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

[Twickster]

Is anyone even suggesting moving 9,000 stormtroopers anywhere? What is the point you are arguing against? What possible reason would they have to move 9,000 stormtroopers somewhere? Why wouldn't they fly around in their shielded lambda class shuttles and blast things with their laser cannons. Just put 11 pilot/copilot pairs on each ship and they can essentially fly around all day and blow stuff up. Blast away at bridges, power plants, food stores, ammo dumps, fuel depots, air bases, barracks, artillery pieces, tanks, seats of government, large residential structures, ships, harbors, dry docks, trainyards, roads, tunnels, bombers, factories, forests, farms, dams, large infantry formations, and any other target that strikes their fancy? Normal real world combat just doesn't contemplate an enemy with these capabilities.

Sooo... Is the *real* claim that 120 fighters and 12 bombers are somehow going to take over the world? Because it sure looks like it now.

Hint: The Allies had air superiority over the Axis for *years*, leveling entire cities to rubble, and that didn't get them to surrender until there were boots on the ground.

[StupidMoniker]

Sooo... Is the *real* claim that 120 fighters and 12 bombers are somehow going to take over the world? Because it sure looks like it now.

Hint: The Allies had air superiority over the Axis for *years*, leveling entire cities to rubble, and that didn't get them to surrender until there were boots on the ground.

One, the Nazis quite correctly feared their fate after the war. German leadership was not going to survive without victory. It became apparent long before the surrender that Germany was not going to be winning, and it wasn't some magical property of allied soldiers setting foot in Germany that won or lost the war. Also of note, the Germans were still shooting down bombers in March of 1945. Air superiority the allies had, but nothing like total unmolested access wherever and whenever they chose. On the other side of the world, consider Japan. The US never invaded the home islands. There was ground fighting in the island hopping campaign across the Pacific theater obviously, but that was because it was not practical to bomb Japan from the United States. It was all about having air and naval bases within striking range of the Japanese home islands. Then the atomic bombs were dropped and Japan surrendered immediately. So, not only is it theoretically possible to win a war without boots on the ground of your enemy, there is historical precedent.

It isn't about there being 120 fighters and 12 bombers. Those are terms of normal warfare. These are not ordinary weapons of war. To those fighting against them, they may as well be angry gods. It isn't like 12 US B-29s attacking Germany, it is 8 spacecraft that can't be shot down, that have unlimited ammunition, that have unlimited operational range, and that can destroy any target in the air, on land, or at sea that move as fast as all but the fastest jet and rocket propelled planes that anyone has ever seen. If they want to send the fighters after soft targets, they can do that too, just to save the Lambdas some time, but it really comes down to having technology so far outside the scope of what it meant to fight a war in the 1940s that they are essentially engaging in an entirely different activity. What possible response do the people of Earth have?

[Twickster]

Air superiority the allies had, but nothing like total unmolested access wherever and whenever they chose. On the other side of the world, consider Japan. The US never invaded the home islands. There was ground fighting in the island hopping campaign across the Pacific theater obviously, but that was because it was not practical to bomb Japan from the United States. It was all about having air and naval bases within striking range of the Japanese home islands. Then the atomic bombs were dropped and Japan surrendered immediately. So, not only is it theoretically possible to win a war without boots on the ground of your enemy, there is historical precedent.

This reasoning doesn't fly. The Allies *had* total, unmolested air access over Japan, razing its cities to charcoal. There were months of Allied (i.e. US) firebombing of dozens of Japanese major cities, killing hundreds of thousands of people per sortie. They torched factories, roads, bridges, powerplants, civilian areas, command and control centers. The damage of each firebombing was easily comparable to or eclipsed the atom bombs (and was very probably a war crime). The Japanese held out for almost a year.

And even at the eve of surrendering, the Japanese government had to go all out on stopping a coup that wanted to fight on, atom bombs regardless. "Dropping the atom bombs" causing the Japanese to surrender is a total oversimplification and is not, as you say, "historical precedent" - particularly with a measly 120 fighters and 12 bombers. Said bombers, by feats, having nothing in their loadouts to cause damage even close to the Japanese firebombings, say nothing about the atom bombs.

