# The Enterprise VS. Star-Destroyer **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 20, 2011, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-enterprise-vs-star-destroyer/568274 "2011-01-20T02:32:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![dzeiger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/46a35a/32.png) [@dzeiger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dzeiger)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-enterprise-vs-star-destroyer/568274/141 "2011-01-26T04:14:30Z")
As I kind of mentioned upthread, the relevance of maneuverability comparisons depends a lot on the situation surrounding the fight. If one of Trek’s many super-powerful alien races teleports both ships into an empty cube of space and demands a fight, then yes, the E’s maneuverability is a great advantage. But the Star Destroyer isn’t built for that kind of fighting–there’s no fighting in hyperspace, so the ships aren’t really going to be designed for open-field fighting. They’re pretty much always either attacking or defending some sort of strategic point. Being able to flitter in and out of warp/high impulse is helpful, yes, but much less so when the other side is dropping AT-ATs on Starfleet HQ while you’re playing hit-and-run. ---
**Author:** ![Monstre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Monstre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monstre)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-enterprise-vs-star-destroyer/568274/142 "2011-01-26T05:20:16Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > That’s been one of my “Favorites” on YouTube for a while now. I particularly love the expression on Chewie’s face as they’re flying away. The look of stunned horror is priceless. > > And personally, being a former tank crewman, I think Tarkin’s grasp of tactics and critical thinking/problem solving skills are just fine in that instance. Since Yavin IV is a moon of a gas giant, making the gas-giant go buh-bye is probably just as effective as blowing up the moon. Ah, but my point was that in the actual movie, this was what Tarkin did NOT do (but should have). He waited the 30 or so minutes to get in “position” to see the moon, giving the Rebel fleet time to attack the Death Star. This was the lack of critical thinking I was referring to. (The HISHE clip was a better strategy!) ---
**Author:** ![enigmatic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@enigmatic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enigmatic)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-enterprise-vs-star-destroyer/568274/143 "2011-01-26T10:34:49Z")
> [@](#): > > But the Star Destroyer isn’t built for that kind of fighting–there’s no fighting in hyperspace, so the ships aren’t really going to be designed for open-field fighting. They’re pretty much always either attacking or defending some sort of strategic point. > > Being able to flitter in and out of warp/high impulse is helpful, yes, but much less so when the other side is dropping AT-ATs on Starfleet HQ while you’re playing hit-and-run. So your argument is basically A) Whilst you concede that the enterprise, is effectively un-targetable by the Star Destroyer, on account of what actually happens on screen in every episode that the protagonists remember they aren’t supposed to be morons (all 5 of them) B) The Star Destroyer is clearly invulnerable to weapon fire from the Enterprise, on account of the ludicrous figures published in a fact book, the production of which, and I dearly wish I was making this up, may have been infiltrated by Star Trek haters who wished to poison further debate on this most scholarly subject. C) The Star Destroyer is clearly going to be the victor because you have arbitrarily defined the contest as a planetary assault in which the Star Destroyers invulnerability trumps the Enterprises invulnerability, and your justification for doing so is your own admission that the Star Destroyer is inherently less tactically and strategically flexible than the other side. Before anyone argues about applicability I will direct you to the following chart that I just made up. Enigmatic’s concise explanation of relative canon applicability What happens on screen v What happens on screen that contradicts things that happen on screen slightly more often/were blatantly cooler v What happens on screen in episode penned by trendy guest writer or directors cousin. v What happens on screen in related animation series. v Novelizations by good authors who are inexplicably slumming it, authorised “fact” books v Novelizations by mediocre writers, authorised “fact” books that in defiance of probability have been the victim of sabotage. v Good Fan fiction v Novelizations by bitter ex-actors who are hoping to write their actors back into the universe v Bad fiction, inexplicably published work involving crossovers with the Xmen and/or Howard the duck v Anything written by Kevin J. Anderson/ the Star Wars Holiday special You could easily suggest a scenario in which the enterprise is, for example, tasked with kidnapping Chancellor Palpatine. In this case the Imperial Navy is going to look pretty damn stupid after the Enterprise beams him up without dropping out of warp, councillor Troi senses “much hate in him”, Picard invites him directly to the bridge, Palpatine murders the living shit out of the entire crew, and then flies his shiny new ship home. