What if the Empire invaded modern day Earth?

[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.

[Junghalli]

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.

You know Shroom brought up this tactic earlier in this very thread and I posted earlier in this very thread that the Earth's atmosphere can protect us from kiloton-level blasts, complete with two links to a description of a real life meteor that burned up in the atmosphere over Indonesia in an event equivalent in energy to a 50 kt nuclear bomb going off and all it did was shake some people up on the ground.

Is there any evidence that if they tried this tactic their kiloton-level pew pews won't all be wasted heating up a bunch of high altitude air?

For the record if we grant them 100 TIEs with awesome speed and kiloton lasers and a large amount of ammunition I think they have a pretty good chance of being able to achieve some kind of victory if they fight with any intelligence but it's not necessarily as simple as can go into space = can shoot at stuff on the ground from space = win.

Edit: sorry if I was a bit snippy, it's pretty forgiveable that you didn't want to read this whole trainwreck of a thread. Still, my point stands.

[Star Wars 888]

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.

Except that, since tie fighters don't have landing gear, they'd still have to use repulsorlits, which don't last forever.

Oh, and the world isn't instantly going to surrender. They'll mobilize a response force, thus meaning that the tie fighters would have to get back up again and attack those. Then, they'd have to deal with ICBMS and other stuff.

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.

ROFL. They won't be able to keep their bluff forever. Sooner or later a nation or some guerrilla force will try to attack a tie fighter, and they'll realize that said tie fighters are out of fuel.

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.

Again, tie fighters were designed to be highly dependent on support and resupplying. They weren't designed for independent missions away from base, hence why they only have 2 days of consumables.

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

Clearly you are trying to disregard the OP, since in the OP I specified that the world would be united against the invasion force.

If you want to ignore it, then the world nukes the invasion force.





Or uses a scorched Earth policy to fuck up the invasion force logistically. The tie fighters run out of fuel, as do the AT-ATs and AT-STs. In fact, the latter two have an operational range of 500 to 1000 km. That might not be enough for them to even get to the United States.

[Star Wars 888]

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.

You know Shroom brought up this tactic earlier in this very thread and I posted earlier in this very thread that the Earth's atmosphere can protect us from kiloton-level blasts, complete with two links to a description of a real life meteor that burned up in the atmosphere over Indonesia in an event equivalent in energy to a 50 kt nuclear bomb going off and all it did was shake some people up on the ground.

Is there any evidence that if they tried this tactic their kiloton-level pew pews won't all be wasted heating up a bunch of high altitude air?

Hey if we grant them 100 TIEs with awesome speed and kiloton lasers and a large amount of ammunition I think they have a pretty good chance of being able to achieve some kind of victory if they fight with any intelligence but it's not necessarily as simple as can go into space = can shoot at stuff on the ground from space = win.

Wow, that's a great point actually.

[Serafina]

Except that, since tie fighters don't have landing gear, they'd still have to use repulsorlits, which don't last forever.

There is such a thing as a stable orbit, you know?
Or just landing on the moon with it's reduced gravity, which a TIE-fighter can easily resist.

Oh, and the world isn't instantly going to surrender. They'll mobilize a response force, thus meaning that the tie fighters would have to get back up again and attack those. Then, they'd have to deal with ICBMS and other stuff.

Oh, why exactly?
Everyone who builds up an army will just have his ports, ships, and factories blown up. That goes very fast due to the TIEs firepower and mobility.

No one is going to resist under those cirumstances. People resist if they are treated badly, but the imperials are not going to interfer in daily life that much - other than raising extra taxes. And those taxes do not have to be that high - given that states will no longer have to support any military forces, they have money to spare anyway.
No one is going to resist under those circumstances. They have little to gain and much to lose.

ROFL. They won't be able to keep their bluff forever. Sooner or later a nation or some guerrilla force will try to attack a tie fighter, and they'll realize that said tie fighters are out of fuel.

And how exactly are they going to attack something on the moon?

Again, tie fighters were designed to be highly dependent on support and resupplying. They weren't designed for independent missions away from base, hence why they only have 2 days of consumables.

