I believe that the Halberds would be able to take on the SD. One very simple reason, mentioned in this video; Halberds are made for hit-and-run tactics. SDs are made to slug it out with larger ships. If the Halberd captains are smart, they can use their superior speed and maneuverability to wear down the SD, and close in for the kill when it's weakest. The same methodology was used against the US army in Vietnam. Further evidence, look at the primary opponents of the two contestants. The UNSC are used to fighting a technologically superior enemy in the Covenant. Conversely, the Galactic Empire has trouble dealing with the Rebel Alliance. Since the UNSC is essentially Viet-cong when it comes to space combat, SD captains will have an extremely tough time forcing them into a stand-up fight. A good captain acknowledges the strengths and weaknesses of his ship, and always keeps that in mind in any engagement. The best option for the two Halberd captains would be to constantly 'wolf' the SD; have one ship draw it's attention, then have the other target weak points and critical systems. Then once the SD focuses on the second Halberd, the Halberds switch roles.
Yes, the UNSC Halberd captains are very smart, so I don't think they'd even take the risk of fighting an enemy that large without more help! I could see two trying to delay a Victory-II class with long range MAC shots while waiting for reinforcements, but not much else unless Star Wars shields proved ineffectively weak. The TIE Fighters aren't much compared to what the Covenant has, but a Star Destroyer is as huge. Eyharts Ladder also said both crews were equally skilled... I think the UNSC has higher standards of skill while the Empire mostly values loyalty to Palpatine. He also seems to ignore range too much... though with different units of measurement and conflicting sources, I shouldn't blame him as much.
@@eliogabbalo0965 Possibly... I'm not sure how the EMP would compare to an Ion Cannon. With the size and tech disadvantages, it's hard to imagine only two ships winning without superior crews to out think the Star Destroyer. If Spartans were allowed it would be a fairer fight, whether as a boarding party or pilots... but with the crews being equally skilled, the UNSC's worst probably couldn't figure out how to use their equipment any more effectively than a Storm Trooper whom hits their head marching down a corridor! Star Wars Legends fanboys would probably insist it would take both ships detonating all their nukes at the same time just to disable the shields for a few seconds, then Halo could barely scratch the armor before it's back online. After all, fantasy Hyper Matter annihilation is a lot more powerful than the realistic fusion reactors we could perfect in a few centuries.
I think the only thing I would like to point out is that with a total of 6 nuclear weapons at their disposal, each of which generate electromagnetic pulses, which ships in star wars seem to be particularly prone to, that said a nuclear weapon is one of the first things that the ships would use in such a situation, regardless of their knowledge of the ship
I'd like to point out that a large part of an emp blast is created by interaction with the atmosphere. Source: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse I will concede that the nukes still probably do massive damage, even without an emp.
julius mikala You really shouldn’t concede that though because of the empire strikes back asteroid scene where the ships and their shields were taking asteroid hits far more powerful than nuclear bombs.
Nukes can only generate an EMP in high atmosphere, e.g. they need some air to create one. In pure empty space, no EMP would be generated. Read the Wikipedia page on Nuclear EMPs and how they are generated for proof.
I have to point out that fighters are actually a huge disadvantage for the Victory. Want to know why? In Star Wars, ships have to let down their particle shields to release fighters (otherwise the fighter would impact the inside of the shield). Now, against an opponent that heavily relies on alpha-striking (UNSC ships) this is a terrible idea. Whether a UNSC AI could properly exploit that or not is up for debate, but I don't think a Victory-II is going to want to tank a nuclear missile or MAC round without particle shields up.
Yes, try shooting down a missile going at twice the speed of sound. That's a pretty normal speed for an anti-ship missile in the modern era in atmosphere. Archer missiles are 24th century weapons for use in space, where there is no air resistance. A human-aimed point defense laser (or perhaps light turbolaser) isn't going to hit that in a million years, even if you assume Star Wars laser travel at the speed of light, which they clearly do not.
Scythe Seven they only only have to drop shields over the fighterbays. In the books Thrawn used a manoeuvre where he turned the ship's hanger away from the enemy so the top of the star destrouer faced them and he could safely launch fighters while under fire.
That's a "maneuver?" You'd think that would be standard operating procedure. It would be a really stupid weakness to projectile weapons any other way. Not that the Empire has ever shied away from glaringly obvious stupid weaknesses.
Scythe Seven Well, usually the SDS just quickly drop all the forgers out of the hanger whilst moving towards the enemy since the engagements usually start off at some distance. Thrawn chose to do it that way because the engagement was starting much closer
Its up against two destroyers both of which would have veteran crews who have seen actual combat against a superior enemy that would eat the Victory II Star Destroy for a snack . And they survived that kind of enemy for 30 years .. The Imperial Navy crews are used primarily for policing the empire using sheer numbers and fear as their weapons. In this match up even if we assume that both crews are equally skilled . The UNSC crews have two advantages the first being actual combat experience. The second being there are two ships vs 1 ship . That means were is the Victory II crew going to maneuver to avoid both ships which don't have to stay together . Ie they are using a tactical advantage . Its most likely for one ship to fire at the Victory from one direction getting its attention while the other maneuvers into a position behind it meaning the minute those hanger bays open and the 24 Tie fighters are released either one of two things is going to happen either those hangers are going to take a direct hit from two MAC rounds and several hundred missiles or if available the UNSC will remote pilot a few Longsword fighters with 50-100 megaton nuclear missiles onboard directly into those hanger bays and boom there goes part of the ship and the shields start to loose power. follow that with several MAC rounds and more missiles and the ship no longer exist.
