Imperial Star Destroyer vs the Enterprise

Argo Discussion General Chat
21
Okay, I go onto Comicvine where such arguments are quite common. And it's usually a good idea to specify enemies.

So for the sake of argument, let's specify that rather than using the Enterprise J or the Death Star....we use this:

Galaxy_Class__New_Course_by_Sloan47.jpg

VS
ImpStarDestroyer-SWI125.jpg

When it comes to size....the argument is meaningless. I'll show a chart

7638959410_87c446eb08_z.jpg


What will be important to prove, is weapon-strength, shielding, armor, various technology and speed.
Big D made a great point, that in order for the Enterprise to battle a Star Destroyer it would have to come
out of Warp Speed to fire ordinance. This is probably true, so i'll concede to that.
Also...when i said that Warp Speed is faster than FTL, my point was that Warp Speed is traveling
FAR faster than the speed of light. So if a Star Destroyer could in fact be proven to travel at FTL
at base, it still wouldn't compare to the Speed of a Warp Drive.

....she also made the point that the Sensors they have in Star Trek ROFLSTOMP anything Star Wars has.....so there's that.

Oliver Blackwood also said that Hyperspeed is faster than Warp Drive, and I already agreed to that

But I still maintain in my argument that the Enterprise can travel at far greater combat speed
than a Star Destroyer.

While a Star Destroyer travels at a slow impulse level, the Enterprise, when fighting outside of
Warp Speed has been shown, along with other Federation Vessels to be able to maneuver with
great ability compared to what we have seen with the Star Destroyers.

I think the speed disadvantage for Star Destroyers is clearly shown in this video. Where Star Destroyers
and CIS Frigates are at quite close quarters when fighting, and don't even attempt to move at quicker
speeds in order to manuvear against each other.


In this video you can see that the Fighters do most of the quick attacks. The Rebel Cruisers and Imperial Star Destroyers
once again are slow as snails. This can be especially seen when Admiral Ackbar orders evasive manuvears and they only
move to the left a little bit.

The reason the fast-action focuses on the fighters, is because the Cruisers are dead weight when it comes to speed.

I think the speed superiority Star Trek ships have is quite obvious compared to Star Wars Battleships


This video from First Contact(skip to 2:00) will also clearly show how large Flagships in the Federation have
superior manuvearability to anything Star Destroyers display
22
Galaxy class + ramming speed + straight into the bridge of the Star Destroyer = Win.
Wrong Federation but you get the idea ;-)
23
(I could post some videos of the Enterprise D in Combat which shows it's evasive manovers as drifting slowly in a stationary position. I think we must remember that the reasons ships do not move terribly much is because that costs money. This is why half of DS9's fleet battles reuse old footage and both the Enterprise Orginal and D kinda just sit there and go 'Pew' every now and again. Equally, Voyager is never shown to be particularly nimble, and DS9 Fleet battle footage is confusing because it demonstrates that during the Dominion Wars, shields apparently ceased to work except on the Defiant!)
24
1. You stole the shield point from a youtube comment, which has no actual bearing. Two Miranda class ships getting hammered hardly means there's a lack of shielding involved.

2. Doesn't matter with the Star Trek budgets, because it is in fact canon that the Enterprise has such manuvearability which Star Destroyers lack, so your points aren't strong enough to nullify the fact that even on impulse the Enterprise is 10x faster than a Star Destroyer.

You telling me George Lucas couldn't afford to give Star Destroyers more fast paced action? Sorry, but an Imperial
Star Destroyer really is that slow.
25
Have you ever seen a nimble battleship? Besides you don't need maneuverability when your ship is loaded with more guns than the NRA. You can overpower your enemies in sheer firepower.
26
Yvlie Bizc wrote:
Have you ever seen a nimble battleship? Besides you don't need maneuverability when your ship is loaded with more guns than the NRA. You can overpower your enemies in sheer firepower.

