What if the Empire invaded modern day Earth?

[Thanas]

Ok, although that doesn't have much to due with my statement.

Why not?

Did you miss the part where it rounded a planet in minutes?

Actually, I did miss that part where the Death Star rounded a planet in minutes. What happened?

It rounded a gass giant called Yavin to get into firing range.

You probably know about that conversation that took place in that scene where Vader choked that officer (was it Motti?) for a while and said "I find your lack of faith disturbing".

Also a lot of conversations from Star Wars: Death Star

The fact that the Rebels didn't even try to damage the Death Star by using capital ships.

And according to Wookieepedia the Death Star had tens of thousands of turbolasers and hundreds of shield projectors.

So what? The rebels do not have that many capships and no real dreadnoughts at all.

The Executor ramming into the Death Star 2 and exploding had no noticeable effect on it.

It sure did, read the novelization.

Yet do Star Wars targeting systems use radar?

Who cares, point is that Star wars if it can jam FTL it sure as heck can jam Radar.

Which is not an excuse for stormtroopers getting pwned by them.

Of course it is, numbnuts.

You do realize that one of the main purposes of sensors is to defend from ambushes, right?

Yes, I also realize that the Noghri also got the drop on jedi. They are that good.

If they weren't particle shields, then what's your point? Ray shields don't protect from projectile weapons such as missiles.

[/quote][/quote]

So you would rate them where in terms of strength?



***********

You know, up until now I thought you were just a retard. Now I think you are a troll and I will advocate for your banning.

[Batman]

In atmosphere TIE fighters can move at Mach 9 LOW END. You do NOT get to ignore canon numbers because you don't like them.

Bullshit. Star Wars: Behind the Magic lists their atmospheric speed at 1,200 kph.

Overriden by higher canon, namely the ICSes. In fact I'd like a quote saying that source has any canonicity period.

Yes he was. He was LYING of course because the Empire caused the problems Vader pretended they were trying to fix in the first place but he DID do the benevolent benefactor act. The only reason that might not work is people in this scenario actually knowing Star Wars.

And how would they trick modern day Earth like that? It would be much harder and not really that possible.

'Cooperate and you live. And get really nifty technology on top of that. Oppose us and you die.' Oops.

No, and this is just more evidence of how stupid you are. Why would modern day VTOL craft need landing gear? I mean they can just hover on engine power, why do they need wheels? SO THEY CAN TURN THEM OFF WHEN PARKING THE VEHICLE IMBECILE?

Which gets to my point of them having limited fuel. A tie fighter had about 2 days consumables, showing that they weren't expected to last any more than 2 days on their fuel in the case of an emergency.[/quote]
Source.

There are numerous sources implying that tie fighters were designed to be highly dependent on bases such as a star destroyer, hence why they had limited fuel, life support, defenses, etc. In this case, they don't have a star destroyer or any other refueling base.

In this scenario they don't NEED one.

What you don't seem to understand is that there's more to war than sheer firepower. A tie fighter's uber powerful weapons won't mean shit once then run out of fuel. Neither will an AT-AT or AT-ST.

What YOU apparently willfully refuse to accept is that UNTIL they do, there's JACK ALL Earth can do to them. The question isn't if the OP force can conquer Earth (they can't) but what modern day Earth can do to them before they run out of supplies (which is nothing whatsoever).

Logistics are a very important part of warfare. The invaders are screwed in this category. Once their tie fighters run out of fuel the world will have air supremacy over them and the invasion force would be screwed.

AND NOBODY IS DEBATING THAT MORON.

Also, do you have any evidence suggesting that a tie fighter could resist AA guns and missiles?

That'd be the part where it's too freaking fast for any of them to hit it, too resilient to be bothered by it if it 'IS (Wars fighter guns are KT level-modern day AAA and SAMs are NOT).

Their hull isn't made out of durasteel; it's made out of a titanium alloy, which we have here on Earth, and they don't have deflector shields either.

Source. ANH says you're lying about them not having shields.

They were stated to be fragile in numerous EU sources, and in ESB they got destroyed upon colliding with asteroids.

I knew you were stupid. I realized you were EXTREMELY stupid when you came up with the can of fruits/conventional warheads on ICBMs comparison. But this takes the cake.

[Star Wars 888]

Ok, although that doesn't have much to due with my statement.

Why not?

I was talking about whether or not they expected an attack.

It rounded a gass giant called Yavin to get into firing range.

Oh, ok. Still though, turbolaser bolts move fast enough so that, given the size of the Death Star, hitting it with a Star Wars ship wouldn't be that difficult.

So what? The rebels do not have that many capships and no real dreadnoughts at all.

