Imperial Remnant vs. Infinite Empire

Started by Gideon4 pages

Imperial Remnant vs. Infinite Empire

This is the Imperial Remnant as of the Hand of Thrawn duology, where Grand Admiral Pellaeon confirms that the Empire's remaining Star Destroyer count is at two hundred, versus the Infinite Empire, led by Revan, Dark Lord of the Sith. I am not a KotoR buff, but I assume that the Infinite Empire (before Revan's defeat) possessed more than two hundred ships.

I understand that the Empire's technology is superior to Revan's, but I believe that Revan's sheer numbers and Force powers might even off the playing field. But, just to make sure, we'll toss in Grand Admiral Thrawn's clone [Major Grodin Pierce] as the tactical genius for the Empire.

There is no Star Forge or superweapon other than their individual fleets. Who wins?

[Edit: If the Empire is still far advantageous, we'll get rid of Thrawn]

Pellaeon is not a Thrawn but he's sporting a highly superior, if outnumbered, fleet.

I'd say one ISD is enough to take down several of Revan's best ships and we have 199 others...

Escape is right, Revan is the superior tactician here and he has unlimited numbers under his belt. His infinite empire wins.

Of course it does.

The Infinite Empire of the Rakata is a complete unknown in terms of numbers and tech.

If Escape means Revan's Sith Empire well...

Assuming Revan ISN'T familiar with Imperial tech or tactics, then 200 ISD's in several battle groups, say about 20 each, with 72 TIE's per ship, along with numerous other support frigates and vessels should be able to penetrate shielding tech. 4000 years behind Imperial weapons.

A War is not won by just technology but exceptional tactics and plans matter more.

Revan's tactics are unparalled in Star Wars history apart from Thrawn. He can win in this war.

Remember that it was only because of the actions of one man that the technologically superior Mandalorian military had to suffer a humiliating defeat and that man was Revan. He does has the element of surprise.

The Mandalorians dealt some heavy casualties to Revan before he won, and that was without Imperial technology, which to be frank, surpasses like everything except Yuuzhan Vong shit.

200 ISD's can take out at least 10 times their number of Leviathan-class vessels, and it's pretty hard to compare TIE Fighters, Interceptors and Defenders against Sith fighters. Suffice to say, the TIE's are likely better.

Pellaeon by this time is very experienced, having learned from Thrawn and Daala, and both Revan and he are complete unknowns to one another. It's likely Revan will simply withdraw into his empire (if he's allowed in this case) to study the Imperial ships and movements while they battle small groups of Revan's fleet.

A War is not won by just technology but exceptional tactics and plans matter more.

Tell that to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan; both of them possessed better militaries and tactics, but they lost due to an overwhelming numbers (Germany) and the atomic bomb (Japan). If the technology in question is much more potent, tactics can become irrelevant.

For example, if you put a Super Star Destroyer under Pellaeon's command and a regular Star Destroyer under Revan's - even though Revan is the better commander - he'll get his ass kicked. Simply because the disparity between the firepower and technology.

Revan's tactics are unparalled in Star Wars history apart from Thrawn. He can win in this war.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, and... no. Revan's tactics are not withour peer (even if we exclude Thrawn). We've got Admiral Ackbar, Garm Bel Iblis, and Grand Admiral Zaarin all rival - and likely outstrip - Revan in tactics.

But I will say that, in terms of strategic ability, Revan is a fair bit ahead of Pellaeon.

Remember that it was only because of the actions of one man that the technologically superior Mandalorian military had to suffer a humiliating defeat and that man was Revan. He does has the element of surprise.

Imperial technology >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Revan's and the Mandalorians. I made this thread to see if Revan's superior tactics and numbers could overwhelm the Imperials' vastly superior technology. If Revan's empire has too many advantages, we'll set Thrawn into the fray to even it out. Otherwise, we'll keep it with Pellaeon in charge.

Oh, and Tangible, the Empire's technolgy is superior to the Vong's. Their whole military is, in just about all aspects.

Damn straight it does.

Luke said it best when he wished they had the Galaxy Gun and he knew they'd kick the crap out of the Vong.