Right, well as was stated earlier by Razor I believe, Star Destroyer turrets and cannons rely far more upon manual precision.
While the Enterprise's targeting sensors are far more accurate. The fact that The Enterprise can move so fast is gonna give some extreme issues to a Star Destroyer.

If I can dodge all your attacks and you can't dodge mine, you're gonna lose, and badly.

Also, if anyone has questionable shield strength its the Empire. Some well placed fighter shots took down a Super Star Destroyers Deflector Screens. Imagine what some locked on phasers or torpedoes can do?
27
Why worry about accuracy when you can saturate an area with heavy fire? Look at the military today I think they on average use 2,000+ rounds just to suppress one target.
28
Well that's all fine and dandy.....if you're on EARTH and have never encountered a fast moving target before, a slugfest without any real tactics seems like a beautiful idea. Especially in a 2 dimensional battle where you don't have anywhere to actually manuvear.

Looking at the Battle over Courascant, they do exactly what you suggested. Sitting ducks with shotguns. But meanwhile I have the Enterprise, so I'm gonna move under your cannon fire with evasive manuvears and lock on my Quantum torpedoes.

You still think a sitting there with just point and shoot weapons is a good idea?

Edit: Here's a better example.

Who wins, a Jet Pilot with a targeting computer and guided missles? or a Battleship.
29
You can lead and fire at fast moving targets. 2D or 3D. Look at planes in WWII they were in the sky thats a 3D environment. Flak cannons bursted in large areas around them. There's a reason why the enterprise survived all those times, because they were heroes. If anything it should be dead just by 1 puny Bird of Prey it seems like. Star Wars you might lose a star destroyer but you have all those support ships around it still firing. Besides star destroyers can still take a beating.
30
You keep trying to apply real life events to futuristic technology. There is no comparison to WW2 and Star Trek, the technology gap is faaaaarr too wide for me to take them as legitimate points.

Also, we're talking about 1 Star Destroyer vs The Enterprise. There are no supporting gunships. :p
31
Thats because they use real world stuff in scifi. They need a foundation to build off of. You have to remember Gene Roddenbary was in the military, and he'll obviously use what he knows as part of that when it came to development of Star Trek. Every story teller has something from real life implemented into their stories as a foundation. Even made up languages like Klingon and their culture included.

If you want to get technical. A ship of the size of a Gal and Destroyer cannot be that maneuverable due to their size alone. Too much mass there's a reason our ships in STO are slow as they are in a cruiser. You don't need maneuverability in a Star Destroyer. You have squadrons of bombers and fighters. Probably have some tie interceptors as well which are flown by the best the Empire has to offer.

If you get rid of those from the Star Destroyer than you're really forcing your superiority complex of the Enterprise into this situation, because in Star Wars thats what Destroyers are moveable carriers and battleships essentially. Its why they have so many ships when they travel. They're like a real life battle group in the US Navy.
32
Right....real world stuff.

Of course things are based off of the real world. But when you tell me the Galaxy Class cruiser can't manuvear because of it's size. I'm rofling.
This is Sci-Fi remember? Like you said, this technology does not exist yet/will never exist.

(Edit: Also....STO ships are still MUCH faster than anything Star Destroyers offer)

You can't go and tell me that a canon-feature of Star Trek can't exist in this debate because it's not scientifically possible.
Or else i'm just gonna point out the flaws in the Force, and that's just gonna get ridiculous.

So don't try to nullify fantasy technology by saying "Omg, it's based in real life so this isn't possible".

I never said anything against the Fighter Squadrons and Bombers, thought you were saying that Star Destroyers got
support fire from Frigates....which would be ridiculous.

Fact of the matter is, you want to ignore that Greater Speed and Manuvearbility, Superior Tactical Sensors and Targeting Accuracy, not to mention
the display of superior Shielding by the Enterprise(unless you can somehow prove that X Wings have much stronger firepower than previously supposed)

These things are very important in a Space Battle.
Remember, this is a SPACE BATTLE, not a Sea Battle, and there's also a reason why even Battleships take Evasive Maneuvers in the U.S. Navy. Because if they can avoid being hit they can win.