1. On the contrary, they did. Did you watch ROTJ?

It sure did, read the novelization.

Really? What damage did it do?

Who cares, point is that Star wars if it can jam FTL it sure as heck can jam Radar.

Why? Because you say so? Kevlar can stop bullets (to a certain limit) but isn't that good at stopping sword stabs.

Of course it is, numbnuts.

No, because the stormtroopers had Star Wars technology.

Yes, I also realize that the Noghri also got the drop on jedi. They are that good.

How does being good at ambushing somehow protect you from sensors? Navy Seals are also pretty good, so therefore your "zomg sensors will help stormtroopers detect snipers" idea is moot.

So you would rate them where in terms of strength?

??? Why does it matter? Ray shields can't protect against projectile weapons.

***********

You know, up until now I thought you were just a retard. Now I think you are a troll and I will advocate for your banning.

How about this; instead of responding to my posts and trying to disprove, them, you can try and disprove them AND explain why you think that it's "retarded and trolling". Because a post can be wrong and yet can still bring up good point.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I'd like you to provide your source for them being mach 9 and explain how they override mine (obviously it isn't from the movies since we don't see tie fighters inside the atmosphere in the movies) other than because it supports your idea and you therefore think it to be more valid.

Dude, I've supplied you the source like three god damn times, what do you want pictures?

[Star Wars 888]

Overriden by higher canon, namely the ICSes. In fact I'd like a quote saying that source has any canonicity period.

1. Since when are ICS's above C canon?
2. Quote?
3. The book is a licensed material. It's canon.

'Cooperate and you live. And get really nifty technology on top of that. Oppose us and you die.' Oops.

Yet you admitted that the invasion force can't take on the Earth because they'd run out of supplies.

In this scenario they don't NEED one.

??? The tie fighters would run out of fuel in a matter of days.

What YOU apparently willfully refuse to accept is that UNTIL they do, there's JACK ALL Earth can do to them. The question isn't if the OP force can conquer Earth (they can't) but what modern day Earth can do to them before they run out of supplies (which is nothing whatsoever).

You still haven't quantified a tie fighter's accuracy, and thus have not proven that they can stop long range missiles.

Claiming that they can consistently hit starfighters that are more agile is a twisted fact, since they only hit a small percentage of the time and do so when outnumbering the starfighters. In this scenario they'll be shooting at smaller targets that outnumber them while having a time limit!

AND NOBODY IS DEBATING THAT MORON.

And I'm not debating that the world can actually destroy the invasion force without logistics. They can't harm an AT-AT (well, maybe if under really ideal circumstances) and would be hard pressed to harm tie fighters. However, what I am saying is that they can harm the stormtroopers and AT-STs.

That'd be the part where it's too freaking fast for any of them to hit it, too resilient to be bothered by it if it 'IS (Wars fighter guns are KT level-modern day AAA and SAMs are NOT).

too fast - 1200 kph is not "too fast" for SAMs to hit
too durable - your evidence is that Star wars fighter guns at KT level. I understand that. However, tie fighters have not been shown to be able to survive said KT weapons. They blow up when they get hit by them. Therefore, your evidence is actually moot.

Source. ANH says you're lying about them not having shields.

In Star Wars: Death Star one of the main character muses in his PoV that tie fighters had no hyperdrive systems, life support systems or deflector shields and were thus really fragile.

I knew you were stupid. I realized you were EXTREMELY stupid when you came up with the can of fruits/conventional warheads on ICBMs comparison. But this takes the cake.

And of course, you fail to actually respond to my post. Colliding with an asteroid at that speed would not cause a KT level explosion. Therefore, it disproves your claim that they can withstand KT level explosions.

[Star Wars 888]

I'd like you to provide your source for them being mach 9 and explain how they override mine (obviously it isn't from the movies since we don't see tie fighters inside the atmosphere in the movies) other than because it supports your idea and you therefore think it to be more valid.

Dude, I've supplied you the source like three god damn times, what do you want pictures?

Maybe I missed it. Can you post it again?

[Batman]

Not to mention we DID see TIE fighters in-atmosphere in the movies (ESB) and guess what-moron888 DIDN'T quantify TIE fighter speeds based on that. And happily ignores that TIE fighters, just as every OTHER kind of Wars fighter, can escape a planet's gravity well in under a minute, which REQUIRES them to be able to go hypersonic in-atmosphere.
I'll leave dealing with the stupidity of him claiming TIEs need repulsorlifts to sit still on the ground to someone else.

