Modern Earth Military VS Galactic Empire

[Guest Jason Redfield]

GE commander: Surrender now or face the consequences.

 

Earth's commanders: We don't surrender. Cut this channel. Alright, begin mo-what do you mean we lost our satellites? What do you mean 35,000 fighters with surface to space cabalities and kiloton bombs are killing us?

 

I don't see how it's impressive for Earth is we get subjugated without ever engaging the enemy.

 

That's not subjugation. You understand the meaning of the word, right? That's decimation. Hardly surprising considering they're thousands of years ahead of us technologically and have space ships.

 

I was referring to the fact that they apparently can't defeat us on the ground, their only respite being to exploit their ships.

[Guest Jason Redfield]

Yeah, because the entire extent of the Ewok's battle was just hitting guys.

 

Return of the Jedi

They felled trees on their foes. They dug pits, which they covered with branches, and then lured the walkers to chase them until the clumsy armored vehicles toppled into the dugouts. They started rockslides. They dammed a small, nearby stream, and then opened the floodgates, deluging a host of troops and two more walkers. They ganged up, and then ran away. They jumped on top of walkers from high branches, and poured pouches of burning lizard-oil in the gun-slits. They used knives, and spears, and slings, and made scary war-shrieks to confound and dismay the enemy. They were fearless opponents.

 

Hilariously enough, the stormtroopers were still winning, he states this in the commentary, and can also be seen in the movie itself. The turning point is when Chewbacca steals an AT-ST and begins destroying their armor support.

 

Bloody hell. I was referring to a specific scene with Stormies being clobbered by Ewoks. Where did I say the Ewoks were massacring every trooper they came across, resulting in ULTIMATE VICTORYZZZ for them? Oh, that's right. I didn't.

[Guest Ruinus]

Wait, before you said their thin armor is superior to ours? But not advanced enough to be better than armor made by some independent civilian?

 

No, that's not what I said at all.

You said that I should look up Project Grizzly, presumably because since it is intended to defend against bear attacks it is superior to the stormtrooper armor. I then pointed out how the Grizzly armor looks nothing like stormtrooper armor (it's heavy, bulky and makes the wearer look like a Space Marine).

 

Stormtrooper armor, on the otherhand (this argument aside) is thin, protects against NBC attacks, can let the wearer operate in space for brief periods of time, and can only be punched through by AP armor or large rounds.

[Guest force_echo]

[Notes on Equipment

The F22 Raptor could easily handle a swarm of TIE/ln as it is easily able to out speed it and out turn it and out shoot it. The only advantage the TIE has over the Raptor is it's ability to leave the earths Atmosphere. However, without the need of Satellites these fighters and bombers can Easily be tracked and shot at with ground based SAM sites.

 

As well, nowhere does it say that TIE/sa Bombers drop High Yield ordnance, at best they have bombs in the Couple Tons of TNT range... which is similar to large ordnance bombs of Modern Nations.

The F22 Raptor is nowhere NEAR that good. Granted, it is the best fighter plane in the world, but no way. The only advantage the F22 Raptor would have over TIEs would be range, the Sidewinder IIRC has a max range of 20 miles, TIE turbolasers would easily dissapate at that range. The F22 Raptor can hold, what 6 Sidewinders and 4 AIMs right? The TIE fighters have a near unlimited amount of blaster gas and power, when have you ever heard of a TIE fighter running out of ammo? Repulsors are also more manueverable than the 3D thrust vectors the Raptor utilizes. The raptors 20mm cannon is not gonna do a whole lot against the fighters... I agree about the SAM emplacements, but one of the first thing the Imperials will do is destroy Earth sattelites.

 

TIE bombers have been known to literally split the Earth open and take down Super Star Destroyers. Its definitely thermonuclear armaments.

 

PS- Who thinks that Turbolaser bolts will act as flares? I do! There goes US air superiority.

[Guest Jason Redfield]

No, that's not what I said at all.