Consumables=/=fuel, retard. And air and food are readily availabe.
And if you really need fuel, bring some in some spare shuttles. Oh, right - the moron who created the OP want's the imperial force to be without any supplies at all!
Hey, here is an idea:
Let's drop a large force on earth. The soldiers are without ammo or food, the vehicles without of fueld and everyones batteries are dead! How long are they going to last?
This is no less retarded that your moronic idea.

Clearly you are trying to disregard the OP, since in the OP I specified that the world would be united against the invasion force.

If you want to ignore it, then the world nukes the invasion force.

Sure, let them start out united.
But you can't handwave human psychology away. They won't STAY united.

Or uses a scorched Earth policy to fuck up the invasion force logistically. The tie fighters run out of fuel, as do the AT-ATs and AT-STs. In fact, the latter two have an operational range of 500 to 1000 km. That might not be enough for them to even get to the United States.

You still don't get it, retard.
They can't use scorched earth policy - because the imperials won't occupy anything. They will sit in orbit after their first attacks and watch. Those who supply them with what they want will not be harmed. Those who don't will.
There is nothing to scorch here. There is nothing to nuke here. There is nothing to attack here.
It's just a simple choice: Pay some extra taxes which you would pay anyway for your military and be protected by and from the imperials, or have your countries infrastructure blown to hell.
Every sensible person is going to choose the first option. Only retards like you would go "hurf hurf, resistance".

[Cykeisme]

Hmm, that's an interesting idea.. TIE fighters simply remaining in orbit and behaving, effectively, as kiloton-range kill-sats.

Except that, since tie fighters don't have landing gear, they'd still have to use repulsorlits, which don't last forever.

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

If you're referring to hovering with no change in altitude, no, the repulsorlifts would not consume energy.
Though perfect efficiency is impossible, they don't become superheated with waste heat when they operate their repulsors, and they carry kilotons worth of fuel, they can hover indefinitely if need be.
I figure you should already understand why this is the case, if you're partaking in a debate on stardestroyer.net; otherwise someone better at explaining physics can take this up.

[Agent Sorchus]

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.

You know Shroom brought up this tactic earlier in this very thread and I posted earlier in this very thread that the Earth's atmosphere can protect us from kiloton-level blasts, complete with two links to a description of a real life meteor that burned up in the atmosphere over Indonesia in an event equivalent in energy to a 50 kt nuclear bomb going off and all it did was shake some people up on the ground.

Is there any evidence that if they tried this tactic their kiloton-level pew pews won't all be wasted heating up a bunch of high altitude air?

Hey if we grant them 100 TIEs with awesome speed and kiloton lasers and a large amount of ammunition I think they have a pretty good chance of being able to achieve some kind of victory if they fight with any intelligence but it's not necessarily as simple as can go into space = can shoot at stuff on the ground from space = win.

Wow, that's a great point actually.

No it isn't, we never see blasters or laser blasts dissipate in atmosphere. We know that the aprox 10kt blast from Veer's AT-AT traveled 17 km to it's target, and there is no effect on the frozen landscape until it hit the target. When I ran the math for the laser blast assuming that it was a cylinder with radius of a decimeter and calculated the mass of air effected over the 17km distance and compared it to the mass of air over a square decimeter of the earth, i got numbers that say that SW lasers will totally ignore the atmosphere. Mass of the atmosphere over a square decimeter, ~103 kg; Mass of the air effected by the AT-AT, 640kg. I have to multiply the Mass of the atmosphere by 3 for the first one, because the second is effecting 3 square decimeter area, but they are still within an order of Magnitude, Atmospheric mass strait down, 309kg, still less than half of the mass effected by the AT-AT's shot.

No reason to care about the atmospheric effects, for what ever technobably reason that SW comes up with.

[Star Wars 888]

There is such a thing as a stable orbit, you know?
Or just landing on the moon with it's reduced gravity, which a TIE-fighter can easily resist.

And then after 2 days run out of food. They'll have to go back, but that sort of nullifies the purpose of them hiding on the moon when they'll keep on having to make trips back to Earth, right?

Oh, why exactly?
Everyone who builds up an army will just have his ports, ships, and factories blown up. That goes very fast due to the TIEs firepower and mobility.