Originally posted by Gideon
Oh, and Tangible, the Empire's technolgy is superior to the Vong's. Their whole military is, in just about all aspects.
Yeah, I figured that even while I was typing.

First of all, Major Grodin Pierce was not Thrawn's Clone. He was an elite stormtrooper with some of Thrawn's DNA tossed in to make him really smart. He wasn't nearly as good as Thrawn though. However he should be at least as good as Revan.

Well, the Imperials should take this. I know it seems like I always side with the Imperials (and pretty much always do to tell the truth) but they definately have many advantages over the Rakata.

The biggest thing is the Imperials ridiculously superior firepower. An Imperial turbolaser is capable of firing with equicalent firepower three times faster than any ship prior to the Imperial takeover of the galaxy. The Imperial Ships also has FAR more guns and far superior shielding and armor. Basically a single ISD would rape a dozen IE ships in combat. The Imperials are outnumbered but not by nearly enough to mean their downfall.

BTW, an ISD has as much as 150 times more firepower then a Leviathan depending on what sources you go by.

I could have swore that Pierce was Thrawn's clone; he had the tactical genius to make everyone - including Pellaeon and Moff Disra - believe that victory against the New Republic was possible, even then.

He was a combination of a stormtrooper and Thrawn. He was really, really good because of the Thrawn half of him but he wasn't as good as the real thing. There was a true clone of Thrawn but it was killed when Luke and Mara destroyed what I believe was the Hand of Thrawn.

Ok then, I would say that this could go either way, though I would probably, if forced to go one way or another, have to settle on Revan due to superior experience and numbers.

And secondly, Gideon, to claim that Germany had superior weapons and tactics and lost only thanks to superior numbers, to be quite frank, is inaccurate and ignorant. The Western Allies fought Germany and it's puppets at a large numerical disadvantage, but managed to hold on thanks to better tech, training, and, after 1940, doctrine. See Colmar Pocket, Aachen, El Alamein, Sicily, East Africa, and anything else I forgot.

Hell, even the Soviets kicked Germany's a*s more then a few times with superior tactics (see the seige of Budapest, Operation Bagration, the push into Romania, and others).

Ultimately, Germany was indeed outsmarted fair and square by the Allies, rather than bulled over by sheer manpower (though that did play a factor in Russia, I will admit)

Anyway, given Revan's Sith Empire's strength, I would have to say that he would have to fight a war of attrition against the Remanant, and slowly whittle down Pellaeon's numbers. And given his strategic and tactical expertise, he just might pull it off, provided he has the manpower to replace losses.

Pellaeon has the advantage of technology, but he is fighting in uncharted terrain, against a numerically superior foe, with a far superior commander than himself. He might pull it off if he can find out how to find his way around the SF's weakness and get a hight enough kill ratio, but I am unsure he will be able to achieve one, nevermind both.

To be fair, the allied victory had less to do with outmaneuvering and more to do with Hitler going insane and giving ridiculous orders (Germany entering Stalingrad). When we look at pure miltary tactics, Germany was head and shoulders above the rest of the world.

On topic: Imps have far better tech, and even the SW database supports that Revan's captiol ships pale in comparison to latter ISDs.

Off topic:

And secondly, Gideon, to claim that Germany had superior weapons and tactics and lost only thanks to superior numbers, to be quite frank, is inaccurate and ignorant.

Actually, it's not. German troops were far more blooded and seasoned then their allied counterparts and had training and discipline on average far superior to their enemies. Their weapons ranked among the most advanced during the beginning of the war, and Germans themselves won the majority of their battles while heavily outnumbered. At the height of their momentum, the Wehrmacht numbered little over 12 million (Including support and rear guard), and about three million of these launched into Russia with enough momentum (and superior tactics and training) to steamroll through the Soviet western guard (Who had almost four times the number of armor as the invading Germans and the most advanced armor in the world at the time) and hold Stalingrad in a 900+ day siege. And even then when the tide turned, it took the Soviets almost three years to push the Germans back.

All this while the Germans were fighting on multiple fronts, such as Italy, Crete, North Africa, the hedges of France, etc. A country little bigger than the state of Montana fielded no more than 8-12 million troops total decimated Poland in three weeks; France in perhaps a month or so, etc.