[Captain Smith]

I think that the folks who know something about military issues have convincingly argued against the grounded ship ruling the world.

If I were a TIE pilot, I would defect to the USA or UK. I would down load text books and plans on an Empire version of a laptop.

If I were the command staff of the ship, I would think of making a deal while I still had supplies.

[StupidMoniker]

This reasoning doesn't fly. The Allies *had* total, unmolested air access over Japan, razing its cities to charcoal. There were months of Allied (i.e. US) firebombing of dozens of Japanese major cities, killing hundreds of thousands of people per sortie. They torched factories, roads, bridges, powerplants, civilian areas, command and control centers. The damage of each firebombing was easily comparable to or eclipsed the atom bombs (and was very probably a war crime). The Japanese held out for almost a year.

And even at the eve of surrendering, the Japanese government had to go all out on stopping a coup that wanted to fight on, atom bombs regardless. "Dropping the atom bombs" causing the Japanese to surrender is a total oversimplification and is not, as you say, "historical precedent" - particularly with a measly 120 fighters and 12 bombers. Said bombers, by feats, having nothing in their loadouts to cause damage even close to the Japanese firebombings, say nothing about the atom bombs.

So the US forcing a Japanese surrender after a year of bombing raids that resulted in somewhere between 250 and 900k deaths is not precedent for an air campaign forcing a surrender without land invasion why? Also, the US raids on Japan suffered losses of over 600 aircraft and roughly 3,000 people, so no, that is not at all total unmolested air access. Being attacked day after day and never, ever taking down one enemy is demoralizing on a completely different level.

The weapons of the Lambda shuttles, so far as I am aware, have no canon feats. Same for the shields, for that matter. We do know that they have weapons and shields, and we know generally the effectiveness of Star Wars weapons and shields. So, best guess is that Lambda shuttle cannons are stronger than TIE cannons but weaker than Carrack cruiser cannons. Probably something on the order of an X-Wing's cannons. Certainly that is nothing like the immediate destructive power of an atomic bomb, but it is more than enough that large stone structures can be severely damaged in seconds (see the attack on Maz Kenada's place in The Force Awakens). That would appear to be destruction on the level of something like a hellfire missile at a minimum. Being able to shoot unlimited hellfire missiles at a rate of 2-4 per second from a group of 8 invulnerable apache helicopters that could fly around at 600 mph would be devastatingly effective. During WWII, there would not be one building, vehicle, road, bridge, weapon's emplacement, pipeline, train track, etc. that could not be destroyed. It would just be a matter of time.

[Captain Smith]

There are 8 of them against the world. They have two years. 8 planes are not going to destroy that much material even if they fly 24/7. We've already established that the ground forces are not going anywhere significant. So they blow up some stuff. They have to blow up things in the UK, USA, USSR, Germany, etc.

600 mph is not that hot against ground fire. The Israelis in much faster planes took significant losses from Russian supplied 23 mm antiaircraft tanks. Where do the movies show that the shuttles are immune to our weaponry?

Hellfire level - move the plants underground. Train tracks in WWII were rebuilt, bridges were replaced with pontoon bridges.

The Russians produced 57,339 T-34 tanks. You going to chase them all over Europe? Those crews would have to been the air constantly with no breaks and no breakdowns.

Our jets would be close to their speed fairly quickly. A ME-262 had 4 30 mm cannons. Where's the feat showing the shuttles can take that? The P-80s were almost in production for a contract of 5000.

Stone buildings - remember I said that London took 1000 V-2s with 1 ton warheads and the city keep working.

Also, are the hangers under the ship? I ask again.