No one is going to resist under those cirumstances. People resist if they are treated badly, but the imperials are not going to interfer in daily life that much - other than raising extra taxes. And those taxes do not have to be that high - given that states will no longer have to support any military forces, they have money to spare anyway.
No one is going to resist under those circumstances. They have little to gain and much to lose.

And when the tie fighters run out of fuel, the invasion force is screwed. "oh they go to the moon then!" - yeah, and then run out of fuel and get stranded on the moon.

And how exactly are they going to attack something on the moon?

Are you saying that, when the tie fighters run out of fuel, they'll be on the moon? That's the only interpretation of your statement that makes sense, since if they run out of fuel they wouldn't be able to get to the moon.

Which then begs the question as to how they get off of the moon, sustain themselves and why the Earth would pay tribute to a bunch of guys that can't enforce anything because they're stranded.

Consumables=/=fuel, retard. And air and food are readily availabe.

On the moon?

And if you really need fuel, bring some in some spare shuttles. Oh, right - the moron who created the OP want's the imperial force to be without any supplies at all!
Hey, here is an idea:
Let's drop a large force on earth. The soldiers are without ammo or food, the vehicles without of fueld and everyones batteries are dead! How long are they going to last?
This is no less retarded that your moronic idea.

Since you're getting pwned, you decide to attack the thread itself and say "zomg it's a spite!" since you side's losing.

Sure, let them start out united.
But you can't handwave human psychology away. They won't STAY united.

And your brilliant idea is for the tie fighters to go to the moon, run out of fuel and for the pilots to starve to death there?

You still don't get it, retard.
They can't use scorched earth policy - because the imperials won't occupy anything. They will sit in orbit after their first attacks and watch. Those who supply them with what they want will not be harmed. Those who don't will.
There is nothing to scorch here. There is nothing to nuke here. There is nothing to attack here.
It's just a simple choice: Pay some extra taxes which you would pay anyway for your military and be protected by and from the imperials, or have your countries infrastructure blown to hell.
Every sensible person is going to choose the first option. Only retards like you would go "hurf hurf, resistance".

"those who won't will" -

They'll eventually run out of fuel. Your rebuttal is "well they'll be on the moon so they won't be vulnerable to our attacks!"

Well in that case, we won't need to attack them. The tie fighters won't be able to get back to Earth and their two days consumables will run out in (gasp!) 2 days.


If you're going to change your stance and say that they come back to Earth, then your only defense against them getting blown up once they run out of fuel is nullified.

[Serafina]

Ok, so your argument boils down to:
"OMG they will run out of FUEL because my OP forbids them from bringing any!!1"

Hey, retard: why not take my proposal then? Their soldiers don't have any ammo and food, their vehicles are out of fuel and all their batteries are dry?
That makes about as much sense as your piece of crap.

Since you're getting pwned, you decide to attack the thread itself and say "zomg it's a spite!" since you side's losing.

Your szenario doesn't make any sense. That's your problem, not mine. But there is simply no plausible explanation why they would be as retarded as you propose.

[Junghalli]

We know that the aprox 10kt blast from Veer's AT-AT traveled 17 km to it's target, and there is no effect on the frozen landscape until it hit the target. When I ran the math for the laser blast assuming that it was a cylinder with radius of a decimeter and calculated the mass of air effected over the 17km distance and compared it to the mass of air over a square decimeter of the earth, i got numbers that say that SW lasers will totally ignore the atmosphere.

Ah cool, somebody has actually run the numbers instead of just giving scientifically uninformed speculation. Although two things occur to me:

1) What is the source for that energy estimate?

2) How do we know the AT-AT guns and the TIE guns use the same mechanism? I suppose it is parsimonious to think so but that is not conclusive, it is easily imaginable that, say, AT-AT guns are optimized for use in atmosphere and starfighter guns for use in space (as I remember for instance that real life vacuum frequency lasers tend to disperse less over distance in space, so it is possible there are trade-offs there). If we had a source that says they're the same that would be conclusive. Alternately if we have instances of fighters entering atmosphere to hit targets where it would have made more sense to shoot from space if they could it would cast doubt on the viability of shooting from orbit as a tactic.