[Stark]

C'mon, he's just doing the same thing. He's talking about books being canon but ignoring the parts of the books he doesn't like so he can look smart for saying WOW THESE GUYS WITH NO SUPPORT GET RULED ONCE THEIR MATERIAL RUNS OUT.

[Star Wars 888]

Not to mention we DID see TIE fighters in-atmosphere in the movies (ESB) and guess what-moron888 DIDN'T quantify TIE fighter speeds based on that.

They certainly weren't moving at mach 9, so that would actually destroy your argument.

And happily ignores that TIE fighters, just as every OTHER kind of Wars fighter, can escape a planet's gravity well in under a minute, which REQUIRES them to be able to go hypersonic in-atmosphere.

Clearly you're ignoring my source that says otherwise and instead use your source, despite your source being as valid as mine. Why? Because it supports your argument, and to you that somehow makes it more valid.

I'll leave dealing with the stupidity of him claiming TIEs need repulsorlifts to sit still on the ground to someone else.

Actually, I didn't claim that. You're clearly misinterpreting, intentionally or unintentionally, my posts.

[Star Wars 888]

C'mon, he's just doing the same thing. He's talking about books being canon but ignoring the parts of the books he doesn't like so he can look smart for saying WOW THESE GUYS WITH NO SUPPORT GET RULED ONCE THEIR MATERIAL RUNS OUT.

Hypocrite. The same thing can be said in reverse; you and "batman" think that your source is somehow more valid than mine without any reason to think so other than that it supports your argument, and to you that somehow makes it more valid.

[Bakustra]

Canonicity within Star Wars is not just a matter of "C" versus "S" or "G". Any work has elements of at least three of the types, potentially more. One way of reconciling this with previous statements is that the closer something is to the films, the greater status it bears. The novelizations, for example, were written with eye to the script, and so are primarily G-canon. The radio plays of the first three movies are slightly lower, but were also written with eye to the script, and with an expansion of scenes. The books like the visual dictionaries, cross-sections, and inside the worlds are somewhat lower, but were still involved with the production of the films. But once you get into the general EU material, then it also becomes a matter of time. The farther from the movies, the less accurate things are going to be. Granted, this is but one way to interpret canon in Star Wars, but it is one based on the statements made by Lucasfilm officials over the years. Further, would you be willing to explain your beliefs on canon, then?

[Batman]

Not to mention we DID see TIE fighters in-atmosphere in the movies (ESB) and guess what-moron888 DIDN'T quantify TIE fighter speeds based on that.

They certainly weren't moving at mach 9, so that would actually destroy your argument.

Wrong. Even assuming you did the math and actually verified they WEREN'T moving at Mach 9 (which I know you didn't) that does NOT mean TIE fighters CAN'T. It simply means they DIDN'T. You again fail to grasp the difference between 'simply doesn't show' and 'actually contradicts'. The movies have to do the LATTER for us to toss lower canon information. They don't.

And happily ignores that TIE fighters, just as every OTHER kind of Wars fighter, can escape a planet's gravity well in under a minute, which REQUIRES them to be able to go hypersonic in-atmosphere.

Clearly you're ignoring my source that says otherwise and instead use your source, despite your source being as valid as mine. Why?

That's be the part were TIEs getting orbital in the time they are REPEATEDLy shown to requires them to be able to do that?

Because it supports your argument, and to you that somehow makes it more valid.

Actually that's what YOU are doing. 'I' am using the vast majority of Star Wars material, all of which shows that fighters have ludicrously high acelleration by real world standards. YOU cling to that one piece of evidence (which is overridden by higher canon anyway) so you can pretend the real world has a chance of actually beating (as opposed to waiting until they run out of fuel) the Imperials.

I'll leave dealing with the stupidity of him claiming TIEs need repulsorlifts to sit still on the ground to someone else.

Actually, I didn't claim that. You're clearly misinterpreting, intentionally or unintentionally, my posts.

Says the person who claimed that repulsorlifts equals landing skids.

[Batman]

C'mon, he's just doing the same thing. He's talking about books being canon but ignoring the parts of the books he doesn't like so he can look smart for saying WOW THESE GUYS WITH NO SUPPORT GET RULED ONCE THEIR MATERIAL RUNS OUT.

Hypocrite. The same thing can be said in reverse; you and "batman" think that your source is somehow more valid than mine without any reason to think so other than that it supports your argument, and to you that somehow makes it more valid.

It's Batman with a capital B, thank you. And I'd like you to show that Behind the Magic is the same level of canon as the ICSes are.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Also it should be noted that according to the RotS ICS the Eta-2 Actis has a maximum speed of 15,000km/h, in other words just over Mach 12. It is also unshielded.