[The Drunkard Kid]

really? based on the OP they only have T-4 shuttles and the K79 troop carriers that are specifically designed as transports. they aren't given any Titan dropships to quickly move those AT-ATs. besides, the dropships are designed to deploy AT-ATs to a planet surface from space. they also don't have access to Gozanti assault carriers either.

the only transports they DO have can't carry the AT-ATs anywhere!

even if we assume that they could carry that much weight. they don't have cargo holds large enough to contain the walkers. and slinging them under the fuselage and carrying them on their belly isn't really a great option either. that would require hours of jerry-rigging high-strength steel cables at critical support points. then they'd have to test that out for short distances to see how safely they can move the walkers. since there are no hard-points and connectors installed they would have to wrap them around the fuselage of the shuttle. this would most certainly interfere with the shuttle's folding wing landing attempt. so, then you're stuck hovering in place while people try to disconnect the cables.

all of this would take at least 45 minutes on either end of the lift by a highly-trained crew of cargo handlers... all of this assumes that they even have cables strong enough to safely secure the weight of the AT-AT to the fuselage of the shuttle... and that said cables won't come off during flight.

LOL, and since none of that has been shown in a Star Wars film that's not even an option, is it?

that means the AT-ATs need to WALK out of the Star Destroyer to proceed to their objectives. that limits ALL of their action to places that can be reached by land via continental Europe.

that also means that they have to cross dozens of rivers via bridge, or by simply fording through them. and everybody sees them as a hostile threat that needs to be contained, then they are most certainly going to blow up every bridge that enables the Empire to launch attacks further into Europe.

this means that the Imperial ground forces are probably not even getting past the Meuse, Seine, and Moselle rivers! not without the help of Imperial engineers (which they are not given, by the way) repairing existing bridges, or building new bridges from scratch.

and those materials to repair the blown up bridges is going to come from where, now? naturally, they'd have to find the locations where all of those resources are and simply blast their way through to get those materials. which would be a piece of cake, if a LOT of those materials and resources weren't on the other side of the rivers they now can't cross because those bridges have been blown up!

I wasn't actually talking about using them to move AT-ATs, only that they had enough cargo space to carry back literal tons of supplies from the areas that the TIE fighters attack, long before any nation's military response gets close to them, at which point the TIE fighters continue to destroy power plants, wipe out cites by attacking dams, shatter supply chains by attaching highways/trains/shipping lanes/etc... completely at will since they can circle the planet at unapproachable speeds functionally indefinitely without running low on fuel.

And regarding tracking things rough my the size of a toolshed traveling at insanely mach speeds using just eyesight... Really? You're assuming that A) a significant portion of the planet is constantly looking into the sky, B) they will be able to predict where ships that can be over the horizon in moments while not even trying and can change their route at any time, and C) that any military force on the planet would be able to catch up to them before they finished their attack and are somewhere else on the planet.

[The Drunkard Kid]

There are 8 of them against the world. They have two years. 8 planes are not going to destroy that much material even if they fly 24/7. We've already established that the ground forces are not going anywhere significant. So they blow up some stuff. They have to blow up things in the UK, USA, USSR, Germany, etc.

600 mph is not that hot against ground fire. The Israelis in much faster planes took significant losses from Russian supplied 23 mm antiaircraft tanks. Where do the movies show that the shuttles are immune to our weaponry?

Hellfire level - move the plants underground. Train tracks in WWII were rebuilt, bridges were replaced with pontoon bridges.

The Russians produced 57,339 T-34 tanks. You going to chase them all over Europe? Those crews would have to been the air constantly with no breaks and no breakdowns.

Our jets would be close to their speed fairly quickly. A ME-262 had 4 30 mm cannons. Where's the feat showing the shuttles can take that? The P-80s were almost in production for a contract of 5000.

Stone buildings - remember I said that London took 1000 V-2s with 1 ton warheads and the city keep working.

Also, are the hangers under the ship? I ask again.

According to the Mandalorian, TIE fighters (of which there are 120 of in this scenario) launch from the front of the ship.

[Cleric of Hell’s Brigade]

According to the Mandalorian, TIE fighters (of which there are 120 of in this scenario) launch from the front of the ship.