The Western Allies fought Germany and it's puppets at a large numerical disadvantage, but managed to hold on thanks to better tech, training, and, after 1940, doctrine.

Large numerical disadvantage? How so? The allies combined had division numbers on par with or surpassing the Germans in the West since most of the manpower was being thrown into the East. Division strength of the Soviets alone was never under 190 divisions since 1939. During the Allies' initial push back into Europe, the ratio of manpower was nearly two to one in favor of the Allies, not counting the superior numbers of ratio of armor (Which was nearly four to one in favor of the Allies), and air support which was nearly nine to one in favor of the Allies. From 1941 -1943, 67% to 75% of division strength was on the east holding off the Russians. This leaves precious little for the Allies to have to contend with in the West since Axis forces were spread out occupying many countries. Because of the overwhelming numerical majority in the East and the loss of manpower, generals, and resources, any concentrated effort in other fronts died before it could continue. And even then the Battle of the Bulge was perhaps one of the most impressive counterattacks considering the circumstances of the German army at that time.

"Managing to hold on" is a bit of a misleading claim, considering that the American troops had fresh resources and manpower streaming in daily while the Axis had been fighting one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history for over three years with over half of its available strength. As for training, I've never seen anything to indicate that the American soldier was superior to the Wehrmacht soldier. For starters, German troops had been in combat for years at this point, with more practical experience in addition to a martial lifestyle and severe discipline. Their gear was smartly made, though the Americans did have superior weapons in the Garand, the Thompson, and the BAR.

See Colmar Pocket

Where's the superior tactics/no numerical majority here? The Allies had four armored divisions to the German's one, and matched them nearly in manpower. This gives the clear numerical and firepower advantage to the Allies.

Aachen

All I remember about Aachen was the SS being there. I've never thought of the SS as an elite troop unit, despite what Himmler loved to say. Unfortunately, their presence as a part of the armed forces only grew as the war raged on.

El Alamein

Again, numerical superiority on behalf of the Allies. Rommel, for all his uberness, couldn't pull much together with half his forces for the first battle being the ineffective Italians and half his tanks being crap. During the second battle, the Allies nearly outnumbered Axis troops and armor two to one!

Sicily

As for Sicily, this is ridiculous. Less than 50k of the troops at Sicily were Wehrmacht; versus the 160k Allied troops. And this isn't even figuring in support and armor for the Allies. True, it was one hell of a battle, but no real evidence of Allies crunching German troops without numerical superiority.

Ultimately, Germany was indeed outsmarted fair and square by the Allies, rather than bulled over by sheer manpower (though that did play a factor in Russia, I will admit)

You're glossing here; at each battle you've noted above, Allies had numerical superiority and support, as well as tanks and big guns. The smaller German units they fought still managed to keep them at bay until the bitter end while committing over half of their forces to the vastly larger Soviet monster on the East, again barely giving ground there as well. If there's anything I can say good about the Nazi army of WWII, it's that the German war machine was inevitably defeated by overstretching its bounds and being beaten into submission by superior numbers, but their tactics and effectiveness are second to none. This is evident enough, despite what you may say.

Tortoise Herder, Soviets beat the crap out of Germany because of superior tactics? During 1941~1942, the average casualty rate for a full Soviet division was 40~60%. The only reason they won was because they had more meatbags to put into the field than the Germans. Even at 1945, when most of Germany was in crumbling ruins and a hoard of Volkstrum troops were used -mostly armed with only a Panzerfaust or a volkstrum rifle- the Soviets were taking 10% casualties. I don't call that superior tactics.

Germans had superior tech.

Garand, the Thompson, and the BAR.

Lets see, the Germans had K43s, much better than the Garand. Easier to reload and maintain.

MP40s, and STG44s are more than a match for a Thompson. The Thompson had low muzzle velocity with pretty much eliminated its usefulness in jungles, forests, etc...

An MG42 is like a BAR, only a machinegun. Its light weight, not to mention a high rate of fire, (1200~1800). The barrel could be changed in less than ten seconds by a experienced hand.