Thanks for watching guys! If you wanna vote on future videos, join the Discord! discord.gg/3jbNnaK Also, follow me on twitter! twitter.com/Eckhartsladder
Wraith (Stargate) vs Galactic Empire (Star Wars) BC-304 Daedalus-Class Battlecruiser (Stargate, Post-Unending, No ZPM & With ZPM) vs Imperial Escort Fleet (Star Wars) BC-304 USS Daedalus (Stargate, Pre-Unending, No ZPM) vs SSV Normandy SR-2 (Mass Effect) Can the Reaper Invasion from Mass Effect 3 take the UNSC controlled Earth from Halo 2, 3, & ODST?
With no prep time, yeah, Reapers take pre-war UNSC, but they can put up a solid fight. Mid-war UNSC though (Halo 2, 3), they'd fall very fast. By that time the UNSC barely has any fight capability.
Something you forgot to place in the battle. Wolfpack tactics where used because they work to great effectiveness. More than likely if they saw the star ship before it saw them they would lead it into an ambush. Using the nukes and mac's the battle would be decided in a few seconds. Then it would just be cleaning up any fighters. If both see each other the halo ships would again use their nukes to great effectiveness. Do not forget that a nuke produces an elector magnetic pulse. In space the range of one of these is massive. Giving the same effect as the hoth ion cannon the star wars ship would be defenseless. The ship board AI would be able to find the bridge in a matter of seconds and on shot from just one mac would decide the battle. The only way dreadnaughts like this would come out on top would be if they all started in range of each others primary weapons. In that case there is a high probability that at least on the of halo ships would be disabled or destroyed before having a chance to outmaneuver the enemy.
I feel like the TIEs would be shredded by automated defenses. Not that would help much. I do feel that if they did manage to pop the Victory's sheilds (probably with the nukes), they could just ram MAC slugs through the Victory's bridge, her engines, her reactors, with more or less impunity.
If I were the commanding officer of the lead Halberd, I'd launch a full volley of Archer missile pods to force the SD to disperse it's weapons fire and make it try to track and destroy the incoming missiles. At the same time flank the SD around its ventral and dorsal areas. Then launch a second volley when I reach my destination to give me time to align my MAC weapons. I'll try to keep rolling and keep the TIEs between my two ships crisscrossing point defense fire. I'll launch simultaneous strikes with both MAC weapons. 4 simultaneous hits with MAC rounds going 5580mi/sec should ring the SD's bell or severely wound it.
A couple of things, When you said at the end that the victory is made for ship to ship combat, so are the UNSC destroyers. 1)-Although the victory II Star Destroyer is relatively more powerful, it is poorly designed. The shield generators, the bridge, and the reactor dome are exposed. Although your assumption that a single MAC shot can not destroy/pierce the shields of a Victory II is logical, It is very likely that the Victory II will have recoil against the MAC wherever it hits- Although no real damage, the Victory II and it's crew are certain to feel an impact. 2)-I think a single MAC shot to one of the shield generator domes will be enough to take out that shield generator, as the exposed generators have been noted to be a weakness of the Star Destroyer line thus a common target. a fact which has been exploited by the rebel alliance. When 1 of the shield generators go down, The Star Destroyer is in a lot of trouble, and rightfully so- It's shield will collapse. 3)- Although constant turbolaser fire can kill an unshielded ship pretty quickly. I think you underestimate the armor of the UNSC, especially the Halberd-Destroyer. Although pre/mid war UNSC ships did not have shields, their ships, for the most part, made up for it in armor. DuraSteel is known to be stronger than conventional steel, yet weaker than titanium. The UNSC use Titanium-A plating, which is reinforced Titanium. By extension, this means that the UNSC has better armor that SW, especially for the Halberd, which you stated has heavy armor. UNSC armor is very effective against kinetic weapons, which the turbolaser is a mix between kinetic and heat. Unfortunately and obviously for the UNSC, this high kinetic resistance didn't matter much during the Covenant War. Conclusion: My opinion would be that this match would be closer to a tie than a victory for the..well, uh Victory. Love the videos! Keep it up!
"DuraSteel is known to be stronger than conventional steel, yet weaker than titanium." that little peice of evidence you have there is from a mobile tower defense game's tech tree. It's blatantly contradicted by Rebels, Clone wars, quite a few canon novels, and The Force Awakens. TIE's are made of Titanium BTW, and they suck in star wars.
Except Star Wars: Galactic Defense is also currently canon. so that means the sturdiness of Durasteel, like the turbolaser, are in question due to narrative discrepancies between writers.
game MECHANICS should never be treated as canon to any franchise If gamemechanics are canon, then A-wings have no shields (false), Cr-90's can be destroyed by one shot from a TIE fighter (false) Fighters are 50 meters long (false) and blasters completely vaporize people, but only a few seconds after they have already been killed. I would have no problem if you bring up a CUTSCENE from a canon game, but in this case, especially since it's directly contradicting pretty much all other forms of canon, it is to be treated as false.
Alright, fair enough. But then again the sturdiness of the Halberd's armor is still underrated. 2 meters (~6 feet/ slightly taller than the average person) of Titanium-A armor. UNSC armor is very kinetic resistant. Since the turbolaser is a mix between kinetic and heat, The armor of the destroyer is likely to withstand a decent amount, but not too much, turbolaser fire before systems get damaged. Even if the turbolaser were entirely plasma based, a couple shots of a turbolaser would likely not do much. Turbolasers will likely not due much, because even though UNSC armor melts when facing off against plasma-based weaponry, the fact they melt so easily against the covenant is due to the fact covenant ship-based weaponry use EXCESSIVE amounts of plasma (The Energy Projector/ *Plasma* Lance is the prime example of this) Although pre/mid war UNSC ships do not have shields, they partially make up for it in terms of armor strength/durability.
www.halopedia.org/Pulse_laser_turret These weapons are only in the kilowatt range, and yet they can melt through 45 cm of Titanium-A. that armor stands no chance against turbolasers, which are in the terawatts (literally billions of times more powerful than "kilowatt range"), or hundreds of gigawatts (hundreds of millions of times more powerful than Kilowatts) at the very least.