You said that I should look up Project Grizzly, presumably because since it is intended to defend against bear attacks it is superior to the stormtrooper armor. I then pointed out how the Grizzly armor looks nothing like stormtrooper armor (it's heavy, bulky and makes the wearer look like a Space Marine).

 

Stormtrooper armor, on the otherhand (this argument aside) is thin, protects against NBC attacks, can let the wearer operate in space for brief periods of time, and can only be punched through by AP armor or large rounds.

Yeah, and what's the cutoff for armor-piercing rounds/large bullets? That's so vague that it's hard to quantify. And ballistic resistance doesn't work like that. For instance, a 5.56 FMJ round might bounce off a piece of armor. Now fire a .308 FMJ at that same piece of armor. Depending on what it is, that armor may very well be breached. The .308 isn't an AP round, and a lot of people wouldn't say it's "abnormally large".

[Guest Ruinus]

That's not subjugation. You understand the meaning of the word, right? That's decimation. Hardly surprising considering they're thousands of years ahead of us technologically and have space ships.

 

I was referring to the fact that they apparently can't defeat us on the ground, their only respite being to exploit their ships.

 

It is subjugation, you just missed the point of it. Once the military finds out that they have lost all their satellites and that the enemy can strike at any point on Earth without fear of retaliation then they would have to surrender. A few cities are lost, but then the Earth is conquered after that through their surrender.

 

I didn't say we could win against them on the ground (though we probably can since Skirmisher took out most of their numbers and didn't give them anything besides AT-STs and AT-ATs). I'm saying that they can win immediately without ever having to engage the enemy.

[Guest Ruinus]

Bloody hell. I was referring to a specific scene with Stormies being clobbered by Ewoks. Where did I say the Ewoks were massacring every trooper they came across, resulting in ULTIMATE VICTORYZZZ for them? Oh, that's right. I didn't.

 

"But the fact that these "elite battle-hardened troops" take hits from teddy bears and fall over, as if incapacitated, offering no resistance at all, is a different story entirely"

 

I'm pointing out that more occured in the battle than just that.

[Guest Jason Redfield]

The F22 Raptor is nowhere NEAR that good. Granted, it is the best fighter plane in the world, but no way. The only advantage the F22 Raptor would have over TIEs would be range, the Sidewinder IIRC has a max range of 20 miles, TIE turbolasers would easily dissapate at that range. The F22 Raptor can hold, what 6 Sidewinders and 4 AIMs right? The TIE fighters have a near unlimited amount of blaster gas and power, when have you ever heard of a TIE fighter running out of ammo? Repulsors are also more manueverable than the 3D thrust vectors the Raptor utilizes. The raptors 20mm cannon is not gonna do a whole lot against the fighters... I agree about the SAM emplacements, but one of the first thing the Imperials will do is destroy Earth sattelites.

 

TIE bombers have been known to literally split the Earth open and take down Super Star Destroyers. Its definitely thermonuclear armaments.

 

PS- Who thinks that Turbolaser bolts will act as flares? I do! There goes US air superiority.

 

AIM-120 is longer range, with 30 miles. Considerably more than a Sidewinder. And guess what? Flares would do jack squat against it. And SAMs don't necessarily need satellites to function. A 20mm cannon would do plenty -- it can be used as an anti-armor weapon, after all.

 

You have to remember that TIEs aren't purpose-built for atmospheric operations. And I'm tempted to say it's shape isn't practical for it, either.

[Guest Jason Redfield]

It is subjugation, you just missed the point of it. Once the military finds out that they have lost all their satellites and that the enemy can strike at any point on Earth without fear of retaliation then they would have to surrender. A few cities are lost, but then the Earth is conquered after that through their surrender.

 

I didn't say we could win against them on the ground (though we probably can since Skirmisher took out most of their numbers and didn't give them anything besides AT-STs and AT-ATs). I'm saying that they can win immediately without ever having to engage the enemy.

 

That's still not subjugation

 

In warfare, you do not own land until it is marched on by the boots of your soldiers.

