Photon toroedoes are more powerful than nuclear warheads. A fleet of Star Destroyers are needed to Delta Zero a planet. Star Trek has shown many times a single ship armed with photon torpedoes can devastate whole planets.
Star Destroyers rely on swarms of TIE fighters, tiny unshielded ships. But ships from Starfleet have shown that their phasers are accurate enough to insta-zap such small craft in rapid succession.
Starfleet ships have firing arcs that cover almost every direction. A Star Destroyer’s underbelly is woefully sparse of turrets.
Star Destroyers are slow, sluggish things. Ships in Star Trek tend to be far more maneuverable.
A fully functional, fully shielded Star Destroyer can get completely disabled by a few ion bursts. Most ships in Star Trek have no such weakness.
The engagement range of ships in Star Trek is measured in thousands of metres, and most shots fired land pretty accurately. A Star Destroyer needs to be practically on top of its target to engage it, and most shots still miss.
Star Trek has transporters. Star Wars doesn’t even know what those are.
The only thing I see as an advantage for the Star Destroyer is that the Galaxy Class is a glass canon. Before the Dominion War they could dish out incredible amounts of firepower, but take very little.
Also, this is assuming this is only a contest of technology. If a Force user gets involved… Well, Star Trek has a history of always being at the mercy of entities with powers, rather than tech.
Remember in Iron Man when his suit pops up a row of bullets and shoots 7 guys at once? That’s a Federation exploration vessel vs. Tie Fighters vs.
Speaking of, it’s nonsensical that fighters have to point at each other Sopwith Camels. Just slap a phalanx gun in place of the R2 unit, drive straight through the enemy ships, done.
Photon toroedoes are more powerful than nuclear warheads. A fleet of Star Destroyers are needed to Delta Zero a planet. Star Trek has shown many times a single ship armed with photon torpedoes can devastate whole planets.
Star Destroyers rely on swarms of TIE fighters, tiny unshielded ships. But ships from Starfleet have shown that their phasers are accurate enough to insta-zap such small craft in rapid succession.
Starfleet ships have firing arcs that cover almost every direction. A Star Destroyer’s underbelly is woefully sparse of turrets.
Star Destroyers are slow, sluggish things. Ships in Star Trek tend to be far more maneuverable.
A fully functional, fully shielded Star Destroyer can get completely disabled by a few ion bursts. Most ships in Star Trek have no such weakness.
The engagement range of ships in Star Trek is measured in thousands of metres, and most shots fired land pretty accurately. A Star Destroyer needs to be practically on top of its target to engage it, and most shots still miss.
Star Trek has transporters. Star Wars doesn’t even know what those are.
The only thing I see as an advantage for the Star Destroyer is that the Galaxy Class is a glass canon. Before the Dominion War they could dish out incredible amounts of firepower, but take very little.
Also, this is assuming this is only a contest of technology. If a Force user gets involved… Well, Star Trek has a history of always being at the mercy of entities with powers, rather than tech.
The answer to force users is the Greek gods like Olly or Apollo
… Wat…?
The greek gods are an alien race on Star Trek. They have cosmic powers. If that doesn’t do it for you then I’m sure we can rustle up a Q or 2.
I would pay good money to see a My Dinner With Andre but with Q and Palpatine.
Remember in Iron Man when his suit pops up a row of bullets and shoots 7 guys at once? That’s a Federation exploration vessel vs. Tie Fighters vs.
Speaking of, it’s nonsensical that fighters have to point at each other Sopwith Camels. Just slap a phalanx gun in place of the R2 unit, drive straight through the enemy ships, done.