I'd probably give it to the Halberd. It's designed several hundred years after the Donnager, and masses significantly more for one. (Donnager is 250,000 tons "dry weight" while a Halberd is 1.8 million tons. The Halberd may actually have more armor in mass than the Donnager as a whole!) So probably significantly better computer systems, automation, and far more weaponry. And nothing the Donnager has in weapons is unfamiliar to the UNSC. Besides, UNSC warships seem to generally do fine against other human warships like they were originally designed to fight... IMO, The Expanse's basic setting looks like it could be similar to the UNSC in the 23rd Century, before FTL, when they were locked into colonizing the different parts of the solar system.
While you do have a point that particle shields were shrugging off asteroids, those asteroids were not traveling at a percentage of the speed of light. They were floating and being pushed aside by the particle shields like a plow. They weren't designed to stop objects going 3% the speed of light which is 5,580 miles per second. That's many times faster than the armor piercing concussion missiles we've seen used against armored hulls on ships in star wars. Since the SD doesn't have anti-snubfighter capabilities, it's that much more vulnerable to volleys by Archer missiles as well. Since UNSC ship armor can take up to several hits by plasma weapons from the covenant, and Turbo lasers are essentially plasma weapons, I'd rate the Halberds survivability a little higher. Also, Halberd do have point defense weapons, they can roll ship to keep vulnerable points protected from TIE fighters.
i say this every time big, semi-hollow asteroids going very slow made of rock with pockets of various materials is nothing like a smaller, solid, dense mass projected at very high speeds. it's like comparing those riot beanbag rounds vs a shotgun slug. especially if all 4 shots were aimed in the same spot and aimed at the bridge area. and we see energy from shots still having an effect on parts of the ship hit so even if they are all stopped, with the kinetic energy of all that hitting the same spot, the people on the bridge are not going to be getting up anytime soon and i can very well see damaged systems on the bridge.
The problem with turbolasers being under the gigaton-range is that it would make the Death Star weapon and power-generation system hundreds of thousands of time more efficient than the one of a standard destroyer, even accounting for the difference in volume, despite being based on the same technology (namely an hypermatter-reactor) and developed by the same organisation.
chris pearson a massive technological leap who was fully made using imperial-era technologies, materials and scientists. And the point still stand, hypermatter-annihilation reactors and superlasers were not new, just vastly upscaled for this occasion, which, in itself is a pretty big technological feat already. Nobody can pretend with a straight face that a society would or could multiply the efficiency of all of its main technologies by a million in the space of two decades without any exterior aid. It would be like if a civilization leaped from horses to nuclear power in a generation, and even then, a turbolaser shot would still be worth hundreds of megatons. In order to compare to halo, it would have to be well under that. And frankly, current canon can f*ck off.
The Halberd was actually around the same size as standard UNSC frigates of the time. It had much greater mass, however, due to the increase in armour and weapon systems.
A Vietnamese Flashback It's a not effective way of dealing damage, actually. In space nukes are much weaker than in atmosphere, due to inverse square law
I will never give up!!!!!!!!!!! AT-AT vs A6 Clone juggernaut tank Dark trooper vs clone commando Corperate tank alliance droid vs the clone tank(the one you can play in in Star Wars battlefront 2 2005)
You should start a series where commanders are given equal ships from their faction and it's the admirals or captains who we are looking at. May I recommend Grand Admiral Thrawn vs admiral Hood in fleets of approximately the same power.
Imperial Royal guard vs elite honour guards (star wars vs halo 2) or the first order vs the banished (ground battle or 3 ships each) due to banished small navy Also really enjoy these bids and glad you take everything into account like the bs range values for both ships
Okay, you have done this in every single video with the UNSC vs star wars thus far. You always say that the Empire's weapons are better. No, no they are not. The one thing you seem to constantly overlook is the range. UNSC missiles (something you also omit from the UNSC armament for no discernible reason) are guided munitions and are launched as the primary weapons anti-ship weapon, with the MAC only being used to crack hardened targets. Turbolasers are dumb-fire plasma bolts, which cant change flight path like Covenant Plasma weaponry. Engagement ranges would favor the UNSC here, as missiles can be fired from outside a Turbolasers effective range. Judging from what we see in almost all Starwars media, the Star Wars Galaxies point defense is laughable at best. I mean how many fighters do we really see ever actually get shot down by them? The UNSC would easily be able to heavily damage any starwars vessel with missile fire from outside the Empire's Turbolaser combat ranges before closing to MAC range, if even needed at all.