[Star Wars 888]

Ok, so your argument boils down to:
"OMG they will run out of FUEL because my OP forbids them from bringing any!!1"

Hey, retard: why not take my proposal then? Their soldiers don't have any ammo and food, their vehicles are out of fuel and all their batteries are dry?
That makes about as much sense as your piece of crap.

Since you're getting pwned, you decide to attack the thread itself and say "zomg it's a spite!" since you side's losing.

Your szenario doesn't make any sense. That's your problem, not mine. But there is simply no plausible explanation why they would be as retarded as you propose.

Basically, you're admitting that the invasion force is screwed. They run out of fuel. Your brilliant plan is apparently that they'd go to the moon to hide when they run out of fuel...which begs the question as to how they get off of the moon or survive on the moon with limited food and water that they brought with them.

Or how the invasion force that's left on Earth is supposed to defend themselves against air strikes when their tie fighters have been stranded on the moon.

[Batman]

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.

Delta-7. 5000g. 12,000kph.
ARC-170. 2600g. 44,000 kph.
V-Wing. 4800g. 52,000 kph.
Eta-2. 5200g. 15,000 kph.

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

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

And they'd need repulsorlifts to SIT ON THE GROUND because...?

Plasma is affected by gravity

Starfighter lasers are plasma since when? Not that gravity is much of a concern anyway as they'd be firing STRAIGHT DOWN.

and you still haven't proven that tie fighters are that accurate. You're dodging the question.

They're firing at targets that aren't moving. AT ALL. Targets that's aren't exactly tiny.

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

Which you know because...

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.

Not that we're talking lightsecond ranges here to begin with. Anything in the mid to high triple figure km range is easily enough to hit targets from orbit.

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

Um-they routinely travel interplanetary distances?

Except that, since tie fighters don't have landing gear, they'd still have to use repulsorlits, which don't last forever.

They'd need repulsors to sit in orbit because of what again?

[Star Wars 888]

Delta-7. 5000g. 12,000kph.
ARC-170. 2600g. 44,000 kph.
V-Wing. 4800g. 52,000 kph.
Eta-2. 5200g. 15,000 kph.

Proof that those are without shields?

And they'd need repulsorlifts to SIT ON THE GROUND because...?

When on the ground they'd be vulnerable to attack.

Starfighter lasers are plasma since when? Not that gravity is much of a concern anyway as they'd be firing STRAIGHT DOWN.

They clearly aren't actually lasers, and there is no "down" in space.

They're firing at targets that aren't moving. AT ALL. Targets that's aren't exactly tiny.

You're still dodging the question. If I had a rifle could I hit the Hoover Dam from Toronto simply because Hoover Dam is stationary and large?

Which you know because...

You made the claim that they could. I ask you for proof, and you dodge the question and come up with some BS "proof".

Not that we're talking lightsecond ranges here to begin with. Anything in the mid to high triple figure km range is easily enough to hit targets from orbit.

Actually, we were. I was debunking the idea that tie fighters could hit targets from hundreds of thousands of miles away.

Um-they routinely travel interplanetary distances?

When?

They'd need repulsors to sit in orbit because of what again?

In orbit? Of the Earth? Of the moon? And what about when they run out of fuel, food and water?

[Serafina]

Hey, retard:
If we go by canon, TIEs are solar powered.
Voila, they won't run out of fuel.

Even if we disregard the notion that those panels are solar panels, then they are still powered by fuel that can most likely be reproduced. They will NOT run out of fuel, moron.

[Connor MacLeod]

There's no objection to the fleet we see on screen. There's no objection to the fleet Warsies see in their masturbatory fantasies. There's no objection to the Death Star itself. But suddenly, there being no NEED is a big counter argument for why we don't see some other shit?

Why the fuck do they NEED a fleet at all? And on WANT, if the potential is there, what if the Rebels developed it and started one hit killing the Imperial fleet?

Maybe the Imps are all terminally retarded.