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-enterprise-vs-star-destroyer/568274/144 "2011-01-26T10:43:31Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Most of this crap isn’t in the movies. Sun Crusher? C’mon. Indeed, that cite is disqualified for pretending the Sun Crusher ever existed. If it had actually ever been published in a canon Star Wars series of novels, it would be the worst Mary Sue ship ever. Even when I was in high school, that strongly struck my “Bullshit!” chord. ---
**Author:** ![Mollie\_Magill](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mollie_magill/32/20882_2.png) [@Mollie\_Magill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mollie_Magill)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-enterprise-vs-star-destroyer/568274/145 "2011-01-26T14:28:33Z")
Going by what has been on screen, the Star Destroyer has two major advantages. 1 - Fire power. A Star Destroyer’s blasters (not lasers, like a phaser is not a laser) can blow up asteroids. I do not ever recall seeing the Enterprise’s phaser bank doing something like that. Couple that with the fact that a Star Destroyer is a Gun ship first, and is heavily armed. I recall seeing at least tracers from at least eight blaster banks during the pursuit of the Millennium Falcon.[sup]1[/sup]. I’ve seen the Enterprise fire at a maximum of two simultaneous targets. 2 - TIE Fighters. The Star Destroyer has a complement of 72 TIE fighters. This gives a clear tactical advantage to the Star Destroyer. The TIE fighters can both distract the Enterprise’s tactical, and weaken its shields. Imagine trying to box someone while a swarm of horseflies are flying around your head and occasionally biting you. This is why I think The Enterprise would be overwhelmed. 1 - Of course, since thy were fired by graduates of the Imperial Marksman Academy, they all missed. The Enterprise’s computer lock gives it a clear advantage when it comes to actually hitting the target. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-enterprise-vs-star-destroyer/568274/146 "2011-01-26T14:35:25Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I don’t think I’ve ever seen either franchise make any note about the range of their guns. Of course, I can’t think of any film or television sf that has any sort of idea about the sort of ranges that would be involved in space combat, so this one is a wash. I suggest you read the links I provided, for answers to ALL your questions. Ranges are calculated based on 1.) what we see and 2.) what the character in the movies/shows say. Maneuverability and speed, likewise. Sensor ranges and data provided, likewise. > [@](#): > > Because that’s the point of the thread? You do get that there’s isn’t a “right” answer to this question, don’t you? **That’s my point.** You can’t “prove” anything about a fictional universe, so his call to “prove it” is ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-enterprise-vs-star-destroyer/568274/147 "2011-01-26T14:38:57Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Moving in a straight line, really really fast, isn’t maneuverability. **CandidGamera** said the Enterprise is as maneuverable as a Star Wars fighter. I don’t think that’s a supportable claim - the Enterprise can go fast, and it can engage other targets that are moving at roughly the same speed and direction as it is, but I can’t think of any time I’ve seen the Enterprise perform a high speed turns, or engage an immobile object at warp speeds. Barring canon evidence to the contrary, it seems likely to me that the latter isn’t possible: if you’re moving at a multiple of the speed of light, a stationary target as small as a capital ship is going to go past you so fast I don’t think it would be possible even for the ship’s computer to target it: and most of the targeting on Star Trek seems to be done by humans. You _might_ be able to hit a planet with such tactics, but even that seems unlikely. > > Of course, “possible” isn’t really a design consideration for either fleet, so that doesn’t mean too much. Again, I’m going to refer you to the links I provided. The guy wrote a whole article on ‘warp strafing’ - FTL assault on a STL target. Including when it’s been used in canon. Here you go. > **[ST-v-SW.Net :: Warp Turning and Strafing](http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWwarpturn.html)** ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-enterprise-vs-star-destroyer/568274/148 "2011-01-26T20:36:12Z")