That was a Gazanti IIRC, not a full Star Destroyer.

I think.

[Darth Drizzle]

TIEs launch from the sides of of a Star Destroyer as will most ships. Bigger ships could launch near the dorsal end of the ship. Also Lambada craft are heavily weaponized and have sheilding which adds to the hundred+ TIE fighters air superiority. Plus they both have unlimited main cannons that hit with missle force and above that is being underestimated, as I said before.

I've yet to see anything that contradicts the Imperials winning this handily as nothing stops them from attacking anywhere in the world without losing a single ship, and the Allies simply can't under any circumstance force the Imperials into a battle that they dont want to engage in. They can't choose a battlefield to lay mines or set up Artillery positions and have 1,000+Tanks ready to go. They can't scramble hundreds of Airplanes in advance and have them ready to shoot down Imperial Aircraft on sight. And they can't track when/where Imperial Aircraft are going to drop out of space anywhere in the world in real time and attack with insurmountable force taking out everything they targeted and leaving before any counter attack gets started.

The Allies cant harm or even get close to the Star Destroyer, and they cant shoot down Aircraft that they don't know is coming until stuff starts blowing up. Or you know they attack at Night with targeting systems and sensors that see everything just fine and take out any power stations/generators/lights if needed leaving the Allies in total darkness as they get slaughtered.

[Totoro Man]

So the US forcing a Japanese surrender after a year of bombing raids that resulted in somewhere between 250 and 900k deaths is not precedent for an air campaign forcing a surrender without land invasion why? Also, the US raids on Japan suffered losses of over 600 aircraft and roughly 3,000 people, so no, that is not at all total unmolested air access. Being attacked day after day and never, ever taking down one enemy is demoralizing on a completely different level.

The weapons of the Lambda shuttles, so far as I am aware, have no canon feats. Same for the shields, for that matter. We do know that they have weapons and shields, and we know generally the effectiveness of Star Wars weapons and shields. So, best guess is that Lambda shuttle cannons are stronger than TIE cannons but weaker than Carrack cruiser cannons. Probably something on the order of an X-Wing's cannons. Certainly that is nothing like the immediate destructive power of an atomic bomb, but it is more than enough that large stone structures can be severely damaged in seconds (see the attack on Maz Kenada's place in The Force Awakens). That would appear to be destruction on the level of something like a hellfire missile at a minimum. Being able to shoot unlimited hellfire missiles at a rate of 2-4 per second from a group of 8 invulnerable apache helicopters that could fly around at 600 mph would be devastatingly effective. During WWII, there would not be one building, vehicle, road, bridge, weapon's emplacement, pipeline, train track, etc. that could not be destroyed. It would just be a matter of time.

it seems as though some posters on this thread believe that, in spite of this being explicitly declared a WARFARE SCENARIO in the opening post... that basic, undeniable laws of warfare such as attrition, combat fatigue, concentration of force, logistics, and the element of surprise should all be ignored for the sake of guaranteeing an Imperial victory.

to repeat: complete military victory in warfare has NEVER been accomplished exclusively through airpower. there is not a SINGLE historical example or precedent for a large-scale conflict being determined by the use of airpower alone. it doesn't matter if the airpower is represented by traditional fixed-wing aircraft using combustion engines or imaginary spaceships that use different forms of propulsion. the point still stands. airplanes CAN'T occupy territory. they can merely fly over it, inflict damage, and move on. they could deliver ground forces to occupy that conquered territory... but if ALL they do is fly around and blow things up this is NOT sufficient to bring about the unconditional surrender of the enemy. I've already provided seven top-notch historical references that clearly demonstrate the inability of aircraft to bring about victory conditions alone.

remember, that by this point Japan's merchant fleet had been effectively destroyed. just over half of all Japanese tonnage lost during the war was a result of Allied submarine attacks. out of all of the millions of tons of supplies that were sunk during the war aircraft (of all types) accounted for barely 30% of those total losses.

