and they're considered "well-equipped" for rebels.
As for how the Rebels would fare against the Imperial Army, I'd say given equal numbers and the proper equipment allocation for those numbers (for example if its a squad versus a squad, the Imperials can't have 5 tanks, unless you're comparing two armored units), I'd say that the Rebels would win. Never underestimate men who are fighting for their homes (or because their homes were destroyed...by the Empire).
That is the only way you are going to compare the two quality-wise. Otherwise its a numbers game.

That's only part of the line, guys. Admiral Motti replies 'Dangerous to your starfleet, General, not to this Battlestation.'

Granted, you both make fair points about how well equipped doesn't mean state of the art. On the other hand, an X-wing at least is capable of going toe-to-toe with a TIE fighter. (and that's if you don't count the EU fluff and games about 1 X-wing being worth 4 TIEs) So in some areas I'd say the Rebels have a qualitative edge (if you go by the canon regarding X-wings outperforming TIE/lns) in some areas, but lacking in others. Otherwise, I agree with you guys.

Stofsk wrote:Stormtroopers are kind of like marines vs army. Marines are a spear point, the army is there for the duration.

It's funny how people state this as fact, when it's just a result of the US Marines being a higher-quality force than the US Army.

If you said 'marines are the spear point' with regard to the Royal Marines people would laugh... stupid Marine Corps.

Oh? Why aren't the Royal Marines a high-quality force? (I don't know anything about them to be perfectly honest)

My understanding is that the Royal Marines are a high quality force, just aren't numerous enough to make a good spear head. Needle point sure, not spearhead.

Three batallions, basically, plus specialist detachments like Comacchio and the Mountain & Arctic Warfare cadre; they're effectively sliding towards special- forces status, and their recruitment and training standards are raised to meet that, because they don't have the raw numbers to do anything else, and making existing soldiers sweat harder in training is apparently cheaper than paying and kitting out more of them.

Not sure how relevant this is, really- that actually sounds more like the opposition, the soldiers of the Rebel Alliance, than those of the Empire.

I've seldom heard good things said in the EU about the Imperial Army; those units that see activity, and some of them are fleet- based on navy troopships, are supposedly not too bad.

Garrison units, which is what the overwhelming majority of them are inevitably going to be, labouring under the burdens of Correct Thought and severe doctrinal rigidity, and also in all probability severely bored- I can't see how the pressures that would make them good are going to be there or are going to last.

Only three battalions? I thought each Commando was a brigade... Guess they are only battalion-strength then. But yes, I agree. The Royal Marines sound more like the Rebel Alliance Special Forces than Imperial Stormtroopers, but the Stormtroopers sound a lot like the USMC. Especially with the seeming emphasis on the rifleman (blasterman?) on the ground. That seems to be all the Stormtroopers put forward, except for Hoth, but even then, weren't the walkers under a separate chain of command?
And the garrison troops are going to be soldiers who, in all probability, have never seen action. And probably never will. Low morale if any fighting does occur. And they'll learn everything the hard way, with many casualties.

Stofsk wrote:Oh? Why aren't the Royal Marines a high-quality force? (I don't know anything about them to be perfectly honest)

They're well trained, but the idea that the Marines are needed due to higher quality is an American thing, probably related to their Army recruitment. The ADF sure doesn't need any 'elite marines rar' nonsense. 'Marines' = 'good or elite' solely because the Marine Corps exists and maintains it's ridiculous independence (and higher standards) and is big in popular culture.

Stormtroopers only sound like the USMC because they are both "armies within armies". Better examples would be the Waffen-SS, or the Iranian Pasdaran. Both are organizations distinct and seperate from the regular army, but both are also based around political reliability. The USMC only falls into the first category, despite their official motto being Semper Fidelis. Of course, in Star Wars there is also COMPFORCE, which is even more like the IRGC or SS. Especially with the "well equipped, fanatical, and incompetent" parts. In this regard, the Stormtroopers also combine some aspects of the old-school European Guards regiments, in addition to their absolute loyalty. In the end, Stormtroopers seem to be an elite in every way.

At a galactic scale, there's obviously going to be a lot more stratification than we see on Earth, so it makes sense they have it. People tend to jump from 'on spaceships' to 'marines' very quickly, however.

Yeah, I remember Publius' excellent posts fall into that trap. Americans automatically think "Marine Corps" when they hear of any force that is in addition to, but not within, the Army. Technically though, any ground (or infantry) force on a ship are marines. Just not American Marines.