agreed with you... the only thing star wars is good at is the "technobabble" (that they endorse star trek with) when it comes to weaponry, as UNSC ships are way used to fight plasma weapons (wich should be more energetic than near-plasma turbo"lasers"), while the star wars universe never fights electric cannons (MACs)... In star wars, the only thing "particle shields" can counter is missiles, asteroids in average quantity and possibly fighters, while they never encountered weapons that fire projectiles overcoming projectile speeds of over 14km/s, wich is way faster than anything star wars can show us... Even if the victory was able to deflect the MAC shell before it pierces the shield, it's massive inertia will be transfered to the ship, wich will be knocked around, forcing the "destroyer" to redirect energy to stabilise the ship, so that the manually controlled weapons (who thought it was a good idea) can fire without making the gunners sick due to spinning; overall, even inferior ships, if in sufficient numbers... Star wars is not technologically superior to the unsc, a turbolaser is a mere human naval cannon scaled up and put on a ship, with the shell replaced by some pretty fluorescent green light... Besides, star wars is not so advanced, it's just that their world's physics are different, and laughable for scientists, while halo keeps a bit of realism... Anyways, star wars TIE fighters are no use, as point defence will squash them anyways. Shit, with this comment, I might bring butthurt star wars no-life wankers with an ego problem that will do the dumbest things to try to prove wrong... I like star wars, but bear in mind it's space FANTASY, like warhammer 40k, and not science fiction... Also, I hate those combats who overlooks some aspects like the missiles and nukes to only focus on a meme gun platform vs two mobile MAC guns; it's unfair and sill...
Nanomachines Son! Those missiles won't do shit against their shields. Actually no, I take that back. They might, but I'm sure there aren't enough to crack em. Star wars turbo lasers are far more powerful than conventional missiles. And said lasers are computer controlled. They won't miss.
Each ship has 28 archer missile pods which are described as carrying 30 missiles a piece. That's 840 Archer missiles (not gonna count the 6 Shiva Class Nuclear missiles they have) which were described as being able to inflict critical damage on a UNSC vessel with only 1 hit. They were rendered a low threat due to the covenant mainly due to the fact the covenant had incredibly advance point defense systems. Now ask yourself this, when was the last time in Star Wars you actual saw a point defense system shoot anything down. Judging by how we see imperial star destroyers being destroyed by flying through an asteroid field, im gonna say that actual, purpose built, anti ship weaponry would be able to do at bare minimum comparable damage. Discounting 840 anti ship missiles like that seems like a horrible conclusion to reach. Also, star wars turbolasers are manned for some unknown reason.
be careful with the asteroid scene, some haters might use that to say things that weren't depicted in the movie, like it already stayed there for weeks and was being pounded by too many asteroids and blah blah that said, even a SSD's point defence can't destroy an A-wing flying in a straight position, and due to the mentionned very low PD systems on a victory class, they literally have no chance I can't believe a victory's shield can resist 840 missiles and 6 nukes... mosly if an ISD get destroyed by some asteroids (wich is the #1 reason why all ships are supposed to have some sort of point defence anyways, because without a powerful one, you're dead...) So yes, as usual, star wars doesn't deserve the win... here, mostly because they have no PD to speak of, and that's for all of their ships... To be honest, that comment was not even close to star wars facts, as turbolasers are manned stations, wich makes them very innacurate when fighting constantly moving targets that basically "kite" them...
If the DDs could get the jump and attack at the rear of the victory and go guns blasing ramming speed with the nukes duck-taped to the very front of the ship to use as an explosive battering ram. I say the could do it. I mean UNSC is used to "unconventional" methods against superior foes :D
I've not even gotten past the ad yet, but I'm so happy you made another starship versus, I've watched every single episode and I started watching when you made your first one. Love the channel keep it up my man
I think the halberd would win as their high mobility would allow them to get under the Victory and hit its vulnerable underside, I think that 1 would get disabled as it tried to get under, but once they are under they would only be under threat from the small fighter complement, I’d give the fight to the halberds as it’s other weapons would be sufficent to protect it from the fighters of the Victory
So Necro Post. The Victory II Star Destroyer is very ineffective for its size. We are talking a massive ship with very small guns with a very short range. The halberd easily has a larger main cannon compared to the SD with a larger range to boot. The SD is a sitting duck without the firepower to defend itself against a properly designed capital ship like we see with alot of UNSC ships.
I can understand the reasoning, but I will always think halo ships are better. Star Wars ships are designed to look good, halo ships are designed to fly through hell itself 100 times over and bring the entire crew home safely. While not always successful, they just inspire me more. UNSC PRIDE! HALO FOR LIFE!
TECK3 I don't think so. The Imperial Star Destroyers are some of the most powerful front line ships in all of science fiction. Meanwhile UNSC ships are unshielded and can barely handle a glancing blow from a plasma torpedo. If you know anything about the UNSC Navy you would know that. And before you scream "WUT BOUT DA MACS" keep in mind that the MAC guns, while powerful, have to be aimed by moving the entire ship. And Covanant ships have been said to easily move out of the way of said rounds. I love Halo and Star Wars but I will always take Star Wars ships over any of Halo' s.
Ragemonkey117 I am well aware of all those facts, and I do take them into account. Do keep in mind that I did not make that post with actual capability in mind. I was thinking in terms of style and appearance. I my opinion, UNSC ships are simply more practically designed. If you were to replace UNSC technology with Star Wars technology, and keep the basic structure of the ship, I do believe you would have a mighty competitor for the Imperial Star Destroyer. Plus, if the last bit isn't an indication, I'm clearly bias towards Halo, so don't worry too much about my opinion.
Halberds launch every missile they have, nukes last. Time their MAC shots to hit the SD right after the last missile impact. Failing penetration, maneuver to behind the SD and shoot at its engines. If that doesn't work, run.
This is a tough one because I don't think we have much canon information on how well Star Wars weapons deal with heavily armored, but unshielded vehicles as well as anti-ship ballistic weapons. The UNSC ships had a very large amount of armor. One thing we typically see from sci-fi is that ships tend to get a bit lax with conventional armor once they develop effective shielding, and we've seen unshielded acclamators take turbolaser shots from Munificents and Providences and keep on trucking. Also, I think Archer Missile Pods are undervalued, especially in an anti-fighter role. I seriously doubt that even several squadrons of Tie Fighters would survive long enough to do damage when they have hundreds of missiles coming towards them.