https://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/I...-Losses-6.html

https://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/I...-Losses-6.html

since Japan had to import most of the vital war materials and food needed to continue the war, the annihilation of their merchant fleet spelled almost certain doom.

to repeat, aerial bombardment did not cause Japan to surrender. at the time of the Japanese surrender the Soviet Union had just conquered practically all of the 1,000,000+ Japanese troops in Manchuria in less than TWO weeks. it is important to remember that over 75% of JAPAN'S TOTAL COMBAT CAPABLE GROUND FORCES WERE ON CONTINENTAL ASIA.

let that sink in for a minute. they were already outnumbered by an enemy that enjoyed complete logistical and technological superiority.

the Soviets immediately captured the Sakhalin and Kuril islands. they also crushed the Japanese presence in Korea. after these staggering and irrecoverable defeats sustained by Japanese forces in Asia, it wouldn't be long before the Allies would be launching full-scale invasions of Japan from multiple directions. remember, as early as 1944 the Japanese high command KNEW that they couldn't possible defeat all of their enemies. at this point they were hoping to make the Allied victory so costly that the Allies would be willing to negotiate terms that were at least somewhat favorable to Japan.

we have plenty of evidence based on the films, television shows, and various video games that argue persuasively in favor of the idea that these Imperial aircraft are NOT immune to the weapons that planet Earth can bring to bear upon them in this scenario.

[Totoro Man]

Is anyone even suggesting moving 9,000 stormtroopers anywhere? What is the point you are arguing against? What possible reason would they have to move 9,000 stormtroopers somewhere? Why wouldn't they fly around in their shielded lambda class shuttles and blast things with their laser cannons. Just put 11 pilot/copilot pairs on each ship and they can essentially fly around all day and blow stuff up. Blast away at bridges, power plants, food stores, ammo dumps, fuel depots, air bases, barracks, artillery pieces, tanks, seats of government, large residential structures, ships, harbors, dry docks, trainyards, roads, tunnels, bombers, factories, forests, farms, dams, large infantry formations, and any other target that strikes their fancy? Normal real world combat just doesn't contemplate an enemy with these capabilities.

if the Star Destroyer is stranded at a fixed location on the ground, then transporting those 9,000 stormtroopers is absolutely essential if they are to capture and hold any target of economic and military value.

even IF that ship is still capable of flight those ground forces would be needed to secure something like a victory. if they don't use their stormtroopers to capture and hold vital economic resources and military targets then those stormtroopers serve no useful purpose.

if we take this line of argument seriously, then the Star Destroyer should simply abandon all of their ground forces and leave them for dead. this frees them up to fly about the earth with a smaller consumption rate for the provisions. thusly putting them in a better position to molest cities with airpower alone.

however, your line of argument is based on a specific interpretation of the following words.

"The above ship “crashes” on Earth (undamaged, but unable to fly into space). The place it crashes? Well......"


you're taking a different interpretation of the opening post than I am: which seems to be that it merely stipulates that the ship would be "unable to fly into space". does this mean that you believe it would still be able to take-off, fly, and land in the conventional manner within the Earth's atmosphere?

I took these words to mean that it actually crash landed, largely undamaged, but was no longer able to travel freely under its own power.

now, I would like to think that, as a very long-standing and respected member of this forum, Cleric of Hell's Brigade would have corrected me on this detail if I had interpreted the terms of the scenario incorrectly.

the fact is that Cleric of Hell's Brigade has NOT corrected me on this point of argument. Nor have they openly contradicted my arguments based on this point thus far. To this end, if they believed there was a misunderstanding they haven't even changed the conditions of the scenario via editing the original post!

All of these factors have led me to believe that I have offered up a correct interpretation of the limitations of the original scenario.

at this point, I suppose we would have to wait for Cleric of Hell's Brigade to clarify the specific terms of the scenario.