Which means, since the Enterprise can easilly avoid getting hit, have superior sensors and hardly ever miss a shot of their own(since a Star Destroyer is a sitting duck), ...well....they win.
33
I resent being accused of drafting my comments based on other peoples youtube videos. I've not actually watched any DS9 on youtube for many years, and have no idea which specific comment you believe I am refering to. However, if you look at many of the major fleet battles in DS9 there are ~numerous~ instances where inbound phaser/torpedo weapons of both sides simply impact doing visable and massive hull damage. Very few shield flairs are ever showed or documented.

The Oddessy, in whichever episode it was it got totalled in, was never shown to be a particularly manevourable vessel at all, in a situation where superior manevourability would have saved it from destruction.

Furthemore, in relation to my remarks about budget constraints and graphical limitations, I refer you to the date of release of Star Wars, and DS9 Respectively. Making fight scenes like DS9 simply would not be possible in that Era. In some ways Star Wars was ahead of its time in what they could depict.

Furthermore, we've not covered how fragile Star Trek ships are. In 'Cause and Effect' a single glancing blow from the Bozeman destroyed the Enterprise outright. In 'Search for Spoke' one Photon Torpedo completely atomised the USS Grissom. (These are not isolated incidences) stuff hitting the Warp 'Stuff' appears to be particularly fatal. Star destroyers are signficantly less prone to random explody deaths. They don't have warp core breaches. Where as the Enterprise would appear to be capable of being destroyed by a single X-Wing on ramming speed. (Startrek contradicts itself often as to if, or if not, Shields stop ships passing through them and in what circumstances they do.)
34
We're joined together for the love of the same thing. Remember that. Don't be jerks.


The purpose of any debate is not to 'beat' the other side or 'prove them wrong' or 'prove their standpoints fallible'. This debate is not rhetoric; it is a legitimate search for the truth, or likely truth, of a matter with well-based positions with FACT and EVIDENCE, not mud slinging and jerk-toned assumption.

Being wrong is not a crime. Being right does not make you better than someone else. Keep it factual, keep it civil.


If I see any more personal attacks, I *will* start putting people on temporary forum ban. We're adults. I will be a hard-ass about this. I don't come to TFA to watch people bicker.
35
I don't know why you take out the credibility of real world tactics even in fantasy genres. They work in some many situations. There are so many logical and practical uses of them. besides in ST they have that foreknowledge on human warfare, but completely disregard it it seems. Should read the Art of War sometime. It'll make you wonder "Why doesn't starfleet do this?" there wouldn't be any Klingons or Cardassians.
36
I'm not gonna sit here and pretend I am a tech guru. I'm a 19 year old kid with plans to join the military.

However, that said, Star Wars space battles can be equated to a World War 1 naval battle: Line abreast, very little movement, overwhelming firepower. In regards to the superior shields of the, lets say Galaxy Class, it would easily hold up against one salvo. But you add in the fighters, and the numerous turrets all firing at once, and they will get overwhelmed. It's a fact. The shields CANNOT hold up indefinitely to a concentrated bombardment.

Someone posted something that ONE Galaxy Class and ONE Star Destroyer had the same planet busting potential, while the Death Star could wreck a planet. I agree. The Death Star sneezes, the planet disappears. Do not, however, discount the fact that in JJTrek, prior to coming into that universe, Spock had a weapon that could create a blackhole. The Death Star would be eliminated from combat if a Red Matter torpedo was detonated close by. Said black hole would also eliminate the hyperdrive of the Star Wars ship. When you add in the fact that the Galaxy Class can fire upto 10 torpedo's every 5 seconds. Now 5 seconds. That's pretty quick. Warp in, unload the forward tunes and the Saucer Phaser's, fly past at full impulse, fire aft phasers and the aft tubes and warp out. Rinse and repeat.