According to most stats I can find the TIE/ln is rated at operating around 80% the speed of the Eta-2 Actis (given it's unaerodynamic shape that's not surprising), so 12,000km/h should be close or Mach ~9.7. Over twice the maximum speed of the fastest AAM, the AIM-54 Phoenix at Mach 4.

In short, whilst I think Star Wars would fail due to running out of resources, their aircraft are entirely untouchable to any of our technology.

Tie fighters can't move that fast in the atmosphere (in the atmosphere starfighters need deflector shields to move at their high speeds, and tie fighters lack deflector shields), and there's more to wars then "zomg they have powerful weapons!"

Actually they can, as I stated before the Revenge of the Sith ICS puts the Eta-2 Actis Interceptor at 15000km/h with no shields in a standard atmosphere, meanwhile the much larger ARC-170 Heavy Fighter pulls 44000km/h with them.

Apparantly I was off, this will be the third time I've told you. Maybe big letters will help you to read.


According to the RotS ICS and Complete Cross-Sections a shieldless Eta 2 Actis Interceptor can pull 15,000km/h in the atmosphere, in comparison a shielded ARC-170 heavy fighter-bomber can move at 44,000km/h. The TIE/ln is 80% as fast as an Actis.

[Serafina]

I see you completely missed my point, retard:
They do not have to conquer anything by conventional means.

They just have to show that they can kick earths ass and then demand tribute. That has nothing to do with "playing nice" - they just take the best military way to get what they want.
And pretty much every nation would bow to that - because the imperials can utterly destroy every single nation. What do you think happens to the USA if they start destroying powerplants, dams, cargo ships, highway and railroad bridges?
That's right, the economy of the USA would collapse.
And there is nothing the USA or anyone else in the world can do. AA-missiles do not have enough payload to scratch TIEs and ICBMs can not be used against air targets like that. They are too slow to hit them anyway. Airdropped troops are safe from retaliation as well - there won't be enough time to mass forces against them and they will be in areas where you won't be able to use artillery or missiles due to collateral damage.

All they have to do is to demonstrate that gigantic superiority. And paying tribute will be a very small price to prevent something like that. And since they have no interest in every-day affairs on this planet, most people won't mind that much. Heck, the imperials could offer primitive technology like fusion reactors, and their vassals could be better off than before. On another point, they won't have (and probably won't be allowed to) spend money on a large military force, that alone saves money as well.


This strategy is entirely natural for the imperials. Why should they care about controlling everyday life?
Sure, perhaps they would if they had sufficient troops - but they don't, and this kind of rule is a close second. Any sensible commander would go for it.



Since they do no have to go on conventional conquest, their lack of supplies and numbers won't matter that much. Probably not at all. Your entire argumentation is completely pointless. If the imperials do not engage in conventional warfare - and they have no reason to - none of your strategies work.

[Shroom Man 777]

A Millennium Falcon that can move as fast as them, and stay ahead of them, and has sci-fi space shields as well?

Can move as fast - in the chase seem they did not seem to be moving that much faster than modern day missiles would.
Stay ahead of them - the missiles would be coming in from multiple directions and moving at a faster relative speed.
Space shields - how does that affect the ability to hit them?

Space shields mean they can withstand hits. Transports, ICBMs, and everything else on Earth doesn't have space shields. They cant withstand hits.

The TIEs and Millennium Falcon can move fast enough to escape the planet's atmosphere fairly quickly, makes them faster than anything on Earth. As for their speed in the chase sequences, if both TIEs and Millennium Falcon are moving at very fast speeds, then they won't look like they're moving fast relative to each other. Or, in the asteroid belt, they weren't moving that fast because if they did then they'd end up kissing a bigass piece of space rock.

If your transport ships and transport planes are spaceships that can enter and leave planetary atmospheres, and have energy shields to block pew-pew lasers, your argument in bringing up the Millennium Falcon would make sense. If a C-5 Galaxy can fly off into space and was protected by shields, yeah, the TIEs would certainly have trouble chasing it down. If a cargo ship could lead these space fighters into an asteroid field and outmaneuver them, if the cargo ship has the engines to blast off a planet and shit, sure.

100 tie fighters would have to find the transport ships. The Ocean is pretty large relative to a tie fighter. Once they find them, they have to hit the transport ships and sink them for your plan to work. This takes fuel, ammo and time, non of which the invasion force has much of.

TIEs can fly from the surface of the planet, into space, and can chase fighters through asteroid fields. I think the ocean is miniscule compared to the TIE fighter's range. It's sensor coverage would be likewise huge.