 

Example: Us trying to win the Vietnam War or any other guerilla war simply through air power. Never has worked, never will.

 

In this scenario, you could bet there would still be plenty of pockets of resistance.

[Guest Ruinus]

Yeah, and what's the cutoff for armor-piercing rounds/large bullets? That's so vague that it's hard to quantify. And ballistic resistance doesn't work like that. For instance, a 5.56 FMJ round might bounce off a piece of armor. Now fire a .308 FMJ at that same piece of armor. Depending on what it is, that armor may very well be breached. The .308 isn't an AP round, and a lot of people wouldn't say it's "abnormally large".

 

I wouldn't know. It is vague, but that's all that's given. It's described as being almost impossible to breach unless the bullet is abnormally large, specifically AP, explosive, or if it hits the visor or lens. Here's a picture of a Verpine Sniper rifle, but that's probably on the high end.

[Guest Ruinus]

That's still not subjugation

 

In warfare, you do not own land until it is marched on by the boots of your soldiers.

 

Example: Us trying to win the Vietnam War or any other guerilla war simply through air power. Never has worked, never will.

 

In this scenario, you could bet there would still be plenty of pockets of resistance.

 

The conditions of surrender could be that every army must reveal the locations of all of their bases and order all of them to stand down. TIEs show up and bomb them (after removing the soldiers) or troops show up and replace the old military. After that they start landing troops wherever they want.

 

If someone resists, the Empire will probably respond like it always does. With excessive force, probably by saying that everytime some sort of resistance attack occurs a city goes up on smoke.

 

After it does happen a few times, and Earth realizes they aren't kidding around, it'll be harder to resist because popular opinion would be against them.

[Guest force_echo]

Im pretty sure TIE bombers bombing Earth would be counted as an orbital bombardment. Do not underestimate Earth capability, we have Nukes too, a whole shitload of them. But I think you would need Sattelites to use them.... Never mind.

 

Which TIE bomber are we talking about? Regular ones made by Sienar Fleet Systems or the advanced Scimitar Assault Bomber used during The Emperor's 1st and 2nd Ressurections? Either way, both contain Proton Torpedoes, Concussion Missles and, most commonly, free-falling Thermal Detonators. Thermal Dets utilize Baradium fusion reactions that distentegrate EVERYTHING within the blast radius via an explanding particle field. Definitely Thermonuclear.

[Guest Ruinus]

It's not an orbital bombardment if the TIEs re-enter atmosphere to do it.

[Guest force_echo]

AIM-120 is longer range, with 30 miles. Considerably more than a Sidewinder. And guess what? Flares would do jack squat against it. And SAMs don't necessarily need satellites to function. A 20mm cannon would do plenty -- it can be used as an anti-armor weapon, after all.

 

You have to remember that TIEs aren't purpose-built for atmospheric operations. And I'm tempted to say it's shape isn't practical for it, either.

A 20mm cannon won't do shit, especially considering the F22 only carries 480 rounds, thats like 5 seconds of sustained fire. Yeah, the AMRAAM does have a range of 30+, but theres only 6 of them, and I'm pretty sure they are affected by flares.

[Guest Ruinus]

Who cares wether an F-22 Raptor can do whatever, or if the AIMs will hurt TIEs, that doesn't matter. Why? Because an R-22 Raptor has a service ceiling of 19 km (19,812 m), while the TIE doesn't. The TIE can sit up a hundred km above the F-22 Raptor and laugh at it while it goes around hitting targets.

[Guest Jason Redfield]

A 20mm cannon won't do shit, especially considering the F22 only carries 480 rounds, thats like 5 seconds of sustained fire. Yeah, the AMRAAM does have a range of 30+, but theres only 6 of them, and I'm pretty sure they are affected by flares.