All star wars ships are heavily armored in conjunction with their shields. Also, TIE bombers Carry thermonuclear yield weapons, as per the size of craters made by the old republic bombers in _Tarkin_, and as per the mention of "thermonuclear fireworks" in the Return of the Jedi novel.
Bellator class SSD vs a Mediator class star cruiser I WILL NEVER GIVE UP!! Also, isn't the whole point of the VSD that it has a large number of missle pods which would be very effective against the unshielded Halberds
your content is definetly getting better, i wouldnt worry about the dip in current views, im betting with football starting and school that may be a reason why, the only advice i would give is to upload earlier in the morning. allowing more people to watch it throughout the day. Best of Luck!!!
I love watching your videos but in so many halo vs SW you always forget or sidetrack the range advantage of the UNSC. They can pepper the shield any SW ship before it can even fire back. And you don’t account for the UNSC AI that provides pin point accuracy (AI’s are in every UNSC ship). I think it would be like 6-4 SW wins just bc I believe it can 2-3 shot each USNC destroyer
Not every UNSC ship has a 'smart' AI (or even a 'dumb' AI, although a destroyer nlt having at least a 'dumb' AI would be unusual) (especially frigates, very few of those would have had a 'smart' one). They are simply too expensive. But destroyers did have a fairly high chance (depending on the mission and stage of the war) to have a 'smart' AI.
TheRevyFilms The BC-304 posses better weaponry, armor, shields, speed, maneuverability, sensors, and has two F-302 Squadrons. The Vengeance may be Star Fleet's most advanced and power warship, but it couldn't stand a one on one battle with the Narada. The BC-304 has both Asgard/Atlantean technologies who are more advanced than Star Fleet.
+Joseph Santos Ok i'm not so sure about shield's but the weaponry on Vengeance is highly advanced capable of penetrating a ships shield with a focused barrage of shots and the same can be said for Daedalus's beam weapons, and the Enterprise is faster than the Daedalus and knan himself said Vengeance is three times faster than the Enterprise so no question the Vengeance has more maneuverability.. as for technology more advanced? idk even know how you can rule that out? I'd imagine the Vengeance was intertwined with alien tech, and the hull..Come on? we saw the Vengeance blow up from the inside with little damage, fall from orbit and crash against the planet and still mostly intact. Pretty sure it can take a few hits and as for 303s Daedalus only holds what six or eight? I think the Vengeance could handle that.. Also Vengeance can fight in warp, that's when I'd imagine a ZPM comes into play
16 302s dunno much about the vengeance not into trek but bc 304 with a zpm is kinda insane. i would say run first without it and if its one sided bloodlust the bc 304 with a zpm
I think you're probably right about the final result, and I know you said that you were ignoring skill, however I do think that it is worth mentioning that the UNSC is very used to fighting a technologically superior enemy. This, whilst not enough to flip the result would IMO make it a bit closer.
Pat Fuwell I think a titan vs 2 atdp’s or 3 atst’s would be a more fair match. The reason why is because of the atat was facing the titan it would easily destroy the titan with a few shots but if the titan was on the sides or rear of the atat it could just keep firing and outmaneuvering the atat until it’s destroyed
put a mac to the overexposed and unprotected shield emmitter, and BOOM victory royale. like they destroyed these before with light X-Wing fire. i am sure a Mac would obliterate that one. also the overexposed Bridge and Reactordome would make prime targets to shoot
Not sure if this was a recent change but the Halberd actually carried 4 plalicans and 2 squadrons of Nandao space fighters (10 - 20 fighters) I know this video is 4 years old but after a quick look in the comments I didn't see anyone mentioning this
Great video. The problem with UNSC vs Star Wars is that Halo Human developed tech is merely 400 years from what we have now while The star wars universe has seen at 5000 years of generalized FTL travel and count with the research and development of thousands of species. This technological disparity would be the same reason the Forerunners could wipe out nearly anything the star wars universe may throw at them.
I would contend that the UNSC ships do in fact have a chance simply because of the disproportionate advantage the UNSC's use of AI and networked tactics affords it. The Halberds would be able to coordinate a time on target strike between their MACs, Archer Missiles, and Shiva Nukes that would combine all that firepower on a single point of the shield of the Victory II. This is a pretty standard tactic they use against covenant ships, so it would probably be one of their go-to tactics. Concentrating on the shielding in front of, say, the bridge would enable them to swiftly take out the command structure of their opponent. The loss of the bridge probably wouldn't take out the star destroyer, but it would give the UNSC ships precious time to coordinate further time-on-target barrages that would take out the star destroyer. As for the question of the fighters, I would keep in mind that the point defence weapons of the UNSC ships are going to be computer controlled high caliber autocannons. We're talking 50mm-70mm weapons. Real life warships typically have just two 20-30mm weapons for use against incoming missiles and aircraft, so 4 is a realistic number for their point defense weapons. Given that TIE fighters are human controlled and therefore unable to do half the evasive maneuvers a modern anti-ship missile can do, they should be easy prey for the autocannons should they get in range. A cloud of 70mm shells should make quick work of an unshielded TIE fighter. In a straight up slugging match the Victory would win every time just because of the shields and its firepower advantage, but the UNSC's ability to act faster, coordinate their fire to a greater degree and to bring it to bear on vital parts with high precision would give it the edge to avoid a battle of attrition and win the battle in the first salvo.