Oh cut the drama BS please, I'm not impressed. It was a perfectly reasonable assertion that I made. The SW galaxy as big as it is is not a place of unlimited resources, and even if it were, that doesn't tell us about the rates of usage or how the industry is structured, or any other number of concerns. There are any number of variables that could dictate why they may not fully exploit potential, and plenty of real life analogies to draw on (parallels between the US and Galactic Empire are an obvious one.) You need a certain amount of fleet assets for certain duties (peacekeeping and security, anti-piracy, etc.) and given the militant bent of the Empire they'd want to slant TOWARDS a big strong military as much as they can. Problem is, however, that the military does not operate in a vaccuum, and Palpy isn't an absolute dictator. It could be political concerns, it cuold be economic limitations (budget distirbution, massive corruption in the Military industrial complex for the GE), it could be political will or bureacratic inertia, etc. Without an overriding threat to the stability or security of the Empire to motivate it, it has no real reason to worry about having and maintaining a large fleet, and not doing so leaves resources to be allocated into other pursuits. The potential, however, exists, and can be exploited to some extent or another given enough time/effort/whatnot (I'll leave actual nitpicking of the variables out of it, since its unnecesary to the main thrust.)

How fucking stupid are you? Jesus Christ, I'm not even talking about brute force firepower. btw, way to put "mysterious unknown mechanisms" in quotes like someone actually said it, you filthy fucking dishonest piece of shit.

It is nothing but an assumption that power scales linearly with volume. If the evidence doesn't fit, that means you throw out your assumptions, not the evidence!

[/quote]

Again, I'm not impressed by the chest beating theatrics that you and other people like to pose on this board, so can we kindly PLEASE throw it aside? If for some reason you decided to construe my comments as deliberately inflammatory that is not my problem, but I did not go into this to get into a pissing match. From your own statements I am at a loss to think what sort of actual point you're driving at. Let us reiterate what you said and I was replying to:

Actually, the Death Star bends e=mc^2 over and rapes it with a knife. A death star blast would require a sphere of antimatter bigger than the actual ship!

Now, from that I infer yes, you are complaining about the validity of the DS calcualtions (nevermind your comments about "wank calcs". Are they perfect? No, they have problems. But the only ways to solve it (assuming you don't throw your hands up and say "we can't analyze SW" in which case I dont see why you're even wasting your time here) is either to say "its a magical unkonwn chain reaction of some kind" doing it or coming up with some convoluted explanations to make the stupendously unrelaistic firepower figure fit (and do note I'm not saying that the DS calc doesn't have problems. It has LOTS of potential problems that need resolving even besides the fuel issue.). If one says "rapes physics" in essence how the fuck am I to not interpret that as favoring the "technobabble chain reaction" approach, pray tell?

Oh yeah, and where did *I* say anything about how the power has to scale linearly? You complain about me supposedly putting words in your mouth yet you appear to turn around nad do the same to me.

Imagine if Warsies did real science. The orbit of Mercury looks weird? Oh, it doesn't fit with Newton's equations, let's just ignore the observation. It has been verified? It doesn't fit with the assumptions, throw it out. There's other observations that don't agree? They don't fit with the assumptions, throw them out. Einstein thinks differently? Fucking troll needs to GTFO.

Oh yes, the "evil biased warsie" schtick. I've never heard that one before. Please continue with your theatrics howver if it soothes your ego, though. I'll just ignore them from this point onwards and address the actual points.

If the wank numbers were accurate, we surely would have seen some idea of them on screen. We didn't. Therefore, they are not accurate.

Make up your damned mind please. Are you disputing the Death Star analysis or not? And if so then how do YOU propose reconciling it, if you arent' going to resort to magical phaser-like chain reactions to do so? From what I am reading from your statmeents you don't really care about anything other than bitching about calcs because they don't fit with what you think is "proper", such as your supposed acceleration "critique."

[Agent Sorchus]

Ah cool, somebody has actually run the numbers instead of just giving scientifically uninformed speculation. Although two things occur to me:

1) What is the source for that energy estimate?

I don't remember where it is on the forums, but I know that it was based on the fireball created. It should be treated as an estimate, but eh the math does care for the exact firepower that much. A 10kt nuke would produce a fireball of 110m at sea level, and we do see Veers flinch at the blast of light created, and we know he was at least 17km away. (His range finder reads just over 17 but what ever.) So such nuclear firepower should be expected, especially when he says to fire at maximum.