Do you know how far a TIE can fly, or how many shots it can shoot, before it runs out of ammo? The TIEs might be able to kill a whole lot of transports before running out of juice.

But the TIEs don't need to shoot down the transports. Why would the governments launch their transports? They'd be deterred by the fact that the TIEs can just drop down from orbit and shoot up cities at any moment's notice. Launching an attack at the Empire's forces would be like launching an attack against the Russians, namely an enemy that has a very credible deterrent force that can damage you severely in return.

The governments won't launch their transports, because they won't want the TIEs to fuck up their cities.

If the US Military's transports looked like this and had Tony Stark in his Iron Man suit flying escort, yeah, and maybe with Obidiah Stane as his wingman, both using their Arc Reactors to power their repulsor afterburners, and maybe with Hammeroids flying in formation with them...

I know the Tentagon is developing these weapons systems. I don't have a source. Fine. You can doubt me. Blah!

Again, you're nitpicking.

No, I'm just making fun of you.

[Star Wars 888]

Wrong. Even assuming you did the math and actually verified they WEREN'T moving at Mach 9 (which I know you didn't) that does NOT mean TIE fighters CAN'T. It simply means they DIDN'T. You again fail to grasp the difference between 'simply doesn't show' and 'actually contradicts'. The movies have to do the LATTER for us to toss lower canon information. They don't.

Then why did you bring it up? If they did move at mach 9, why didn't YOU do the math? If they didn't, then that doesn't explain much; that could be simply because they weren't moving at their max speed. Therefore, you bringing it up and accusing me of not using it doesn't make much sense.

Actually that's what YOU are doing. 'I' am using the vast majority of Star Wars material, all of which shows that fighters have ludicrously high acelleration by real world standards. YOU cling to that one piece of evidence (which is overridden by higher canon anyway) so you can pretend the real world has a chance of actually beating (as opposed to waiting until they run out of fuel) the Imperials.

On the contrary, when I ask for a source, you merely gave "the ICSes", not "the vast majority of Star Wars material">

Says the person who claimed that repulsorlifts equals landing skids.

I didn't say that either.

[Star Wars 888]

I see you completely missed my point, retard:
They do not have to conquer anything by conventional means.

They just have to show that they can kick earths ass and then demand tribute. That has nothing to do with "playing nice" - they just take the best military way to get what they want.
And pretty much every nation would bow to that - because the imperials can utterly destroy every single nation. What do you think happens to the USA if they start destroying powerplants, dams, cargo ships, highway and railroad bridges?
That's right, the economy of the USA would collapse.
And there is nothing the USA or anyone else in the world can do. AA-missiles do not have enough payload to scratch TIEs and ICBMs can not be used against air targets like that. They are too slow to hit them anyway. Airdropped troops are safe from retaliation as well - there won't be enough time to mass forces against them and they will be in areas where you won't be able to use artillery or missiles due to collateral damage.

All they have to do is to demonstrate that gigantic superiority. And paying tribute will be a very small price to prevent something like that. And since they have no interest in every-day affairs on this planet, most people won't mind that much. Heck, the imperials could offer primitive technology like fusion reactors, and their vassals could be better off than before. On another point, they won't have (and probably won't be allowed to) spend money on a large military force, that alone saves money as well.


This strategy is entirely natural for the imperials. Why should they care about controlling everyday life?
Sure, perhaps they would if they had sufficient troops - but they don't, and this kind of rule is a close second. Any sensible commander would go for it.



Since they do no have to go on conventional conquest, their lack of supplies and numbers won't matter that much. Probably not at all. Your entire argumentation is completely pointless. If the imperials do not engage in conventional warfare - and they have no reason to - none of your strategies work.

Now you're starting to empire-wank.

Tie fighters may be powerful, but they'll eventually run out of fuel.
AT-ATs may be powerful, but they'll eventually run out of fuel.
AT-STs...well, they aren't that powerful, and they'll run out of fuel.

Guess what? Once their fancy tech wears out, they won't be able to repair or resupply because they lack the resources and possibly the technical knowledge to do so.

Is Earth going to keep on giving tribute to an invasion force who has run out of supplies and can't actually fight anymore?

No! They'd ROFL at the invasion force and then bomb them.

[Solauren]

Okay, Star Wars 888, let's run it another way.

Earth lacks the ability to reach Orbit in any way meaningful to a organization with the technology of the Empire.

You've even said that's why not Star Destroyers or orbital combat support. Fine.


So, I'm Darth Vader....
I'm going to Park say, 10 Tie Fighters in orbit, and have them open fire on the planet from space. This is beyond Earth's ability to stop.