I'm sorry but this was blatantly favoring the victory. let me say that I'm using the wiki's for this but the first point I want to bring up is star wars ships can't fire with particle ships up, here's the link to confirm it starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Particle_shield/Legends. second, i can't find any mention of point defense systems on a victory II class which would leave it extremely vulnerable to the halberd's archer missiles, each ship carries 1,560 missiles. Also, each halberd carries three Shiva-class Nuclear Missiles as part of its standard armament. the TIE fighters wouldn't be that much of a problem because A: their weapons are fairly weak, B: their armor is almost paper thin and C: each halberd is equipped with eight 50mm Point-defense guns. Finally, both halberd's are covered in two meters of Titanium-A battle plate, the reason covenant weaponry was so effective was the plasma torpedoes were past the titanium's melting point and I don't know if turbolaser bolts run that hot.
"star wars ships can't fire with particle ships up, here's the link to confirm it" did you read that quote? it says "The shield had to be deactivated to launch spacecraft such as shuttles or starfighters, or if a starship wished to fire its own _*projectiles*_". (emphasis mine) It can still fire its turbolasers fine, turbolasers aren't projectiles. also, if you're going to argue they have to lower them to launch fighters, they can just lower the shields over the hangar. "second, i can't find any mention of point defense systems on a victory II class which would leave it extremely vulnerable to the halberd's archer missiles, each ship carries 1,560 missiles." great. now how fast can it FIRE those missiles, and how much damage will they do? not fast enough, and not enough. "Also, each halberd carries three Shiva-class Nuclear Missiles as part of its standard armament. the TIE fighters wouldn't be that much of a problem because A: their weapons are fairly weak, B: their armor is almost paper thin and C: each halberd is equipped with eight 50mm Point-defense guns." TIE bombers carry thermonuclear-yield weapons, as per _Tarkin_ and the Return of the Jedi novelization. "Finally, both halberd's are covered in two meters of Titanium-A battle plate, the reason covenant weaponry was so effective was the plasma torpedoes were past the titanium's melting point and I don't know if turbolaser bolts run that hot." Dude, TIE's are made of Titanium, and they go down in literally one shot from even the lightest turbolasers. this point is absolutely nil, and if anything, it hurts you more than it helps you.
ok, I admit I missed the part about projectiles. but a victory doesn't carry any tie variants just tie fighters. When you look at the executor class it says "tie series starfighters" but for the victory, it just says tie fighters. TIE's are made of titanium but titanium-a is composed of a high-grade Titanium-50 alloy, specially strengthened at the molecular level vastly superior to regular titanium. for the archer missiles, the halberd's have 26 launchers each with 60 missiles and they can fire them all at once.
not really the wiki says that turbolasers struggle to hit starfighters let alone missiles. that's why point defense lasers are used instead. besides archer missiles are computer-guided to their targets and have no problem crippling or out right destroying covenant ships if the shields are down.
"but a victory doesn't carry any tie variants just tie fighters. When you look at the executor class it says "tie series starfighters" but for the victory, it just says tie fighters." while i admit that's true, TIEs in canon have Torpedo launchers, which probably have about atomic-range yield: starwars.wikia.com/wiki/TIE/ln_space_superiority_starfighter also, another thing to point out here is that a star cruiser brushed off these same thermonuclear bombs from TIE bombers like it wasn't that much, so the 6 nukes from the halberds almost certainly won't destroy the ship. "TIE's are made of titanium but titanium-a is composed of a high-grade Titanium-50 alloy, specially strengthened at the molecular level vastly superior to regular titanium." www.halopedia.org/Pulse_laser_turret 45 Cm Of Titanium-A can be burned through by one shot from kilowatt range lasers. That's absolutely pathetic, a hand grenade is hundreds of kilowatts, so even if this means hundreds of kilowatts, it's still only hand-grenade calibur. Turbolasers are well above Kilowatts. Even if you ask the most rabid Star Wars detractors, they'd say hundreds of megawatts (1 megawatt = 1,000 kilowatts) to a dozen Terawatts (1 Terawatt = 1,000 megawatts) or so. "the halberd's have 26 launchers each with 60 missiles and they can fire them all at once." each missile launcher can fire 60 missiles at once? I'm not sure i believe that...
Instead of having to relying on the Mac guns to take out the shields of the star destroyer at the start, I would have at least launched a Shiva nuke as a emp to weaken the shields while I then fire the Mac gun volley to damage the ship or at least fire more nukes and archer missiles towards the hangers to ground the ties
Realistically, your space battles are going to be taking place at hundreds of thousands of kilometers. It will be at a range where you are firing by sensors alone, and you can't actually see the enemy ship with your naked eye. This is something I have always had a problem with in sci-fi. I understand the need for the thematic element, but bearing this in mind, I don't think ANY of the Empire ships, or Star Wars ships in general, are actually built for space combat. They are designed to look good as a ship fighting on a two-dimensional plane, when space battles are going to be in reality hectic, three dimensional deserts with ships many hundreds of thousands of kilometers apart trying to take pot shots at each other. In this case, I don't see turbo lasers manned by actual humans, with some targeting computer or not, being able to hit anything at all out in space. Here in the 21st century, we already have artificial intelligence programs which run most of our vehicle-bound weapons platforms. The idea that every single ship in the Halo universe doesn't have it's own personal AI which runs all of the operations and weapons is frankly ludicrous. It's not that they're all going to have a Cortana-level of capability, but they should be present. The ONLY time you would likely have a battle anywhere closer than out-of-sight range is going to be around a planet, and even then I think the main battle will take place well away from the planet itself, out in the system before the invaders ever get anywhere near their target. After all, in a battle like the one you see over Coruscant in the Revenge of the Sith movie, what is to stop any of the ships turning their guns downward and laying absolute waste to the cities below? Very bad, tactically, to let the enemy get that close in the first place.