> [@Mollie\_Magill](#): > > 2 - TIE Fighters. The Star Destroyer has a complement of 72 TIE fighters. This gives a clear tactical advantage to the Star Destroyer. The TIE fighters can both distract the Enterprise’s tactical, and weaken its shields. Imagine trying to box someone while a swarm of horseflies are flying around your head and occasionally biting you. This is why I think The Enterprise would be overwhelmed. There is a good reason there are no fighters in the ST universe. If you tie any computer more powerful than a TRS-80 to weapons, you can track and destroy fighters in one shot each, way before they get close enough to do any damage. Plus you can sweep phasers - the Enterprise has done fairly long duration phaser blasts in several shows. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-enterprise-vs-star-destroyer/568274/149 "2011-01-26T23:27:03Z")
I don’t think TIE fighters would present much of a threat. The Enterprise has dealt with multiple smaller vessels before. On TNG, the Enterprise’s crew was mind wiped by a race called the Satarrans, who installed an operative onboard as the first officer. He used the Enterprise to attack his race’s enemies, the Lysians. Prior to reaching the Lysian command station, they were intercepted by 2-3 little Lysian fighters. The Enterprise shot them all in about 1 second of screen time. I don’t think small, manueverable vessels have much of a chance The Enterprise could probably get off 72 shots without much problems. Against the Borg in the Best of Both Worlds, after they modulated the frequency of their phases, the Enterprise fired off a quick burst of phasers against the Borg’s tractor beam, destroying it after several shots. That same episode also showed the Enterprise using volleys of phasers, photons, and an anti-matter spread to overwhelm the Borg and sneak a shuttlecraft close enough to beam people aboard. Given the weakness of a TIE fighter, a second or two of phaser fire is probably enough for the Enterprise to destroy one. ---
**Author:** ![dzeiger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/46a35a/32.png) [@dzeiger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dzeiger)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2011, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-enterprise-vs-star-destroyer/568274/150 "2011-01-27T03:14:56Z")
> [@enigmatic](#): > > So your argument is basically > > A) Whilst you concede that the enterprise, is effectively un-targetable by the Star Destroyer, on account of what actually happens on screen in every episode that the protagonists remember they aren’t supposed to be morons (all 5 of them) I would say that the Enterprise is considerably more maneuverable. Un-targetable? I don’t know. Star Wars targeting seems a lot more manual, which would seem to make things harder. > [@](#): > > B) The Star Destroyer is clearly invulnerable to weapon fire from the Enterprise, on account of the ludicrous figures published in a fact book, the production of which, and I dearly wish I was making this up, may have been infiltrated by Star Trek haters who wished to poison further debate on this most scholarly subject. Ummm, I’ve said nothing of the sort, and have not really been involved in this part of the discussion. In previous Star Trek threads, I have noted that, despite all of the talk of anti-matter warheads and such, photon torpedoes in Star Trek 2 and 6 (at the very least) acted a lot more like cannonballs–I haven’t seen enough of TNG and on to know if they got it better later on. So from that, I’d say that the Enterprise would take a damn long time to take the Star Destroyer apart, even if the Star Destroyer has no effective return fire. > [@](#): > > C) The Star Destroyer is clearly going to be the victor because you have arbitrarily defined the contest as a planetary assault in which the Star Destroyers invulnerability trumps the Enterprises invulnerability, and your justification for doing so is your own admission that the Star Destroyer is inherently less tactically and strategically flexible than the other side. My point is that any scenario is arbitrary, and that each ship has advantages based on what that scenario is. I do think that, given the nature of Star Wars hyperspace travel, planetary-type skirmishes seem more likely than open-space battles, but note that even in those cases, I did not declare “Star Destroyer wins,” I merely mention that these types of scenarios make the Enterprise’s maneuverability advantage less useful to some degree. So has anyone done the “Blake and the Liberator go through a wormhole and react badly when the Enterprise announces itself as a Federation ship” lately? ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-enterprise-vs-star-destroyer/568274/151 "2011-05-25T20:54:31Z")