2) How do we know the AT-AT guns and the TIE guns use the same mechanism? I suppose it is parsimonious to think so but that is not conclusive, it is easily imaginable that, say, AT-AT guns are optimized for use in atmosphere and starfighter guns for use in space (as I remember for instance that real life vacuum frequency lasers tend to disperse less over distance in space, so it is possible there are trade-offs there). If we had a source that says they're the same that would be conclusive. Alternately if we have instances of fighters entering atmosphere to hit targets where it would have made more sense to shoot from space if they could it would cast doubt on the viability of shooting from orbit as a tactic.

Well, not exactly. The weapon the AT-AT used has been Identified as a form of Laser cannon, specifically a "Heavy Laser Cannon." However we know the Manufacturer, which produces weapons from smaller scale "blasters" to capital ship weaponry. In most cases Laser cannons are used in starfighters (3 exceptions, the AT-AT, and 2 airspeeders) and that Blasters are used for ground only (1 exception, an assault transport). If we assume that the company is consistent in their naming scheme, then yes the AT-AT's gun is related to the TIE's. (Caveat, TIE weapons are produced by a different Manufacturer. It is notable that even the ground attack TIE variants use the exact same weapon as the normal TIE fighter.)

[Batman]

Delta-7. 5000g. 12,000kph.
ARC-170. 2600g. 44,000 kph.
V-Wing. 4800g. 52,000 kph.
Eta-2. 5200g. 15,000 kph.

Proof that those are without shields?

The Eta-2 (you know, the one the TIE is supposed to have 80% of the speed of) is EXPLICITELY STATED TO BE UNSHIELDED.
Not that TIEs are necessarily unshielded. We see in ANH that at least SOME of them are.

And they'd need repulsorlifts to SIT ON THE GROUND because...?

When on the ground they'd be vulnerable to attack.

Which is relevant to your stupidity about them NEEDING repulsorlift because they don't have landing gear how?

Starfighter lasers are plasma since when? Not that gravity is much of a concern anyway as they'd be firing STRAIGHT DOWN.

They clearly aren't actually lasers, and there is no "down" in space.

There is when you're firing straight down a gravity well. You know, like TIEs in orbit firing on targets on Earth's surface.
And not lasers is NOT the same as plasma.

They're firing at targets that aren't moving. AT ALL. Targets that's aren't exactly tiny.

You're still dodging the question. If I had a rifle could I hit the Hoover Dam from Toronto simply because Hoover Dam is stationary and large?

No, because the bullet would drop to the ground thanks to gravity and friction. The TIE fighter is firing STRAIGHT DOWN FROM ORBIT. If we assume WHATEVER Wars laser cannon fire has mass gravity actually INCREASES their firepower in this case.
Just how stupid are you?

Which you know because...

You made the claim that they could.

No I didn't. Neither did Solauren far as I can recall.

I ask you for proof, and you dodge the question and come up with some BS "proof".

I never stated TIEs had ls ranges to begin with, and neither did Solauren. That was entirely YOUR idea. I don't have to show proof for a point I never made to begin with.
So, you know TIEs AREN'T designed to fight at those ranges because?

Not that we're talking lightsecond ranges here to begin with. Anything in the mid to high triple figure km range is easily enough to hit targets from orbit.

Actually, we were. I was debunking the idea that tie fighters could hit targets from hundreds of thousands of miles away.

Said by whom? I don't recall anything beyond 'can hit targets on Earth from orbit' coming from anybody EXCEPT you but I certainly don'T have perfect memory so if you have the quote?

Um-they routinely travel interplanetary distances?

When?

All over the EU fuckface? X-Wing novels, NJO...
And that's ignoring that ANYTHING with that kind of acceleration has effectively INFINITE range. Boost, coast, unboost.
Let's give the TIE 20 seconds of endurance on a 1000gs (we know they have much much more) and 48 hours of consumables. That's a range of 17 million kilometers right there while MASSIVELY lowballing acceleration AND powered endurance.

They'd need repulsors to sit in orbit because of what again?

In orbit? Of the Earth? Of the moon? And what about when they run out of fuel, food and water?