Star Wars weaponary, it's space weaponry, anyway, have ranges measured in hundreds of thousands of kilometers. i.e Beyond the Orbit of our Moon. Star Wars fighters might have a limited 'in clip' supply for firepower, but they recharge nicely. Tie Fighters might even be able to recharge from Solar power.

I'm going to order those Tie Fighters to level several major points on the planet. From space. This will happen to the natives of the planet with little warning, and in a way that get's there attention

Therefore, kiss Hoover Damn, and several other major damns, good bye. For the hell of it, I might also order them to take out the Dikes in Amsterdamn, effectively drowning the entire country. Heck, I'll order a few large forests toasted from orbit too.

I then tell the Earth "Hi, and welcome to the Galactic Empire. Start shipping tribute, now. Failure to comply will result in more orbital bombardment."

I'd also ask my engineers about taking the shield generators off a couple of Tie Fighters, linking them into the AT-ATs power sources, and using them to shield my troops. Instant Garrison base.

if the AT-AT's are also air-tight (we've seen lots of evidence of this in the EU), I'm hauling them into orbit as well.

In any event, even without haulikng the AT-ATs into orbit, Inow have the ability to level the planet, and there is nothing the planet can do to stop me.

Yes, I'll run out of supplies, eventually. However, I'm willing to bet that the planet runs out of infrastructure for me to destroy, effectively knocking the planet back into the dark ages, or possibly the stone age, FIRST. Meaning, they'd have to be beyond stupid to not surrender. I might lose the 'battle', but they've lost the war. Permanently.

Then we have Darth vader himself.

Just have a Tie Fighter or two, or hell, 10 of them, fly around, picking up space rocks. (or shooting up an asteroid to make them). Park those in a good orbit (the kind that will not degrade), and Vader himself can use those as weapons.

Nothing says "I'm your Master, now", then a guy that can pull asteroids down from orbit to crush your cities.


I'm sorry, but if any sizeable force from the Galactic Empire shows up on Earth, (Hell, a sizeable Force of Star TREK equipped forces show up on earth), and it's under the command of someone with more then 1/4 of a brain, we're boned.

The only way Earth would stand a change in this scenario is if you remove the Tie Fighters and Darth Vader completely.

And with no WMD allowed, I'm betting on the Empire leveling the American contients before they are stopped.

So, stop being a dishonest little shit, man up, and shut up.

[Batman]

Wrong. Even assuming you did the math and actually verified they WEREN'T moving at Mach 9 (which I know you didn't) that does NOT mean TIE fighters CAN'T. It simply means they DIDN'T. You again fail to grasp the difference between 'simply doesn't show' and 'actually contradicts'. The movies have to do the LATTER for us to toss lower canon information. They don't.

Then why did you bring it up?

Because you insist on them moving barely faster then Mach 1. I'm merely pointing out that even IF they were that slow in the movies, that wouldn't override the ICS numbers.

Actually that's what YOU are doing. 'I' am using the vast majority of Star Wars material, all of which shows that fighters have ludicrously high acelleration by real world standards. YOU cling to that one piece of evidence (which is overridden by higher canon anyway) so you can pretend the real world has a chance of actually beating (as opposed to waiting until they run out of fuel) the Imperials.

On the contrary, when I ask for a source, you merely gave "the ICSes", not "the vast majority of Star Wars material">

Because they give nice concrete numbers. Since those numbers happen to coincide nicely with what we see in the movies-them reaching orbit in a matter of SECONDS-I simply see no reason not to use them. Those accelerations, incidentally, ARE all over Star Wars material. The movies, the Clone Wars cartoon, the EU novels...

Says the person who claimed that repulsorlifts equals landing skids.

I didn't say that either.

'why would any starfighters need landing gear other than repulsorlifts then? Wouldn't repulsorlifts count as landing gear, which tie fighters lack?'
Oh really.

[Star Wars 888]

Okay, Star Wars 888, let's run it another way.

Earth lacks the ability to reach Orbit in any way meaningful to a organization with the technology of the Empire.

You've even said that's why not Star Destroyers or orbital combat support. Fine.


So, I'm Darth Vader....
I'm going to Park say, 10 Tie Fighters in orbit, and have them open fire on the planet from space. This is beyond Earth's ability to stop.

Star Wars weaponary, it's space weaponry, anyway, have ranges measured in hundreds of thousands of kilometers. i.e Beyond the Orbit of our Moon. Star Wars fighters might have a limited 'in clip' supply for firepower, but they recharge nicely. Tie Fighters might even be able to recharge from Solar power.