> [@dzeiger](#): > > I would say that the Enterprise is considerably more maneuverable. Un-targetable? I don’t know. Star Wars targeting seems a lot more manual, which would seem to make things harder. Targeting doesn’t matter. At all. Why? The Enterprise – _any_ Enterprise – can fire weapons _while moving faster than light_. Examples of this appear in TOS (“The Ultimate Computer”) and TNG (“Encounter at Farpoint, Part 1”). The Enterprise’s photon torpedoes _move_ faster than light, as established in the TNG Tech Manual. The Star Destroyer’s turbolaser bolts only travel _at_ the speed of light. It doesn’t matter how powerful the turbolasers are. They could contain the energy of an entire Quasar. It wouldn’t matter. _They’ll never catch up with the Enterprise_. All the Enterprise has to do is fly away from the Star Destroyer at warp 1.1, and lob photon torpedoes at it while thus “retreating”. Eventually, those torpedoes are going to destroy the Star Destroyer, and the Star Destroyer will not be able to _touch_ the Enterprise while this is happening. The Star Destroyer’s only recourse will be to Hyperspace the hell outta the battlefield, with its tail between its legs. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-enterprise-vs-star-destroyer/568274/152 "2011-05-25T23:23:05Z")
> [@markdash](#): > > It only makes sense that if you’re talking about “conventional” weapons (if science-fiction weaponry can even be considered “conventional”), a ship that’s 50 miles long wouldn’t be seriously threatened by some laser blasts Well…unless it had a small exhaust vent. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-enterprise-vs-star-destroyer/568274/153 "2011-05-25T23:28:07Z")
> [@History\_Mystery\_and\_the\_Wolf](#): > > Given that both vessels posses arbitrary shields, weapons, speeds and durability, I just don’t think we’re going to get a definitive answer 😛 > > Anyway, since I see no reason why the Star Destroyer’s weapons (they can perform orbital bombardment, I believe, so they must be long ranged and powerful), shielding (it exists, and I don’t know of any reason to believe it is any different to federation shielding: it might just be more passive, or Star Wars weaponry much more powerful) and ability to zoom (why do we think that hyperspace \< warp speed? Star Wars ships pootle around the galaxy, far, far away just fine) would be inferior, I’m happy to give the win to the ship that’s much, much larger. > > Edit: on the shield issue, I’m happy to assume that Star Destroyer shielding is able to prevent it the same way Star Trek shields do. In terms of speed, didn’t Solo claim that he’d been from one side of the galaxy to the other? In the Star Trek universe, this is supposed to take over a hundred years (though, of course, this doesn’t actually get obeyed). Is the Star Wars galaxy really really small? ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2011, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-enterprise-vs-star-destroyer/568274/154 "2011-05-25T23:32:52Z")
The Enterprise has absolutely no chance against a star destroyer. It’d be swarmed with TIE fighters while having to fight a ship three times bigger than itself. Also, there is no such thing as being on equal psychic footing with Darth Vader. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-enterprise-vs-star-destroyer/568274/155 "2011-05-26T02:06:27Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > The Enterprise has absolutely no chance against a star destroyer. It’d be swarmed with TIE fighters while having to fight a ship three times bigger than itself. > > Also, there is no such thing as being on equal psychic footing with Darth Vader. Go back two or three posts and read about the speed of light. TIE fighters can’t move that fast. They’d be released from their bays only to see the Enterprise warping away while shooting speed-of-light torpedoes back at the SD. ---
**Author:** ![Khan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3ab097/32.png) [@Khan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khan)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-enterprise-vs-star-destroyer/568274/156 "2011-05-26T02:18:17Z")
You can take 100 of the HMS Victory (18th century version) and chain them together as one massive ship o’ the line, and put it up against the USS Enterprise. CVN-65. With all her aircraft coincidentally suffering engine failures. Leaving poor Enterprise with her Phalanges and Sea Sparrows. And THEN see what happens. That’s Enterprise vs. Star Destroyer. The symbol of the Galactic Empire depicts their own shit blowing isself up. Which it does all too well. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-enterprise-vs-star-destroyer/568274/157 "2011-05-26T08:50:03Z")
OK, now what if both ships are crewed by Zombies? ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-enterprise-vs-star-destroyer/568274/158 "2011-05-26T12:03:18Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > If Vader actually had that much power, wouldn’t there a be a lot of places in the movies where he should have used it? Luke had the highest force power of anyone in a while, and it took a lot of effort to guide a projectile into a hole. But Leah was sooo grateful. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-enterprise-vs-star-destroyer/568274.md?page=7)