Anywho, the primary reason that there were Stormtroopers on ships, it seems to me, is more due to a need to maintain a politically reliable force on valuable vessels. Especially ones off in the middle of fuckoff for extended periods of time. Given the number of Imperial vessels that defected to the Rebel Scum, it seems a prudent measure (especially ISDs). Having the equivalent of an all-arms division to "pacifiy" the locals, or assault hot-spots, is just an added bonus.

It's also possible that the ships make maintenance or supply easier than in more fixed or garrison situations, since the required high-tech facilities are being moved with the soldiers. It's interesting that in the movies what we see of the Imperial Army is an outgrowth of second-line forces like drivers and mechanics who don't require the level of equipment that armoured troops do.

Interestingly, in the Iran-Iraq War, the Iranian Regular Army was primarily important due to it possessing drivers, tankers, trainers, and mechanics. The Pasdaran, Basij, and other militias supplied most of the infantry manpower. A distinct similarity to what we see on Hoth.

I think that armoured troops would be less useful in the type of engagements the Empire might be involved in. If they have air supremacy, then they can drop troops and equipment wherever the fuck they need them. They would only require tanks and such for heavy weapons, and there are gunships for that as well. If the Navy are the people that have all of these air-toys, then it could be the regs are just drivers, mechanics, and garrison forces (read gendarmes). In modern day Iraq and Afghanistan, helicopters are regularly used whenever they can, and I imagine if they could transport everything via air, then ground convoys (and IFVs and tanks) would be less used.

EDIT: The idea that it is too costly (due to personnel shortages, or money) to have permanent garrisons on most planets is interesting. Seems like an outgrowth of Gunboat Diplomacy. Especially if the loyalty of a vast bulk of the Empire's population is in question, it might be the more expedient method.

The stormtroopers are explicitly said to be a separate branch of service in the Technical Journal of the Imperial Forces and are referred to as the Imperial Marines in "Pax Empirica -- The Wookiee Annihilation." Additionally, the Imperial Sourcebook specifically states that the Naval Biological group is "directly responsible for the health of stormtrooper units" (cf. the use of USN hospital corpsmen and religious program specialists in USMC formations). Stormtroopers are not necessarily marines (nor vice versa -- General Veers's Blizzard Force springs readily to mind as an example of Army marines, and the Navy is known to maintain its own naval infantry regiments), nor are marines necessarily an ersatz army. However, stormtroopers are Marines, and the Marines do perform a role as one of the New Order's ersatz armies (here the stormtroopers are likely more directly comparable to the IRGC or Waffen-SS than to the USMC).

It may be useful to distinguish three separate roles -- shock troopers, marines, and a rival army -- which are not necessarily related. It happens to be that the Imperial Marines stormtroopers are all three.

Frankly, I am a bit confused by your post. You say "stormtroopers are not...marines..." but then say "...stormtroopers are marines..." in the next sentence. I agree that the stormtroopers are a seperate branch of service, and the parallel between marines and navy corpsmen and stormtroopers and Bio group is interesting. In my view, the role of ship-stationed stormtroopers (marines) is secondary to being a politically loyal second army. Being ship-borne is merely a method of maintaining a presence not only throughout the Empire, but also within the Navy itself.

The only book that you mentioned that I have, by the way, is WEG's Imperial Sourcebook.

Just to clear up some things. I refer to marines as soldiers stationed on ships. Which would make any Stormtroopers stationed on a ship marines. Stormtroopers not stationed on ships are not marines. Naval Troopers, likewise are marines. Merely being transported via ship does not make one a marine, though. Eg, "The ship's marines embarked on a cutting-out raid. Casualties were high."

The stormtroopers are the Imperial Marines (the formal name of the independent branch of service), but not necessarily Imperial marines (naval infantry); the capitalization in this case is an important distinction. The Empire has marines from the Imperial Navy (Naval infantry regiments), Imperial Army (Army 'triphibious' forces), and Imperial Marines (Marine detachments assigned to ships). At the same time, as you note, the Marines are not always marines, and do perform an important role as an elite and reliably loyal ersatz army.

Thanks for clearing that up. Is Imperial Marines as a formal name mentioned outside of Pax Empirica? Because it seems quite contrary to everything else. Why are they referred to as stormtroopers all of the time? That's like referring to US Marines as Riflemen, but almost never actually mentioning the word "Marine".