That's Serafina's problem, not mine. I was just commenting on your stupidity in thinking they'd need repulsorlift to stay in orbit.

[Junghalli]

Hey, retard:
If we go by canon, TIEs are solar powered.
Voila, they won't run out of fuel.

If they are solar powered there is no way I am buying that they have kiloton level lasers or anything remotely close to it. I am pretty sure it would also put some serious limitations on their engine performance but I don't feel like calculating it now.

A 100% solar panel in Earth orbit can get you ~1300 watts/m^2 (it's on Atomic Rockets, if you demand a link I can give one). If we assume TIEs have 2 10 m^2 panels then at Earth orbit they would have about 27 kilowatts available. At that kind of power I calculate charging up for a single 1 kiloton shot (~4 X 10^12 joules) would take ... ~4.6 years.

PS I think the idea that TIEs are solar powered is probably stupid and certainly not something I would base any performance estimates on but the point is you cannot have it both ways. If they don't have to worry about energy because they get it from the sun then their performance will be a lot more limited than this thread is generally giving them credit for.

[Agent Sorchus]

Actually, the Death Star bends e=mc^2 over and rapes it with a knife. A death star blast would require a sphere of antimatter bigger than the actual ship!

This is only true if you assume low density anti deuterium. Because, yes, I know of one object that we have detected that has released more energy than the deathstar's blast in less time, while still being far smaller than the DS. Feast your eyes on SGR 1806-20 with particular note on the 1039Joule explosion, and her diameter of 20 kilometers. And that explosion was only a tectonic shift, so it can do it plenty of times.

Imagine if Warsies did real science. The orbit of Mercury looks weird? Oh, it doesn't fit with Newton's equations, let's just ignore the observation. It has been verified? It doesn't fit with the assumptions, throw it out. There's other observations that don't agree? They don't fit with the assumptions, throw them out. Einstein thinks differently? Fucking troll needs to GTFO.

Oh yes, the "evil biased warsie" schtick. I've never heard that one before. Please continue with your theatrics howver if it soothes your ego, though. I'll just ignore them from this point onwards and address the actual points.

Imagine if Destructionator did science. Oh we found a exemption to our standard model, well guess it is time to through it all out. We need new explanation from the ground up. It isn't like our Theory worked for everything else and it is incomplete, but still useful to gain a general understanding. Especially when no one has presented an alternative. Looks like we don't have anything to work with anymore.

(If you can't tell his statement pisses me off to no end.)

[Serafina]

PS I think the idea that TIEs are solar powered is probably stupid and certainly not something I would base any performance estimates on but the point is you cannot have it both ways. If they don't have to worry about energy because they get it from the sun then their performance will be a lot more limited than this thread is generally giving them credit for.

So do i, because it just doesn't make sense.
The point still stands, the szenario is stupid and Moronboy 888 massively overstates the fuel issue.

[Junghalli]

This is only true if you assume low density anti deuterium.

I believe Darth Wong's estimate that the DS1 would need a ball of fuel bigger than itself was based on assuming antimatter and matter with the density of uranium.

[Aaron]

PS I think the idea that TIEs are solar powered is probably stupid and certainly not something I would base any performance estimates on but the point is you cannot have it both ways. If they don't have to worry about energy because they get it from the sun then their performance will be a lot more limited than this thread is generally giving them credit for.

So do i, because it just doesn't make sense.
The point still stands, the szenario is stupid and Moronboy 888 massively overstates the fuel issue.

He has a point in that everything will eventually break down (and they probably don't have the means to fix things infinitely nor a replacement source of fuel). The question is; how long? And how radically will things have changed by then? If it takes say 10 years, Earth politics may have changed so much that breaking an alliance with the Imps just because their kit is gone is now pointless.

[Star Wars 888]

The Eta-2 (you know, the one the TIE is supposed to have 80% of the speed of) is EXPLICITELY STATED TO BE UNSHIELDED.
Not that TIEs are necessarily unshielded. We see in ANH that at least SOME of them are.

Strangely enough, another source, the Clone Wars campaign guide, lists the speed of the Eta 2 to be 1,500 kph when in an atmosphere.

