So an Imperial-class Star Destroyer (Star Wars) crash lands on Earth..........

[greatmetropolitan]

Between the TIE fighters; far superior technology, manoeuvrability etc, their ability to fly far above any WWII era plane, and the shields on Lambda shuttles, I really don't see the SD losing a single ship. They pick off any attacks with impunity and the shuttles just zoom about the globe devastating cities, bases, shipyards etc. It's over in a week. And that's before any AT-ATs do anything, before any stormtroopers take the field, any of that. The air superiority is too great, as is the defensive technology.

[big_adventure]

nope, the TIEs can simply fly above the fighters max ceiling(not that high for a piston powered prop plane, which also can't angle the plane especially sharp without stalling) and shoot down on them

Eh, Mustangs were capable of vertical flight. But you are correct, the service ceiling wasn't particularly high. OTOH, Star Wars blaster fire is sooooo slow and their aim is generally so bad that this battle could go on for a loooooong time.

Also, the new films showed that fuel is a problem for SW ships. So they are going to run out, and then die. Might take a while, but their reserves aren't going to last, and none is available on Earth.

[The Drunkard Kid]

But if WWII forces get their hands on captured tech or scientists, the SD will be doomed due to a war of attrition.

The problems are A) there's not very much any chance of them shooting down any of the SW tech, B) even if they do shoot down the tech, they are not lonely going to be able to secure that tech before being wiped out by the rest of the Imperial fleet, C) even if they do a it, that will probably just result in the Empire now knowing where their research base(s) are and wiping it/them off the map shortly thereafter, and D) they are probably going to need years and years before they can properly replicate and use tech that is so massively above WW2 Earth's, assuming that Earth, or even our entire solar system, even has all the elements needed to properly replicate it.

[The Drunkard Kid]

Eh, Mustangs were capable of vertical flight. But you are correct, the service ceiling wasn't particularly high. OTOH, Star Wars blaster fire is sooooo slow and their aim is generally so bad that this battle could go on for a loooooong time.

Also, the new films showed that fuel is a problem for SW ships. So they are going to run out, and then die. Might take a while, but their reserves aren't going to last, and none is available on Earth.

Eh, it took multiple Lightspeed jumps to drain their fuel, so they should be fine for long enough to subdue Earth, especially since TIE fighters carry enough fuel for extended interstellar journeys, IIRC.

[big_adventure]

Eh, it took multiple Lightspeed jumps to drain their fuel, so they should be fine for long enough to subdue Earth, especially since TIE fighters carry enough fuel for extended interstellar journeys, IIRC.

I'm just saying that it's all of a sudden a consideration, which it never was before.

[Stigmazilla]

Between the TIE fighters; far superior technology, manoeuvrability etc, their ability to fly far above any WWII era plane, and the shields on Lambda shuttles, I really don't see the SD losing a single ship. They pick off any attacks with impunity and the shuttles just zoom about the globe devastating cities, bases, shipyards etc. It's over in a week. And that's before any AT-ATs do anything, before any stormtroopers take the field, any of that. The air superiority is too great, as is the defensive technology.

Even with their ability to fly above the ceiling of the WW2 era planes, the TIE fighters still need to be get within relative close range to fight, making it more then possible for them to got shot down, bombers like the Lancaster also had turrets on top of their planes to attack enemies flying above them. I'm not saying the ww2 planes are stomping, but the Imps are going to take loses for sure.

The TIE fighters don't have a hyperspace drive.

How good are we saying the shields are on the transport?

AT-AT's may have the advantage over tanks with their height, but tanks are more maneuverable and can fire from 360 degrees, they could also bring down a walker with a shot to the leg.

[Darth Drizzle]

Even with their ability to fly above the ceiling of the WW2 era planes, the TIE fighters still need to be get within relative close range to fight, making it more then possible for them to got shot down, bombers like the Lancaster also had turrets on top of their planes to attack enemies flying above them. I'm not saying the ww2 planes are stomping, but the Imps are going to take loses for sure.

The TIE fighters don't have a hyperspace drive.

How good are we saying the shields are on the transport?

AT-AT's may have the advantage over tanks with their height, but tanks are more maneuverable and can fire from 360 degrees, they could also bring down a walker with a shot to the leg.

TIE fighters don't need to be close to shoot their targets, and they have plenty of space battles that prove they don't. Also some X Wing fighters had Droids helping them out with their flying while TIE pilots only used skills and most X Wing pilots didn't like their odds of going one on one with any model of TIE fighter and were outright scared of one on one fights with TIE Destroyer models. So with their unmatchable mobility and tech advantages they really won't have a problem with WW 2 era planes at all.

The Lambada Transporters shields regularly block X Wing fire, and it takes their bombs/heavy ordinance to break through so Tank cannons and Machine Guns from planes aren't going to get past it.

AT-AT's shoot down A-Wings, Hover Crafts, and Landspeeders. All of which are much faster and much more manuverabke than Tanks. Also you are underestimating the size and armor of an AT AT leg as they are Massive. A Tank isn't doing much harm to it, and the AT's firing range is so much further and more accurate than a Tanks that it would be hard pressed for a Tank squad to even approach a Walker without getting sniped and one shot by it's weapons.