That said, the Star Destroyer's lack of speed is due to its bulk. Not it's size. It's sheer weight means the engines have to work harder to turn it at speed. It's not length you have to compare, it's weight.

Fighter's. Ok, the Star Destroyer can scramble an ungodly number of fighters, but the Enterprise can wreck them all without having to launch any shuttles. A perimeter rigged Photon Torpedo salvo would destroy them as they launch, or a series of computer guided Phaser salvos.

When you add in the ability to cloak, a Federation ship could warp in cloaked, position itself near the Destroyer's bridge, decloak, unload its firepower and bug out.

But they are two different franchises with their own sci-fi rules. You can't really compare them.

:)
37
Ships in SW are just chunks of metal with engines and weapons. Ships in ST have numerous abilities (just like in-game). The technological superiority of ST ships gives them the edge IMO. Energy dampening fields come to mind, and as SW ships use purely energy based weapons that would mean their only alternative would be to ram. Whereas ST ships still have torpedoes. ST ships also have the advantage of beaming over tactical teams from a great distance so there is no need to risk boarding procedures in the middle of combat.

Though it is important to note that the Galactic Empire has the numbers on their side, more worlds and more people. They also make use of smaller fighters against large ships, this is something not common in ST and thus I would imagine would leave ST ships at a disadvantage having little to no experience in tactics against such a strategy.

Their modes of travel are greatly different. At sub-light speeds they are the same, but hyper-space and warp speed are completely different. So, it would be impossible to intercept or catch up to one another once on the move. SW ships can travel farther faster, but because of the mode of transport they would be unable to catch warp capable ships. In a chase between SW and ST ships every time they drop out of hyper space a ST ship would still be at warp (faster than light) which means it is instantly to far for that SW ship to fire upon. If it is a ST ship trying to chase a SW ship then the point is moot as they could get from one end of their Galaxy to the other in about 1/5,000,000th the amount of time it took Voyager to ruin the franc, errr travel that far.

I still claim that the Galactic Empire vs the UFP is boring. Let me see the Klingons vs the Galactic Empire. Those small yet uber powerful Bird of Preys are super maneuverable. Add in the fact they can cloak/decloak when they please adds more fun to it. Imagine a boarding party of Klingon Warriors ready to head to Sto’Vo’Kor beaming aboard an Imperial Star Destroy. Glorious havoc!

Or, just as fun, the Old Republic/Rebellion vs the Borg. I’d like to see how those SW ships fare against a Borg cube.
38
starwarsstartrekkirk_zpsa2e1246d.jpg
39
Dewey wins
40
Star Wars vs Star Trek, the age-old argument.

I'm a fan of both, but I'd have to say that Star Trek would come out ahead. The hit and run tactics would give any Star Trek ship the advantage. In a 1 on 1 fight Star Trek has it, hands down.

If the SW ship knew they were coming, which is doubtful, they might be able to get a fighter screen out. The fighters might be able to take the hits from the initial salvo, but they wouldn't survive it. Yes, some SW fighters have shield, but those shields are designed to repel low-yield laser beams. LASERS, as stated in a couple different ST episodes, will not penetrate Star Fleet shields. In one episode in particular, Worf states a laser wielding ship could fire until it's lasers went dry and not even penetrate the navigational shields.

Same with any weapons on any SW ship. They use lasers which are ineffective against ST shields. The only thing that *MIGHT* give SW the advantage is their ability to use Ion weapons. Ion cannons in SW are shown to penetrate shields and disable an entire Star Destroyer in 2 shots. There are references in ST, mostly in novels, that Ion weapons are deadly for ST ships and technology. So, a Star Destroyer using a full barrage of Ion Cannons might disable a ST ship.

However, I do believe the hit-and-run capabilities of ST would far remove the advantage of the Ion weapons. In my own opinion there is no way Star Wars would defeat Star Trek if the numbers of capital ships are equal. Just saying...