I'm going to order those Tie Fighters to level several major points on the planet. From space. This will happen to the natives of the planet with little warning, and in a way that get's there attention

Therefore, kiss Hoover Damn, and several other major damns, good bye. For the hell of it, I might also order them to take out the Dikes in Amsterdamn, effectively drowning the entire country. Heck, I'll order a few large forests toasted from orbit too.

I then tell the Earth "Hi, and welcome to the Galactic Empire. Start shipping tribute, now. Failure to comply will result in more orbital bombardment."

I'd also ask my engineers about taking the shield generators off a couple of Tie Fighters, linking them into the AT-ATs power sources, and using them to shield my troops. Instant Garrison base.

if the AT-AT's are also air-tight (we've seen lots of evidence of this in the EU), I'm hauling them into orbit as well.

In any event, even without haulikng the AT-ATs into orbit, Inow have the ability to level the planet, and there is nothing the planet can do to stop me.

Yes, I'll run out of supplies, eventually. However, I'm willing to bet that the planet runs out of infrastructure for me to destroy, effectively knocking the planet back into the dark ages, or possibly the stone age, FIRST. Meaning, they'd have to be beyond stupid to not surrender. I might lose the 'battle', but they've lost the war. Permanently.

Then we have Darth vader himself.

Just have a Tie Fighter or two, or hell, 10 of them, fly around, picking up space rocks. (or shooting up an asteroid to make them). Park those in a good orbit (the kind that will not degrade), and Vader himself can use those as weapons.

Nothing says "I'm your Master, now", then a guy that can pull asteroids down from orbit to crush your cities.


I'm sorry, but if any sizeable force from the Galactic Empire shows up on Earth, (Hell, a sizeable Force of Star TREK equipped forces show up on earth), and it's under the command of someone with more then 1/4 of a brain, we're boned.

The only way Earth would stand a change in this scenario is if you remove the Tie Fighters and Darth Vader completely.

And with no WMD allowed, I'm betting on the Empire leveling the American contients before they are stopped.

So, stop being a dishonest little shit, man up, and shut up.

Problems:

1. You're overestimating the accuracy of tie fighters. They cannot hit precise targets from hundreds of thousands of miles away. You'll have to prove that they can if you want to make the assertion that they can. Otherwise why do they have to fly closer to the other side's star destroyers to attack? Why not simply attack from further away instead of doing pass overs WW2 style?

2. You're overestimating the range of tie fighters. If they really had that much range, how come in Star Wars space battles they leave their star destroyer and go over to the other side's fleet and start doing passes over them? If they really were as long ranged as you claim they'd actually have a longer range than star destroyers. Why would they need to leave their star destroyer and do passes over that of the other side's? Surely they could stay in place and shoot!

3. You're overestimating the supplies of tie fighters. They had about 2 days consumables and were designed to be dependent on star destroyers or other places where they can resupply. They were not designed for sustained, independent missions.

4. The invasion force still fails. Even if they do as much damage as you think they can do, they haven't conquered Earth.

Because you insist on them moving barely faster then Mach 1. I'm merely pointing out that even IF they were that slow in the movies, that wouldn't override the ICS numbers.

And your point is? I didn't bring up how fast or slow they were in the movies, so you're debunking something I didn't say.

Because they give nice concrete numbers. Since those numbers happen to coincide nicely with what we see in the movies-them reaching orbit in a matter of SECONDS-I simply see no reason not to use them. Those accelerations, incidentally, ARE all over Star Wars material. The movies, the Clone Wars cartoon, the EU novels...

Give me a quote from the ICS showing their exact, concrete number.

'why would any starfighters need landing gear other than repulsorlifts then? Wouldn't repulsorlifts count as landing gear, which tie fighters lack?'
Oh really.

[/quote][/quote]

Actually, repulsorlifts would. Note that repulsorlifts would continue to consume fuel.

[Star Wars 888]

(edited to be in previous post)

[Solauren]

1. You're overestimating the accuracy of tie fighters. They cannot hit precise targets from hundreds of thousands of miles away. You'll have to prove that they can if you want to make the assertion that they can. Otherwise why do they have to fly closer to the other side's star destroyers to attack? Why not simply attack from further away instead of doing pass overs WW2 style?

First, Star Wars Fighters can't do squat with their energy weapons to a Capital ship from the same era. They use warheads (i.e Proton Torpedoes), and release them at close range to minimize the chance of Point-Defense weapons neutralizing them.

Second, as for accuracy - Oh, grow a brain cell. Unless say, bullets or missiles, energy weapons don't bend. At least, we've never seen them bend. This makes targetting with them much easier. Especially with onboard computer support.