Lorewise they are, the reason they don't rely so much on AI is pretty simple: Ion cannons and ion torpedoes Those two weapons alone are enough to kill any AI, which is why is unreliable to trust ONLY on AI to run your system or weapons in Star Wars
@@troublemaker9899 First of all do some research about countermeasures and sensors on Star Wars wikis, second of all, AI driven weapons are suicidal against a ship that has many ion weapons (Victory 2 SD in this case because those are made specifically to disable every single system on a ship, and if all your gun batteries are run by AI and an ion cannon Shoots you, you are render defenseless against your enemy, that's why Star Wars ships still rely on gunners. On the other hand turbolasers do have a pretty good range, and can some can fire at a range of 10 lightspeed minutes, firthermore they have more than enough power to pierce most hulls, also projectile base weapons are useless against particle shields
@@alejandroelluxray5298 That doesn't preclude the existence of AI programs to run your targeting systems, it just means that you need to have manual backups.
@@troublemaker9899 which is why is logical having gunners running your weapons The reason of why Halo's universe doesn't follow that rule is because they do not run the danger of their AI being taken out by ion cannons since neither humans or Covenant have that kind of armament
we normal see in the games coming at the players in groups of 5. this consist of a grunt major (squad leader) and 4 minor grunts. minor grunts have a plasma pistol and plasma grenades. the major can have the needler from halo 1 so it explodes
I've got some good star ship versus ideas! *1.* 100 CR-90 Blockade Runners VS 1 Alligiance Star Destroyer *2.* Tyrant Heavy Missile Cruiser VS World Devistator *3.* Aclemator Class Assult Ship VS Nebulon B Frigate *4.* Droid Control Ship VS Scarif Shield Gate *5.* Tie Phantom VS Tie Defender *6.* T-800 Terminator VS IG-88 *7.* World Devistator VS Late Clone War Lukerhulk Droid Control Ship *8.* Victory 1 Star Destroyer VS MC-75 *9.* Abeloth VS Early DBZ Goku *10.* 1,000 Tie Defenders VS The Sun Crusher
@@Death-bd1tl weren't they both created to fail? Also I think the Republic would eventually win. The cost is high on both sides and the droids are made faster but are less effective than clones and thus, in a way, more costly than clones. With the banking clans under republic control half way through the war cost would likely hit the cis first. Since the outer rims do have more material wealth but not the trade structure without the core and banking clans. Also the republic already began making the first series of imperial star destroyers which were edging the space battles towards them and clones were more effective in ground battles since they could think and react without orders from higher up.
@@Death-bd1tl by designed to fail I dont mean outright. They were both designed to make the war last as long as palpatine needed it to. The republic army had giant glaring issues with their navy that was never fixed when it came to ship to ship combat. They were under powered carriers and not suited to combat the CIS in space warfare. The cis had far more weapons and carrier ability with their lukerhulks and providence. However the clone adaptation and free thinking suited them better for planetary combat. Any time the republic got ahead a blockaid around a few planets would cut those planets off from supplies and dwindle down the clones while at the same time any planet captured by the droids would be taken back by the more efficient clone ground troops. That's what I mean by the Sith designing both to fail.
Their best tactical option would be to split up? I think the opposite it true; by staying as close to each other as possible, they DO force the Imperial ship to split the fire of whatever weapons can be brought to bear; splitting the ships solves that problem for the Star Destroyer, and would let it put MORE firepower onto each of the attacking ships. Likewise, having both Halo ships firing from nearly the same position means that their combined fire will be impacting the same part of the SD's shields, which can only improve the chances of getting something through. I still think the SD would win, but that's no reason to make it easy for them.
AI controlled ramparts? they're basically 50mm CIWS weapons. the destroyers would chew the ties rather easily. macs also have substantially more power behind them than a rando asteroid. like they say in mass effect. newton is the deadliest SOB in zero G. the other thing is the victory's lack of PDCs. halberds proscribe to the all the missiles form of combat. so the multiple repeated impacts angle is also covered. the halberds also in theory enjoy something of a superiority in evasion. covenant weapons tended to be guided to some extent and halberds have been seen evading them. see unsc iriquois.(probably spelled that wrong) star wars on the other hand has something of a stagnation problem. their guns are still largely analog control. look how often over the movies we see ISDs missing targets that are flying flat and level at knife fight range. now translate that to a pair of halberds which even with dumb AI are going to figure out pretty quickly when the ISD blazes away with abysmal accuracy that its guns are analog, and extrapolate firing vectors for the turbo lasers as the ships engage in jinking flipping and various other hard burn ai controlled maneuvers. the halberd AI are actually the deciding factor here in my opinion. even as "dumb" AI they can out compute and outmaneuver the ISDs organic crew. typically ISDs are designed to win a ship of the line type fight with other similarly armed capital ships. where every body squares up and kicks the shit out of each other with turbo lasers. where do ISDs struggle? high speed maneuver warfare. the rebels consistently had better luck engaging ISDs with fighter strikes where the only real problem was the defending ties. care to guess which ships are accomplished turn and burn fighters? the same ones used for the famous keys loop. the halberds would see even more success than the rebels did. turbo lasers tend to be a punch weapon not the cutting beam of the covenant. so the halberds are likely to weather a few hits, and six nukes is six nukes. with the effects of ion weapons I'm guessing the ISDs aren't protected against EMPs. 1. the halberds scan the ISD and get a full report of suspected ability from the AI. 2. using the report the halberds coordinate their attack to hit the most vulnerable portion of the ship. 3. with AI controlled targetting the halberds consider the victory's ties as a marginal annoyance at best. both squadrons are butchered trying to close into range of their light blasters. what few shots they get off are easily tanked on the halberds thick plating. 