 

Are you even aware of what a 20mm round is capable of? It can tear an armored man apart with a single shot, punch holes in armor (as in armored ground vehicles), and there are 20mm rounds with depleted uranium penetrating cores. There's a reason 20mm was/is used in anti-tank and anti-materiel rifles. And you know why that's only 5 seconds of sustained fire? Because the rate-of-fire on the Vulcan is beyond ridiculous. So yeah, maybe a TIE could take a couple of hits from a 20 mil. Too bad that in one second, it could very well have taken a hundred rounds, each one with high-explosive, incendiary, and/or armor-piercing capabilities. Good luck resisting that.

 

The AMRAAM is radar-guided. What don't you understand about that? You think radar tracks flares or something? And it could easily mount more than six if chosen, either by replacing the Sidewinders or by mounting more on the external hardpoints. And there's going to be lots of jets in the air, so when you're talking about ten missiles per jet, plus the Vulcans...

 

 

Who cares wether an F-22 Raptor can do whatever, or if the AIMs will hurt TIEs, that doesn't matter. Why? Because an R-22 Raptor has a service ceiling of 19 km (19,812 m), while the TIE doesn't. The TIE can sit up a hundred km above the F-22 Raptor and laugh at it while it goes around hitting targets.

Which I already addressed on the first page. Either way, it would have to re-enter atmo in order to hit targets, at which point it becomes vulnerable. And just because it leaves atmosphere doesn't make it safe... there are always anti-satellite missiles to contend with.

[Guest Ruinus]

Which I already addressed on the first page. Either way, it would have to re-enter atmo in order to hit targets, at which point it becomes vulnerable. And just because it leaves atmosphere doesn't make it safe... there are always anti-satellite missiles to contend with.

 

Anti-satellite missiles, AFAIK, aren't meant to shoot down objects that can actually maneuver and are on a set path. Plus, the ceiling height still affects them. ASM-135 ASAT have flight ceilings of 563 km, a TIE could still sit up above it's range. TIEs could also simply appear outside the range of fighters and airbases.

[Guest force_echo]

Are you even aware of what a 20mm round is capable of? It can tear an armored man apart with a single shot, punch holes in armor (as in armored ground vehicles), and there are 20mm rounds with depleted uranium penetrating cores. There's a reason 20mm was/is used in anti-tank and anti-materiel rifles. And you know why that's only 5 seconds of sustained fire? Because the rate-of-fire on the Vulcan is beyond ridiculous. So yeah, maybe a TIE could take a couple of hits from a 20 mil. Too bad that in one second, it could very well have taken a hundred rounds, each one with high-explosive, incendiary, and/or armor-piercing capabilities. Good luck resisting that.

 

The AMRAAM is radar-guided. What don't you understand about that? You think radar tracks flares or something? And it could easily mount more than six if chosen, either by replacing the Sidewinders or by mounting more on the external hardpoints. And there's going to be lots of jets in the air, so when you're talking about ten missiles per jet, plus the Vulcans...

 

Which I already addressed on the first page. Either way, it would have to re-enter atmo in order to hit targets, at which point it becomes vulnerable. And just because it leaves atmosphere doesn't make it safe... there are always anti-satellite missiles to contend with.

Chill dude. Ok, AMRAAMS are radar guided, I thought they were Infrared, my bad, I'm not an AF pilot. But one thing you have to understand is, the TIE Fighter is one of the most maneuevrable fighters in the galaxy, comparable to only the A-Wing. This is how an AMRAAM guidance system works, its gets information from the aircraft's guidance system as to where the plane is, it launches, it gets one more update halfway into the flight, and when it gets close enough, it relies on its own Radar. The TIE fighter is so maneuvrable that in the gap between the second update and the close range guidance, the TIE Fighter would be in a whole different area, perhaps miles away.

 

Do you know how much damage a turbolaser could do? Probably more than a 20mm cannon, and guess what? A turbolaser has much more shots in it. Good luck resisting that. With no energy sheilding, F22 Raptors are screwed if they ever get into close combat, and considering the speed of a TIE fighter, that very well could become a possibility.