2. You're overestimating the range of tie fighters. If they really had that much range, how come in Star Wars space battles they leave their star destroyer and go over to the other side's fleet and start doing passes over them? If they really were as long ranged as you claim they'd actually have a longer range than star destroyers. Why would they need to leave their star destroyer and do passes over that of the other side's? Surely they could stay in place and shoot!

See above. They are dropping bombs at close range, or performing precision attacks.

In fact, there is a Chapter in the 'Black Fleet Crisis' novels that demonstrates Star fighter tactics against Capital ships. They flying in through holes in the shields to perform precision attack runs. And even at that, it's tricky.

3. You're overestimating the supplies of tie fighters. They had about 2 days consumables and were designed to be dependent on star destroyers or other places where they can resupply. They were not designed for sustained, independent missions.

Okay, 2 days of supplies.
That means a Tie Fighter can sit in orbit for a day in a half, then land, and have another take it's place. During this time, they resupply the consumables. You yourself gave them lots of supplies. Consumables usually means stuff like food, water, air. Just land the Tie Fighter for 20 minutes, and restock it. It's not like it's hard to find air that stuff on Earth!

4. The invasion force still fails. Even if they do as much damage as you think they can do, they haven't conquered Earth.

Prove it. You keep arguing range and supplies, range and supplies! Well, guess what - A smart commander can easy make up for those.

Honestly, I though Karen Traviss and her stupidity was bad.

[Serafina]

Now you're starting to empire-wank.

Tie fighters may be powerful, but they'll eventually run out of fuel.
AT-ATs may be powerful, but they'll eventually run out of fuel.
AT-STs...well, they aren't that powerful, and they'll run out of fuel.

Hey, retard:
They won't, because they won't fly sorties all the time.

All they have to do is establish a threat: Give us what we want or we annihilate your nation.
After a few operations, your TIEs can sit in orbit and rust - your opponents do not know your limits.

Guess what? Once their fancy tech wears out, they won't be able to repair or resupply because they lack the resources and possibly the technical knowledge to do so.

Is Earth going to keep on giving tribute to an invasion force who has run out of supplies and can't actually fight anymore?

No! They'd ROFL at the invasion force and then bomb them.

Yes, because they will clearly broadcast it if they run out of fuel.
And what makes you think they can't put up some sort of support structure in the long run? They have decades if not centuries. And once you have some orbital space stations (which are dirt-cheap due to your immense lift capability) then you can just do it the old fashioned way - drop stuff from orbit.

Unless you can show that they will run out of fuel really quick (which is unlikely) and that they can't refuel their repulsor lifts, you are the one who is talking crap.

Such as "just bomb them". With what? How do you bomb someone on the moon?
You don't, not with our technology.

[Star Wars 888]

First, Star Wars Fighters can't do squat with their energy weapons to a Capital ship from the same era. They use warheads (i.e Proton Torpedoes), and release them at close range to minimize the chance of Point-Defense weapons neutralizing them.

Proof?

Second, as for accuracy - Oh, grow a brain cell. Unless say, bullets or missiles, energy weapons don't bend. At least, we've never seen them bend. This makes targetting with them much easier. Especially with onboard computer support.

Plasma is affected by gravity, and you still haven't proven that tie fighters are that accurate. You're dodging the question.

See above. They are dropping bombs at close range, or performing precision attacks.

Proof?

In fact, there is a Chapter in the 'Black Fleet Crisis' novels that demonstrates Star fighter tactics against Capital ships. They flying in through holes in the shields to perform precision attack runs. And even at that, it's tricky.

Tie fighters weren't designed to hit targets from hundreds of thousands of miles away.

BTW, you haven't even proved that they even have a range that long. Do you have an example of them hitting from that distance? I doubt that you do, since you're empire-wanking.

Okay, 2 days of supplies.
That means a Tie Fighter can sit in orbit for a day in a half, then land, and have another take it's place. During this time, they resupply the consumables. You yourself gave them lots of supplies. Consumables usually means stuff like food, water, air. Just land the Tie Fighter for 20 minutes, and restock it. It's not like it's hard to find air that stuff on Earth!

What about fuel? Since when did tie fighters have the range of hundreds of thousands of miles? Where's your proof for this?

Prove it. You keep arguing range and supplies, range and supplies! Well, guess what - A smart commander can easy make up for those.

Honestly, I though Karen Traviss and her stupidity was bad.

Actually, not really in this case. You're spewing unsupported bullshit about how tie fighters can hit targets from hundreds of thousands of miles away and even have enough fuel to last that long.

Oh, and how about this; in our debate, you not only explain how my post is wrong, but how it's stupid as well. There's a difference between being wrong and being stupid.