I won't even get into the Panthers, the later models of Panzer IVs, Tiger, King Tigers, Me 262s and the bunch.

Lets see, the Germans had K43s, much better than the Garand. Easier to reload and maintain.

Yes, but they didn't have these in production until 1944, and even then the total amount of K43s in the hands of German troops paled in comparison to the number of Garands in the hands of Americans. I could argue that the Sturmgewehr 44 is the most advanced gun on the field, but it was put out in such low numbers and it was still remarkably vulnerable to abuse that its impact on the war effort was little.

MP40s, and STG44s are more than a match for a Thompson. The Thompson had low muzzle velocity with pretty much eliminated its usefulness in jungles, forests, etc...

True. I was thinking more in line of how the STG44s were rare in production and how the MP40s were prone to clip jams since most soldiers ended up using the magazine as a handle in combat, and the single feed magazine tended to give people fits. Thompsons certainly have the better firing rate of the three though.

An MG42 is like a BAR, only a machinegun. Its light weight, not to mention a high rate of fire, (1200~1800). The barrel could be changed in less than ten seconds by a experienced hand.

Yeah, except that the MG42 required a two to three man team to properly use, and the high rate of fire, while sometimes desirable, caused a huge ammunition problem. While it could be used in a defensive position with plenty of ammo as a virtual tour-stopper, set up and repositioning was more of a pain then with the one-man BAR.

Still, you're right, I do agree it was the better of the two weapons technologically. I'm not quite sure why I included it so vaguely without elaborating on why.

Again, the reason I brought up several of the points, including El Alamein, is because they one them decisively, inflicting far greater damage then they took. And, as for Sicily, you should have seen the makeup of the "Italian" and "Vichy French" armies of that point in the war. To be quite blunt, Hitler thought the Italians were going to revolt at the drop of a hat because the only thing they agreed with the Italian Moose at this point was that Dalmatria and Ethiopia were good to have, and not much else, so he had to be careful not to antagonize them more then was necessary.

The Vichy French forces he feared might be a hotbed of Free French support, as they might join up to get training and equipment while planning to go over at a later date.

And, in the paranoid mind of the Fuher, these were both unacceptable risks. So, he drained men previously meant for the German armies, men who had ALREADY BEEN TRAINED, and "persuaded" them to enter into either the Italian or Vichy French armies. There, their moral dropped because of the mindlessly stupid chauvinism that Il Dunce's Political officers showed, and saw them force "Italianisation" on what was by then the majority of their Armed Forces.

Yes, the so-called "equipment" in the Vichy French and Italian armies were crap, yes, and far inferior to German tech, but these troops were, the vast majority of the time, some of the ones who completed their training in full. If the German army really was that good, wouldn't these men overcome the disadvantages to achieve victory? Then why did both behave so poorly even after the introduction of the Germans?

And, to counter Darth Leed's "we have planes and tanks and automatic rifles too, the Amies will not Berlintinople." Argument, have you ever SEEN the production rates of the weapons you mention? The only four that you mention that was produced in truly large numbers, and only two that were build in numbers comparable to those of their opponents. One was the MG-42, and it was indeed good, but it had suffered losses and captures, and the later models of the Panzer IV were good, but were still for the most part inferior to comparable equipment that the Western Allies and Russians were fielding by the time they came out.

The rest were rather low priority or rarer then their WA comparisons. You mention that the STG44, MP40, and G43 were "more than a match" for their comparisons (the former two would be the Thompson , and the Latter would be the Garand.) Let me just say that to say this is debatable is to understate the matter. And plus, even IF the G43 WAS better then the Garand, you seem to fail to notice that the G43 had ONLY 400,000 BUILT! That is, say, about A FRACTION of Garand production. And it gets BETTER. Many G43s made were never used by the Axis, but fell to the Western Allies and were used by them!

As for the MP40 and STG44, the combined total of them were both outproduced by the Thompson.

As for the "Big Cats," have you EVER noticed exactly how small of a percentage they were of German armor at their time, nevermind throughout the war? They were hot commodities because there were so few. The reason there are so many "Tiger Aces" is because the supply-demand problem forced them to hand them out to ONLY the German tankers who were already aces. see Michael Wittman, who fought a good chunk of his career in a PZIV and a Stug.

