A good analogy for SW vs ST

[TithonusSyndrome]

It happens; since you're on this site, the premise of it is bound to come up in some kind of social setting or at least a forum outside of these walls. Maybe you have a more amateur nerd for a friend, maybe a conversation led you there, but there it is - you are discussing the outcome of the debate in real life, and the addressee would like to know who's going to win. Without a background in any technical fields or even a thorough canvassing of the canon in question, whoever you're talking to will not find it an obvious choice as to who will win and would benefit greatly from a good analogy to demonstrate the vast gulf of military and technological capacity between the two.

I've been using "the modern US Navy vs Polynesian islanders" for a while now, which I think covers all the bases; the odds that neolithic arrows can pierce kevlar are about the same as phasers penetrating stormtrooper armor, not that it matters because of the obvious range and firepower advantage. Is there a better one, though?

[Omeganian]

It happens; since you're on this site, the premise of it is bound to come up in some kind of social setting or at least a forum outside of these walls. Maybe you have a more amateur nerd for a friend, maybe a conversation led you there, but there it is - you are discussing the outcome of the debate in real life, and the addressee would like to know who's going to win. Without a background in any technical fields or even a thorough canvassing of the canon in question, whoever you're talking to will not find it an obvious choice as to who will win and would benefit greatly from a good analogy to demonstrate the vast gulf of military and technological capacity between the two.

I've been using "the modern US Navy vs Polynesian islanders" for a while now, which I think covers all the bases; the odds that neolithic arrows can pierce kevlar are about the same as phasers penetrating stormtrooper armor, not that it matters because of the obvious range and firepower advantage. Is there a better one, though?

Since the star destroyers are fully shielded, but the US navy kevlar suits can leave the face (and maybe some other parts)unprotected, I would say a better analogy can probably be found. Maybe "the modern US Air forces vs Polynesian islanders". Takes the speed advantage into account.

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

Are they vulnerable to logic?

Try this; past the elementary stage, it takes organised research and manufacture to get anywhere. Numbers and commitment, in science and industry, matter.

A larger civilisation that can bring more brainpower to bear on the problem, whatever it is, and an older civilisation which has had longer to think about it, are likely to be more advanced. All other things being equal.

Two hundred years, five hundred billion people (wild ass guess for the population of the Federation)- versus at least a hundred quadrillion entities, and twenty-five thousand years of the Republic and more before that.

I know this is more scientific, industrial and economic, but that's half the military- industrial complex, right?
I'd go with a glass of water. The Federation has as much human and industrial resource base to make military power from as this glass of water. Is it larger than the Pacific Ocean? No? Well, then.

[Darth Wong]

United States vs Monaco. The population disparity is a reasonable representation of the disparity in size between the Empire and the Federation. Even if you gave Monaco equal technology, they'd get squashed like a bug.

Comparing the Federation to spear-wielding primitives is not entirely fair and only invites the other person to say that you're a wanker. The Federation has some very important technological disadvantages (chiefly raw firepower and speed), but they are still quite high-tech.

On the tech side, if we're using "Empire=US" as a baseline, the Feds could be compared to China: their ground forces are based around marching soldiers with poor combined-arms capability, and they have extremely weak sealift capabilities (analogous to the Federation's utter inability to take the war back to the Empire due to their slow transport).

So the best analogy would be a country with the conventional military ability of China but the size of Monaco, trying to fight the US.

[CaptHawkeye]

I remember searching an old topic about "USS Iowa vs. The 1600s Spanish Armada". Which is a pretty good analogy for the tech disparity between the Impieral Navy and Starfleet.

"Iowa won't even need to use it's guns. It can literally just cruise around at 30 knots ramming them until they surrender." Among other tidbits from that thread.

[Darth Raptor]

Without a background in any technical fields or even a thorough canvassing of the canon in question, whoever you're talking to will not find it an obvious choice as to who will win and would benefit greatly from a good analogy to demonstrate the vast gulf of military and technological capacity between the two.

I find this is a lot less common since RotS, for whatever reason. To casual observers, Star Trek (used to) appear superior because everything was flashy, tidy and upholstered. And aside from the Death Star, there was little in the OT that obviously spoke to the vast scope and sheer age of civilization in the GFFA. Without seriously examining the subject, it was easy to get the impression that the superficially more futuristic Federation was more advanced.