[Guest Jason Redfield]

Chill dude. Ok, AMRAAMS are radar guided, I thought they were Infrared, my bad, I'm not an AF pilot. But one thing you have to understand is, the TIE Fighter is one of the most maneuevrable fighters in the galaxy, comparable to only the A-Wing. This is how an AMRAAM guidance system works, its gets information from the aircraft's guidance system as to where the plane is, it launches, it gets one more update halfway into the flight, and when it gets close enough, it relies on its own Radar. The TIE fighter is so maneuvrable that in the gap between the second update and the close range guidance, the TIE Fighter would be in a whole different area, perhaps miles away.

Sure, but this is in atmosphere remember. They won't be able to travel quite as fast or be as maneuverable. Air resistance is a factor -- there's a reason modern planes have to be designed with a very specific shape.

 

Do you know how much damage a turbolaser could do? Probably more than a 20mm cannon, and guess what? A turbolaser has much more shots in it. Good luck resisting that. With no energy sheilding, F22 Raptors are screwed if they ever get into close combat, and considering the speed of a TIE fighter, that very well could become a possibility.

Except that the TIE doesn't have turbolasers. And those turbolasers have a slower rate-of-fire and quite possibly less of a muzzle velocity. And their range is much less than that of a missile. A TIE doesn't have shielding either.

[Indolent]

Would this have any impact in the battle if the US Navy was wholly equipped with them?

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....aser-downs-uavs

[Guest Ruinus]

It shouldn't, because the TIEs can avoid the Navy entirely. Considering that energy weapons are old hat in the SW galaxy, they might be better able to handle those lasers than bullets and missiles.

[Guest force_echo]

Sure, but this is in atmosphere remember. They won't be able to travel quite as fast or be as maneuverable. Air resistance is a factor -- there's a reason modern planes have to be designed with a very specific shape.

 

 

Except that the TIE doesn't have turbolasers. And those turbolasers have a slower rate-of-fire and quite possibly less of a muzzle velocity. And their range is much less than that of a missile. A TIE doesn't have shielding either.

I wasn't comparing TIE laser Cannons to missles, I was comparing them to the 20mm cannon.

[Skirmisher]

GE commander: Surrender now or face the consequences.

 

Earth's commanders: We don't surrender. Cut this channel. Alright, begin mo-what do you mean we lost our satellites? What do you mean 35,000 fighters with surface to space cabalities and kiloton bombs are killing us?

 

I don't see how it's impressive for Earth is we get subjugated without ever engaging the enemy.

Um... the world has plans in place for the collapse of the Satellite grid... sure it makes it Slightly Harder for us... but only slightly.

 

Also... they only have 5000 bombers world wide, and they are the only ones that actually have those Kiloton level bombs.

 

Fighters don't carry that kind of firepower.

 

 

Not only that but THAAD could Easily catch them with their pants down as they attempt to make Bombing runs. You Seriously underestimate our SAM capabilities.

[Skirmisher]

Also, about TIE fighter speeds... at a constant speed of 1,200kph, a TIE could easily reach sub-orbit in several minutes. After that I would assume that their speed could conceivably pick up when the drag that they would face is substantially less.

 

So I would think that their Speed isn't That Great, and that they could make it into Space within your time frame Easily enough.

 

So... faster than our fighters? Yes when they're above our fighting range, but they can and will still be picked off by our missile defense systems. As well their Landing and Refueling bases are located... On the Ground...

[Nesh]

Okay Ruinus, a few questions is for you since I brought the possiblity of them taking out our satelites. Answer these honestly now.

 

There technology is thousands of years ahead of ours, if not more, Right?

 

Would they even recognize such a "primitive" sat system for what it is?

 

Would they even take the time to shoot it down if they did? They might consider it a waste of time considering how easy they can subjugate the planet by your logic. Plus it would be counter-productive as they want to use our communications systems to get back in contact with the Galactic Empire. (Not that they would.)

 

Let me put this in a way you'll understand. Imagine you're commanding a detachment of Modern United States Armed Forces and are fighting Revolution era Redcoats, in situation like the one proposed here. Are you going to use what tittle ammo you have shooting their horses or save it for an actual battle?