BTW, are you sure that those figures are for in atmosphere flight?


[/quote]
Which is relevant to your stupidity about them NEEDING repulsorlift because they don't have landing gear how?
[/quote]

Ok, they may not need repulsorlifts, but on the ground they'd be vulnerable to attack.

\
There is when you're firing straight down a gravity well. You know, like TIEs in orbit firing on targets on Earth's surface.

And tie fighters aren't as accurate as you think they.

And not lasers is NOT the same as plasma.

I didn't claim that lasers were plasma. I claimed that Star Wars's "laser cannons" are plasma.

No, because the bullet would drop to the ground thanks to gravity and friction. The TIE fighter is firing STRAIGHT DOWN FROM ORBIT. If we assume WHATEVER Wars laser cannon fire has mass gravity actually INCREASES their firepower in this case.
Just how stupid are you?

Even if I had a laser, could I hit the Hoover Dam from Toronto simply because it's stationary, big and the laser would not be noticeable affected by gravity?

No I didn't. Neither did Solauren far as I can recall.

Then what's with the "zomg tie fighters go to the moon and bomb us!" wanking?

I never stated TIEs had ls ranges to begin with, and neither did Solauren. That was entirely YOUR idea. I don't have to show proof for a point I never made to begin with.
So, you know TIEs AREN'T designed to fight at those ranges because?

By claiming that tie fighters can hit us from the moon you are saying that they can fire at those ranges. I'm pointing out that they can. Although you didn't directly make the assertion, it's a prerequisite for your plan to work and thus you need to prove it.

Said by whom? I don't recall anything beyond 'can hit targets on Earth from orbit' coming from anybody EXCEPT you but I certainly don'T have perfect memory so if you have the quote?

Did you even read the past few pages? Or the posts that I was responding to? That's been one of the main arguments on your side; that tie fighters can go the moon and hit us from hundreds of thousands of miles away.

All over the EU fuckface? X-Wing novels, NJO...
And that's ignoring that ANYTHING with that kind of acceleration has effectively INFINITE range. Boost, coast, unboost.
Let's give the TIE 20 seconds of endurance on a 1000gs (we know they have much much more) and 48 hours of consumables. That's a range of 17 million kilometers right there while MASSIVELY lowballing acceleration AND powered endurance.

Example?

That's Serafina's problem, not mine. I was just commenting on your stupidity in thinking they'd need repulsorlift to stay in orbit.

Basically, you're nitpicking minor points on my post.

[Star Wars 888]

PS I think the idea that TIEs are solar powered is probably stupid and certainly not something I would base any performance estimates on but the point is you cannot have it both ways. If they don't have to worry about energy because they get it from the sun then their performance will be a lot more limited than this thread is generally giving them credit for.

So do i, because it just doesn't make sense.
The point still stands, the szenario is stupid and Moronboy 888 massively overstates the fuel issue.

And your argument is "zomg when the tie fighters run out of fuel we won't be able to attack them because they're on the moon!"

Yet that begs the question as to how the tie fighter pilots survive when they're stranded on the moon with no fuel.

[Serafina]

PS I think the idea that TIEs are solar powered is probably stupid and certainly not something I would base any performance estimates on but the point is you cannot have it both ways. If they don't have to worry about energy because they get it from the sun then their performance will be a lot more limited than this thread is generally giving them credit for.

So do i, because it just doesn't make sense.
The point still stands, the szenario is stupid and Moronboy 888 massively overstates the fuel issue.

He has a point in that everything will eventually break down (and they probably don't have the means to fix things infinitely nor a replacement source of fuel). The question is; how long? And how radically will things have changed by then? If it takes say 10 years, Earth politics may have changed so much that breaking an alliance with the Imps just because their kit is gone is now pointless.

Quite.
If the imperials can establish themselves for a short time (say, a year) and only in parts of the world, they will still have the means to subjugate it - not directly, but with tribute. Just by building a couple of spacestations and threatening everyone with orbital drops of stuff.

And they can also establish real allicances - even very low-tech for the imperials is super-advanced for us. A efficient fusion reactor alone would be a immense blessing and every nation would be glad to have it.