[Coiler]

I find this is a lot less common since RotS, for whatever reason.

Could it be because RoTS has lots of shiny CGI and an absolutely gigantic fleet battle at the beginning, both of which make SW look more stylisticly advanced and bigger?

[Darth Ruinus]

Could it be because RoTS has lots of shiny CGI and an absolutely gigantic fleet battle at the beginning, both of which make SW look more stylisticly advanced and bigger?

Thats probably it. People often confuse flashy and shiny with powerful and advanced.

[Swindle1984]

United States vs Monaco. The population disparity is a reasonable representation of the disparity in size between the Empire and the Federation. Even if you gave Monaco equal technology, they'd get squashed like a bug.

Comparing the Federation to spear-wielding primitives is not entirely fair and only invites the other person to say that you're a wanker. The Federation has some very important technological disadvantages (chiefly raw firepower and speed), but they are still quite high-tech.

On the tech side, if we're using "Empire=US" as a baseline, the Feds could be compared to China: their ground forces are based around marching soldiers with poor combined-arms capability, and they have extremely weak sealift capabilities (analogous to the Federation's utter inability to take the war back to the Empire due to their slow transport).

So the best analogy would be a country with the conventional military ability of China but the size of Monaco, trying to fight the US.

China still isn't a good analogy. True, their organization and especially their navy are terrible, but their air force is as numerous as ours and about a quarter of it is comparable to our most common aircraft in capability. Their infantry are not only roughly equivelent to ours in equipment and training, but FAR more numerous. Their tanks are largely obsolete and inferior (though a third of their tank force is modern and the percentage is growing), but they also have over twice as many tanks as we do.

Yes, in a war, China would lose against the US, but they'd do far, far better than the Federation would against the Empire.

I'd say it'd be more like the state of Virginia in 1861 waging war against the entire modern US military. Better shows the technological AND numerical disparity at work.

[Questor]

I'd say it'd be more like the state of Virginia in 1861 waging war against the entire modern US military. Better shows the technological AND numerical disparity at work.

The only problem with that is that it would give the Federation a number of VERY capable flag officers.

[Questor]

Ghetto edit: I'm not saying that they'd matter, but saying that I doubt the feds would have a Robert E. Lee equivalent. But they might have a Pickett.

[Dark Flame]

Ghetto edit: I'm not saying that they'd matter, but saying that I doubt the feds would have a Robert E. Lee equivalent. But they might have a Pickett.

So, say the group from Pickett's charge (with him in command, of course) vs. all M1A1 Abrams tanks the US military owns.

[Questor]

Ghetto edit: I'm not saying that they'd matter, but saying that I doubt the feds would have a Robert E. Lee equivalent. But they might have a Pickett.

So, say the group from Pickett's charge (with him in command, of course) vs. all M1A1 Abrams tanks the US military owns.

Sounds good to me!

[Illuminatus Primus]

Who cares about Robert E. Lee? Like that makes any difference given the disparity? I don't know where tactics wanking in general and Civil War Southern generals wanking in particular comes from, and why it is so popular.

[Isolder74]

Ghetto edit: I'm not saying that they'd matter, but saying that I doubt the feds would have a Robert E. Lee equivalent. But they might have a Pickett.

So, say the group from Pickett's charge (with him in command, of course) vs. all M1A1 Abrams tanks the US military owns.

Wouldn't you only need one or two at the most?

[Darth Wong]

Who cares about Robert E. Lee? Like that makes any difference given the disparity? I don't know where tactics wanking in general and Civil War Southern generals wanking in particular comes from, and why it is so popular.

General Lee won some impressive victories, but (and I admit I'm no military historian) it seems to me that all of his victories were won while fighting an essentially defensive campaign, which confers some natural advantages, especially when both sides are still adapting to the difficulties of managing armies of unprecedented size for their country. The moment he tried to go on the offensive, he got pushed back at Antietam and thumped hard at Gettysburg, in a manner that, if it had happened to a Northern general, would have been used as proof of general incompetence.

[Solauren]

My analogy would be;

It's a guy with a 9mm pistol, against a Helicopter gunship, starting off at 100 paces.

Before the guy gets anywhere near the Helicopter, he's going to get mowed down by the machine guns.

