Oh yes.
If you want the arguments in a nutshell, here they are. Basically, the Enterprise would be out-gunned, outmanoeuvred, generally outclassed.
Is this the oldest perennial argument of the Internet? Surely Tim Berners-Lee fought this out with Robert Cailliau in 1990, and even then they weren’t the first.
Eh, what’s published in tech guides is irrelevant. What is important is what is shown on screen, and we never see Star Destroyers so much as pull off the complicated maneuver of turning. It seems to be all they can do to avoid running into each other half the time. 
Errm, no. Just demonstrably no.
Man, “ambient radiation” stop transporters. Fed scanning tech (and hence transporter tech) is stopped by pockets of MgSO[sub]4[/sub], for frack’s sake - otherwise known as the common mineral “magnesite”. Saying that the SW shields, which otherwise function* just like ST shields*, wouldn’t function like them in this respect is the Fallacy of Special Pleading writ large.
And Star Destroyers carry a complement of 9 700 storm troopers, so boarding actions would not be trivial. The alternative, the beaming over of photon torpedoes that trekkies love to speculate about - when has that ever been done?
Not true. In the DS9 season 2 finale The Jem’Hadar, they make a point of Dax telling the (Galaxy-Class) Odyssey’s Captain Keogh to leave the families behind before going into the Gamma Quadrant.
Why turn there when it can jump 1-2 ly in hyperspace, then turn say 120 deg, repeat, and come back from another angle entirely, before the Enterprise crew even registers it’s gone. That’s what I mean by manoeuvrability. Speed.
Not that it really matters in a capital ship vs capital ship battle. That should all come down to relative strength of shields vs weapons. In this, both the published material and the screen material favours the Empire. Wong and Young have done some exhaustive work there on observed effects of weapons in movies and TV episodes.
Plus there’s the 72 TIE fighter complement, of course.
Presumably tying in with the Galaxy class’s primary mission of exploration. It’s indicated elsewhere that the smaller ships carry some civilians aboard as well. One assumes (though I don’t recall if they ever stated it or not) that the practice stopped once war became the rule rather than the exception.
The effectiveness of boarding actions between either ship would be dependent on who went. Boarding party consisting of Commander Riker, Mr. Worf, and Data? Yeah, hope the Empire stocked a bunch of body bags for the Storm Troopers. Boarding party of 10,000 Ensigns that we’ve never seen before? Yeah, it’ll be a great day to be a Storm Trooper.
Lets settle this using dictionaries.
Enterprise - “a purposeful or industrious undertaking; readiness to embark on bold new ventures”.
Star destroyer - Destroys stars.
I’ll take the military dictatorship’s weapon of choice ahead of the Amish research buggy thank you very much.
Wouldn’t Darth Vader just break or overheat the warpcore with the Force? Especially if you read some of the Star Wars books, there is no stopping the Force.
…I’m convinced Saxton threw those numbers into the book just to settle the VS debates. And that has made me angry for the last ten years. But anyway, according to official cannon from both sides: the Star Destroyer takes it easily.
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.
Hell, the Millenium Falcon could take out the Enterprise.
I’m going to have to ask where in the movies it said that Luke “had the highest force power of anyone in a while”.
I always got the impression that Luke, while strong in the Force, fell far short of what his father could have been had he not been ruined in his battle with Obi-Wan.
Yeah big time, I have Complete Cross-Sections. The energy statistics are just incredible, for instance straight from the book:
Republic Assault Ship Reactor 2x10 23rd Watts, Shields 7x10 22nd Watts
Trade Federation Core Ship Reactor 2x10 24th Watts
One little gem that some folks like to gleefully pounce on is that Star Wars refers to its ray guns as “lasers” and Star Trek refers to its ray guns as “phasers” while noting that lasers are old, weak tech in Star Trek.
I don’t agree with this comparison - because, basically, they’re both using ray guns given a randomly selected futuristic sounding name by the writer in question. It’s not like they got together and agreed on a cross-universe ruleset or agreed terminology.
They’re all just ray guns. And, in my opinion at least, the Star Destroyer has many more, much bigger ray guns.
Actually, a Star Destroyer is just a Destroyer, with “Star” tacked onto it as a standard prefix. Starfighters don’t fight stars, Star Cruisers don’t cruise stars (however you would do it), and Battlestars don’t battle stars (or star battles, or whatever). Mind you, for some reason, in sci-fi settings, Destroyers are always huge massively powerful warships, while in real life they are skirmishers designed to protect more important ships from attackers (originally employed to destroy torpedo boats. And now you know… the rest of the story).
But yeah, since a standard rule of both sci-fi universes (Star Trek and Star Wars) is that the likelihood of a ship succeeding in combat is directly proportional to the number of heroes aboard, the Enterprise wins hands down because it’s got Kirk, Spock, Scotty, McCoy, Sulu, Uhura, and Chekov. The Star Destroyer has… erm… some nameless mooks in snappy grey uniforms. If Darth Vader is embarked, then the scales might tip a bit, but then again, he wasn’t able to prevent the Millennium Falcon from escaping even when he was in commander of a Super Star Destroyer (really imaginative naming there, guys!:D), with his Force powers and all.
“What the hell is an aluminum falcon?” - Emperor Palpitine
And this is what, I think, gives the edge to a Star Destroyer. The shows indicate that the Enterprise has difficulty tracking more two targets. Why should they? In the STU, starships line up and blast each other, like a naval battle between battleships, or nineteenth century ships of the line.
Star Destroyers are more like aircraft carriers. 72 tie fighters would seriously wear down the Enterprise’s shields long before the Star Destroyer even gets within range of its own guns.
Er - this is a nitpick, but modern destroyers are massively powerful warships. An Arleigh Burke-class destroyer carries enough Tomahawks to seriously ruin somebody’s day (or a small city’s day), from far enough away that there’s little most countries can do about it and fast enough that most wouldn’t even have a firm idea of what had happened until after the rubble had settled a bit. There’s a reason that a number of perfectly reasonable modern navies feel no need to build anything bigger than a destroyer. For that matter, there’s a reason that the whole destroyer/cruiser distinction sometimes seems distinctly academic.
You can’t wage a full-scale war from a destroyer - but short of that, I wouldn’t care to be on the wrong end of one.
Am I the only one that notices the two glaring flaws with this “strategy”?
-
Clearly the “new” ship is the actual one.
-
Point 1 is moot because the “image” of the old ship would be there for such a small fraction of a second as to not matter.
Here’s a more interesting comparison:
Imperial class Star Destroyer from the original Star Wars movie vs Galactica type Battlestar from the original series.
Each ship type has powerful weapons and many fighter ships.
How many of each ship type would it take to have a fair fight?
Enterprise. Also, Picard, Thor (magic hammer, hello?), Mac, bacon (but no chocolote-covered bacon, thank you), and Gandalf.