And that is without delving into the technical problems and the fact that they simply could not stand up to air support.

And the Me 262's literally caused me to laugh. Seriously. German aircraft jet research was not in it's infancy, but it was not terribly far along, either. They built a grand total of 1,430+ of these things, and they were hardly used. They were good where they showed up, but that was relatively rare.

The simple fact remains that, in spite of the romantic view of German WWII "superweapons" most German pilots were still using the aged Bf-109 or, if they were lucky, the Fw-190, most German tankers were using some form of the PZIV, which was becoming more obsolete as time went on, and most German infantrymen had only the Kar 98k, which was slower, had a smaller magazine, and had less stopping power then the M1 and Lee-Enfield, which were the two main weapons the Western Allies had in the war at this period, with the minor allies being equipped with them and other British-American equipment.
And you also fail to mention that I am not bothering trying to exonerate the Soviets, as they did largely win the war through attrition, but I am mainly exonerating the poor image of the Western Allies.

And Also, to Janus, El Alamein did see cases were outnumbered Western Allied units fought against superior numbers with distinction. See the Northern part of Operation Supercharge, where the Aussies go up against the "Italian" (read German in Italian uniforms) Tireste and Bersa Divisions aided by elements of the German 15th Panzer and 90th Light. They were on the offensive in defensible terrain against a foe that outnumbered them, and though they failed to achieve complete victory, they maimed the Axis badly and forced Rommel to divert more than some of his men in the center North to prevent a breakthrough.

And even before El Alamein, you forget another battle Rommel coulden't ace "In spite of his Uberness." Have you ever, in all your years, heard of Bir Hakeim?

Bir Hakeim was a small fort in North Africa, and you can still find it and it's village today if you look closely enough. It detail a story that few know, and that many overlook.

In May of 1942, Rommel had sent the Allies packing again after Gazala, and was chasing them down, with dreams of pyramids in his sleep. however, to continue racing the withdrawing Allies, he had to overcome a little fort he found on the way called Bir Hakeim. It was manned by soldiers of the Free French, and they refused multiple calls to surrender, and so Rommel attacked them with the full might of the forward elements of the Afrika Korps.

The result was shocking. To the suprise of all, the French garrison survived the ferocious onslaught and fought back for 16 days, half a month's equivalent time, inflicting 3-1 losses on the "Uber Rommel", destroying 49 planes, 51 Tanks, and over 100 other vehicles before withdrawing intact in the face of overwhelming enemy forces.

This battle is said to have been a contributing factor in delaying Rommel until the Allies could get ready to hand him his "Waterloo" at a small, barely known railroad junction somewhere in Egypt.

Another factor you claim is that Husky is invalid because "only" 50k Germans were there. This is false, as, like I mentioned, most of the professional "Italian" army were in fact Germans, with most of the Italians in the Axis being diehard Blackshirt units raised ad hoc. So it is valid.

And, as for Colmar, look at the pre-battle OOB. The French First army was fighting the German Nineteenth, and, in spite of the assistence of the US 21st, they were still outnumbered by the German defenders. Combine the fact that this was on the OFFENSIVE, IN THE WINTER, WITH MOST OF THE FRENCH BEING NOOBS due to the unbelievably stupid, racist, and counterproductive policy of "whitening" the French front lines adopted by the French HQ, and it was no picnic.

Yes, it is true that more Allied forces eventually joined the assault, and that they eventually gained a numerical superiority, but that was AFTER the Allies had pretty much decided the outcome of the battle, and it was how bad the end result was going to be for the Axis (and it WAS pretty bad, with the 19th army pretty much evaporating.) So, in other words, the deciding part of it, when the outcome of the battle was decided, was when the Allies were outnumbered by the Germans.

And you cannot remember much about Aachen. Well, let me refresh your memory with this excerpt from Halten bis zum letzten Mann
Kampf um Aachen im Herbst 1944 (yes, I can translate some foreign texts on this old girl, but I will save you the trouble):