[StupidMoniker]

it seems as though some posters on this thread believe that, in spite of this being explicitly declared a WARFARE SCENARIO in the opening post... that basic, undeniable laws of warfare such as attrition, combat fatigue, concentration of force, logistics, and the element of surprise should all be ignored for the sake of guaranteeing an Imperial victory.

to repeat: complete military victory in warfare has NEVER been accomplished exclusively through airpower. there is not a SINGLE historical example or precedent for a large-scale conflict being determined by the use of airpower alone. it doesn't matter if the airpower is represented by traditional fixed-wing aircraft using combustion engines or imaginary spaceships that use different forms of propulsion. the point still stands. airplanes CAN'T occupy territory. they can merely fly over it, inflict damage, and move on. they could deliver ground forces to occupy that conquered territory... but if ALL they do is fly around and blow things up this is NOT sufficient to bring about the unconditional surrender of the enemy. I've already provided seven top-notch historical references that clearly demonstrate the inability of aircraft to bring about victory conditions alone.

remember, that by this point Japan's merchant fleet had been effectively destroyed. just over half of all Japanese tonnage lost during the war was a result of Allied submarine attacks. out of all of the millions of tons of supplies that were sunk during the war aircraft (of all types) accounted for barely 30% of those total losses.

There is no historical comparison to be made. Like the sinking of the Japanese shipping. It cannot have been done in the real world war 2 by aircraft alone because of the limitations of those aircraft. They have to launch from carriers or land bases and fly around on limited fuel to locate a ship, then they have to use a very limited supply of weapons (like 1 torpedo) to try to sink the ship. The Imperial shuttle can fly up into space or the upper atmosphere, find every ship in the ocean with their sensors, and then track them down and destroy them one by one.

since Japan had to import most of the vital war materials and food needed to continue the war, the annihilation of their merchant fleet spelled almost certain doom.

If you have invulnerable spaceships with unlimited fuel and unlimited ammo, you can do this to everyone. You blow up ships, trains, trucks, fuel depots, ammo dumps, etc. Eventually the enemy cannot supply itself with food or fuel or ammo. Then what, they start throwing rocks at you. If you have the Lambdas fly wild weasel missions to take out enemy anti-air capabilities, you can then add TiE-fighters to the available attackers.

to repeat, aerial bombardment did not cause Japan to surrender. at the time of the Japanese surrender the Soviet Union had just conquered practically all of the 1,000,000+ Japanese troops in Manchuria in less than TWO weeks. it is important to remember that over 75% of JAPAN'S TOTAL COMBAT CAPABLE GROUND FORCES WERE ON CONTINENTAL ASIA.

let that sink in for a minute. they were already outnumbered by an enemy that enjoyed complete logistical and technological superiority.

the Soviets immediately captured the Sakhalin and Kuril islands. they also crushed the Japanese presence in Korea. after these staggering and irrecoverable defeats sustained by Japanese forces in Asia, it wouldn't be long before the Allies would be launching full-scale invasions of Japan from multiple directions. remember, as early as 1944 the Japanese high command KNEW that they couldn't possible defeat all of their enemies. at this point they were hoping to make the Allied victory so costly that the Allies would be willing to negotiate terms that were at least somewhat favorable to Japan.

The Japanese wanted to keep fighting to try to get favorable terms, and then they surrendered unconditionally because they were suddenly faced with an enemy that could destroy them with complete impunity. Not one boot on the ground in the home islands.

we have plenty of evidence based on the films, television shows, and various video games that argue persuasively in favor of the idea that these Imperial aircraft are NOT immune to the weapons that planet Earth can bring to bear upon them in this scenario.

I don't know of a canon source that supports the idea that WW2 earth can shoot down a shielded Lambda shuttle. I would love to see it if it exists.