[Hiromi]

one particular advantage the SD forces have is their range, they can hit any target anywhere on the globe with virtually no warning, they can literally have a transport drop out of space and deploy two AT-ATs on top of the White House or Westminster without any time to mobilize a response

[StupidMoniker]

one particular advantage the SD forces have is their range, they can hit any target anywhere on the globe with virtually no warning, they can literally have a transport drop out of space and deploy two AT-ATs on top of the White House or Westminster without any time to mobilize a response

They don't really have anything that can transport an AT-AT listed.

[The Drunkard Kid]

They don't really have anything that can transport an AT-AT listed.

To be fair, they could just have a squadron of TIE fighters zip over, shoot the hell out of whatever target they want anywhere on the planet, then zip back before the first WW2 fighter planes would even have entered visible range (unless the target in question was whatever base they were launching from, I guess).

[Hiromi]

They don't really have anything that can transport an AT-AT listed.

Star Destroyers have barges to transport AT-ATs (had them mixed up with the Gozanti-class we see transport them in Rebels which can carry two at a time). They never get listed in the complement, but if a Star Destroyer has AT-ATs on board they obviously have a way to get them off since they can't actually land

that was just an extreme example anyway, being able to land a few troop transports complete with aerial support/bombardment anywhere with impunity would allow them to decapitate virtually every major government in the world within an astonishingly short amount of time

[Totoro Man]

let me point out that TIE fighters have a terribly slow rate of fire. they are also restricted to line-of-sight weaponry.

the reason this is important is because higher rates of fire are necessary to shoot down the enemy when 'time on target' is only a fraction of a second to several seconds. TIE fighters have such a dismal rate of fire that they would be hard-pressed to shoot down very many aircraft.

to make matters worse, the gunsights in SW-universe are simply terrible.

another problem, based on the films... very, VERY few TIE fighter pilots have ever shown competency in deflection gunnery or even BASIC air-to-air combat tactics. by this point very few earth pilots would be willing to give TIE fighters a clean shot from 6 o'clock. they would be twisting and turning all over the place. they would also be able to pick up TIE fighters on radar since those things aren't exactly "stealthy". those giant panels would make it pretty easy to find them.

if we operate under the assumption that their shields could/would protect them from mid-air collisions, the TIE fighters would be better off just ramming enemy aircraft and saving their weaponry for ground targets.

if shields CAN'T prevent solid objects from penetrating then the TIE fighters are completely screwed.

we're talking about a serious numerical advantage for planet earth. the Empire is given 120 fighter-equivalent units... and these are supposed to somehow subdue literally thousands upon thousands of highly trained potential adversaries?

2 years worth of food is simply not enough. they'd have to go out and get provisions. if Ewoks can take out the Empire's best troops... well, you can bet that any top-notch army on planet Earth would be able to do even better. Stormtrooper armor doesn't even appear to protect them against rocks and debris! [I think the real reason the armor is there is so that the audience doesn't have to think of them as human beings... thus, rendering them more effectively as cannon fooder]

er, let's see... AT-ATs could be easily defeated by creating anti-tank ditches... honestly, even you're standard anti-tank trench could be enough to make them trip and fall over. pit traps could be done the same way. since they WALK, simply putting down pipes or logs could also create a potential hazard. boobytrapping the pipes so that Stormtroopers can't move them without taking casualties would also help slow down an Imperial advance.

another pretty reliable means would be the use of mines. I'm not talking about little anti-tank or anti-personal mines. I'm talking about 500-pound aerial bombs being used as potential mines. the dirt that they would throw up alone could push an AT-AT or a walker off-balance and lead to them falling over. or, they could get more ambitious and tunnel. knowing possible AT-AT approaches, they could install thousands of pounds of explosives, and detonate it when the AT-ATs are nearby. to pick one example the Lochnagar mine detonation created a crater that was nearly 100 feet deep and 300 feet in diameter. pretty sure that would throw an AT-AT on it's back, killing the crew, and render it useless.

I love me some Star Wars... but one Star Destroyer is NOT conquering the Earth in 1944.

[Cthulhu_of_R'lyeh]

Are you just ignoring the limitations of WW2 Era fighters?

As has already been pointed out, TIE fighters are faster, more maneuverable, and have a higher flight ceiling in addition to flatly better armaments.

Not even going to touch the "but mines" argument, becuase that's just hilariously silly.

[Hiromi]

Are you just ignoring the limitations of WW2 Era fighters?

Considering that he's seriously talking about WW2 fighters picking stuff up on RADAR?

Edit: Just to note they did actually exist at that point, but in incredibly small numbers, and were so bulky and cumbersome to be limited entirely to night raids

[Cthulhu_of_R'lyeh]

Considering that he's seriously talking about WW2 fighters picking stuff up on RADAR?

I chalked that up to just an easy mistake to make.

More interesting is the fact that he argued that burying a bomb designed to detonate on impact after falling from the sky, under the ground, would be a viable strategy without needing to change the way the bomb, well, explodes.

Or the fact that they sited a uh... WW1 mine detonation that was a spectacular failure. The German defenses holding and the French suffering 11,000+ casualties. Probably not good to use metrics from the wrong war, that failed, to shore up the argument that a WW2 Earth can fight off futuristic (relative to us, even if poorly designed) tech.