[Darth Wong]

My analogy would be;

It's a guy with a 9mm pistol, against a Helicopter gunship, starting off at 100 paces.

Before the guy gets anywhere near the Helicopter, he's going to get mowed down by the machine guns.

The problem is that this doesn't capture the sheer enormity of the scale difference.

Probably the best real-world example of something analogous to this situation would be the US invasion of Grenada in 1983. Although Grenada is much too big to fit the analogy perfectly, it gives a good idea of the disparity in size and strategic weaponry. Sure, the Grenadans enjoyed certain advantages such as better knowledge of the terrain, and an individual American soldier could get killed (19 of them did), but there was never any serious question at all about who would win, or whether it would even be difficult.

[Sarevok]

I remember searching an old topic about "USS Iowa vs. The 1600s Spanish Armada". Which is a pretty good analogy for the tech disparity between the Impieral Navy and Starfleet.

"Iowa won't even need to use it's guns. It can literally just cruise around at 30 knots ramming them until they surrender." Among other tidbits from that thread.

That would be the USS Yamato vs the Spanish armada thread.

Regarding the analogy I think it is more like some low end magic verse like LOTR vs 19th century Imperial Britain. There is good reason for this. The Feds while weak have some wanky ubertech of the week they never exploit fully. Just like fantasy vs magic where they never try to do anything with their magic that is not fantasy staple tactics.

[lord Martiya]

My analogy would be United Nations vs Vatican state in a nuclear war.

[Aquatain]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DeFUO2F7Gvw

This - size/weapon superiority.

[Ted C]

I've been using "the modern US Navy vs Polynesian islanders" for a while now, which I think covers all the bases; the odds that neolithic arrows can pierce kevlar are about the same as phasers penetrating stormtrooper armor, not that it matters because of the obvious range and firepower advantage. Is there a better one, though?

The Spanish Armada versus the British fleet at Jutland?

[Swindle1984]

Who cares about Robert E. Lee? Like that makes any difference given the disparity? I don't know where tactics wanking in general and Civil War Southern generals wanking in particular comes from, and why it is so popular.

General Lee won some impressive victories, but (and I admit I'm no military historian) it seems to me that all of his victories were won while fighting an essentially defensive campaign, which confers some natural advantages, especially when both sides are still adapting to the difficulties of managing armies of unprecedented size for their country. The moment he tried to go on the offensive, he got pushed back at Antietam and thumped hard at Gettysburg, in a manner that, if it had happened to a Northern general, would have been used as proof of general incompetence.

Actually, he did fairly well on the offensive too. He simply didn't have the right subordinates or the resources most of the time.

As for Primus' question, the majority of the commanding officers in the US army, and nearly all of West Point's corps of cadets (where they trained officers) defected to the Confederacy. This meant the CSA had the experienced officers and the USA was left with mostly green officers who didn't know what they were doing and guys who had been sitting in an office well into retirement age. The CSA generally had more effective leadership and better organization; the USA eventually caught up, mostly through trial-and-error, and their superior numbers and mechanization won the day.

The CSA also generally used better tactics (obviously, since they had most of the good officers from before the war) and, early on, superior weaponry. Confederate cavalry, for example, had better horses, more experienced horsemen, and better weapons. US cavalry had single-shot carbines and six-shot Colt or Remington revolvers, usually in .36-caliber. CS cavalry had carbines or, often, double-barrel shotguns, and six-shot .44-caliber Colt revolvers and nine-shot .42-caliber Le Mat revolvers that had a 16-gauge shotgun attached. Better skills, better horses, better weapons, and better leadership meant Confederate cavalry generally raped whatever they came across early in the war. The US closed the gap with repeating carbines and experienced gained in the war, but CS cavalry was still superior at the end of the war. Infantry was roughly equal throughout the war with the US getting an advantage in repeating rifles by the end of the conflict (only for certain units) and US artillery nearly always had an advantage over CS artillery, though skill was usually equal for both sides.

[Themightytom]

I like to use the analogy of McDonald's vs White Castle.

[Ender]

There really is no good comparison in terms of scale. You might be able to has something out in terms of tech, but not in terms of population or resources. There are more TIE pilots in the Empire then there are sentient beings in the Federation, ok? Total population they have them outnumbered by a factor of 100,000,000,000 to 1. The gap is that big.