[Totoro Man]

we don't have to waste a lot of time showing every detail and step taken during a flight in a movie because this is bad story-telling. we don't have pre-flight inspections unless it's for dramatic purposes, or to add an 'air of realism', or to create suspense.

remember, this is a scenario-based rumble. we don't have compressed narrative to eliminate or reduce the 'boring parts'. if it reasonably takes 90 seconds to safely land a machine then it takes 90 seconds. if it takes one hour to travel the distance allowed by your ships maximum speed... then it takes an hour.

now, all three sources I've looked at give the shuttle's top atmospheric speed as 850 kph (or 526 mph).

to get out of the atmosphere requires time. even though there isn't a single instance where a ship in Star Wars has been shown to fly straight up into the air, perpendicular to the horizon... let's pretend that this is possible. it would still take 34 minutes for them to escape the atmosphere to reach their amazing travel speeds in space. assuming that they can travel where ever they want to almost instantaneously, they now have to descend into the atmosphere to reach their targets.

unless, of course, you can show us examples of shuttles and TIE fighters striking surface targets from outer space! since I can't recall a single instance in the entire history of Star Wars where this happened.... let's move on to the descent.

I'm going to be extremely generous and assume that the shuttle can safely dive at 200% of it's maximum level flight speed. the reason I'm prepared to do this is because they have shields. if they didn't have shields the figure would be more like 125% or 150%. the reason for this is because of the atmosphere. if aircraft moving through the atmosphere travel too fast then their control surfaces aren't strong enough to overcome the forces acting against them. in this case, air pressure, wind speed, etc. I'm not prepared to be that generous with TIE fighters and their variants because we have way too many 'feats' of them crashing into solid objects at high speed!

now, if I wanted to be really mean I would argue that "the maximum flight speed of 850 kph that I've found on every internet source also restricts their diving speed! they can't dive any faster than 850!!!". but I'm not going to be that curmudgeonly about it.

now we've got the shuttle diving 299 miles at a little over 1000 mph down from outer space into the atmosphere close to their target. that's still going to take them about 17 minutes to get back down to an altitude where they can see their targets and attack them (with their line-of-sight weapons). add this to the time it takes to exit the atmosphere and that's nearly an hour before they even reach the target. assuming they only need 30 minutes over the target, then they have to repeat that process to go back home. that gives us a round trip that lasts about 132 minutes.

even if we assumed that they had multiple crews in each shuttle, to allow the shuttles to remain in constant operation, they only have EIGHT of these things. and if the shuttles are conducting ground attack missions they can't be used for something else at the exact same time. sure, they could attack a ground target and drop off troops at one location. or they could attack one target and drop troops off at another location. but they can't be two places at once. if they're out attacking merchant convoys they can't be used for any other purpose. it might well take them over an hour to get to the next location quickly.

if the shuttles are going to be used for continuous surface attacks then the only thing they can carry would probably be provisions, back-up crews, sleeping quarters, and other things necessary to stay airborne.

and that's just considering the shuttles. TIE fighters, infamous for being short ranged types that rely on numerical superiority... are single-seat machines. somebody might be able to last 4-to-6 hours... but that's probably the limit. since we don't have any canonical feats for them having toilets. they have to go back when nature calls.

[Totoro Man]

the military can be used for a number of basic functions:

1. combat
2. seizing economic and military objectives
3. occupying territory
4. incapacitating resources (this means rendering them unusable without destroying them)(
5. isolation (preventing people, materials, vehicles, etc from reaching a location)
6. misdirection (fooling people as to what they're true intentions are)
7. destruction.

you can never have one unit doing all of these things at the same time.

Imperial air power can only accomplish tasks 1 and 7 really well. it could play a role in task 5, but it can't do that without support from ground forces. it can be used for task 6. but that's only valuable if you have other assets involved in the scenario. flying around just to confuse people without following up on that action with something else is a waste of time.

TIE fighters can't capture a target. they can't occupy territory. TIE fighters can't consistently isolate a target, and prevent people from reaching that specific location. eventually the pilot will have to stop and eat, go to the bathroom, etc. when that happens people will take advantage of that absence and reach the desired location.

for the tasks of capturing, occupying, isolation or incapacitating you NEED Stormtroopers or AT-ATs. simply blowing up a target does not prevent it from being repaired, replaced, rebuilt, etc.