4. the destroyers use there speed and agility to get behind and below the ISD. unfamiliar with their opponent the captains elect for the everything at the wall approach and empty everything into the victory's belly just forward of the engines. 5. 4 mac rounds in rapid succession deliver substantially more force than any number of asteroids. they either break or horrifically deplete the victory's particle shields. the following 1600 missiles and 6 nukes atomize what evers left and tear a massive ragged hole in the victory's belly. 6. the analog nature of the ISDs turbo lasers are causing problems. the rapidly moving and maneuvering halberds are unlike anything a victory was designed to face. what few hits do land tend to be glancing blows at best and the damage doesnt appear to be effecting the ships to substantially. 7. if the nukes havent fried every system in the ship then the ISD is still suffering from catastrophic damage. power fluctuates wildly, and the smaller ships have assumed near constant position behind and below the victory. 8. the halberds have recharged their macs and put an additional four shots into the ISDs gaping wound and now unprotected hanger. the only thing an ISD has ever encountered even remotely similar to a halberd might be the corvettes and blockade runners the rebels use. and those are often converted civilian ships with modest laser cannon armaments. remember most of star wars considers slug throwers to be primitive weapons. particle shields are more to protect against running into things than combat work. the shields designed to catch lasers are the more powerful ones as thats what every fleet in the galaxy is generally operating. and no rebel blockade runner carries the level of ordinance a halberd does. pitting a UNSC ship against a victory the way the empire fights is going to give the empire a win. forcing a victory to fight unsc ships fighting the way they're trained to? yeah victory's aren't designed to do that. spinal MACs essentially demand turn and burn fighting styles. especially if theirs no lynch pin fleet heavy to work off of. think less along the lines of UNSC fleet versus X covenant ship and more along the lines of iriquois stand against multiple covenant contacts. in a big fleet halberds are shackled somewhat by needing to stay in formation relative to the larger cruisers and carriers. but a pair of them working independently? thats an AI coordinated game of tag no ISD could hope to keep up with. star wars may be technically more futuristic but its also horrifically stagnant, naval engagements haven't changed substantially since the old republic era outside that one oddity during the clone wars era, and they still lined up to slug it out. UNSC naval engagements and star wars naval engagements are two entirely different games. And through AI the UNSC are palying a significantly more complicated one. ramble over.
This is one of those videos that while ok, isnt nearly as well thought out as it could have been. The glaring weakness of imperial ship designs dont need to be mentioned here. Titanium A battle plate is stronger than o feel its given credit for, doesnt mean the destroyers will just tank any damage they receive but they most certainly arent glass cannons. A single mac round may not penetrate a victories shields but you have more than one ship and while these universes dont always abide by the laws of physics the impact will not go totally unabsorbed. The UNSC destroyers are much faster and more maneuverable, and UNSC point defense systems are incredibly effective meaning most if not all of the victories missiles would likely be destroyed before reaching their target meaning the victories lasers/turbolasers will be the only weapons of use for it. Each unsc destroyer in addition to its macs (which each destroyer has TWO of) and excluding its nukes (of which each has 3) each ship boasts 26 archer missile pods. Slip space is much different than hyperspace and unsc ships/captains have perfected in systems jumps. Now its entirety possible that the UNSC ship captains would readily identify the victories weaknesses (doubtful considering the bridge layout is quite noticeable) or that the victory could catch them off guard destroying at least one of them thus making it that much harder for the second ship to contend with it. However the UNSC destroyers would significantly outrange the victory, allowing them to fire off at least 4 mac rounds before the victory has time to react or evade, and thanks to again the UNSC's incredible point defense systems the victorys longest range weapon systems would be effectively useless. If the engagement began at some distance the destroyers would win hands down. This isnt even considering that with a total lack of rear facing armerment that all the destroyers would have to do to destroy the victory would be to get behind it and stay there, something quite easy for a ship of their size, speed and maneuverability. If the victory were facing a standard unsc frigate or perhaps even a cruiser like the halcyon (which while extremely durable is lightly armed) the victory would likely win more often than not. There simply isnt any rational behind the victory winning here, not when your putting it up against not one but TWO ships that not only effectively outrange it and posses far superior point defense systems rendering the victories missile systems moot, but that are also smaller (and therefore harder to hit) more maneuverable, faster, and packing a similarly capable armerment.
Thank you mate, he does a lot of Halo vs Star Wars n consistently overlooks Halo facts giving Star Wars victory everytime. Halo would come out in front majority of the time.
He also stated that the MACs on the Halberd are weaker than a Frigates. One is a standard MAC, same type on most ships. The other is (depending on era, but he said modern UNSC so Gen 3) a Super MAC. The Super Mac as he stated in a UNSC vs the Reapers has the equivilant of 63 quintilitons of TnT. And these ships can fire a round a second. Hands down, SW loses, I don't care how many turbo lasers they have, we have em outranged and out powered with AI assisted targeting. (Think AI like Auntie Dot, don't need a smart AI like Cortana, but all UNSC ships do have a shipboard AI.)
Agree w/ u. There is also wolf-pack tactics, since these are 2 Halberd Destroyers. What's stopping the other one from going behind the Star Destroyer and nuke it?
No se puede estar seguro de que la defensa de punto logré interceptar los misiles incluso si son efectivos, los misiles de contución y torpedos de protones tienen escudos que los protejen de armas que los quieran interceptar, además de ser sumamente versátiles y ágiles, bastaría con un torpedo de protones para inhabilitar un cañón Mac, ya que el torpedo es capas de entrar en la boca del cañón. Incluso siguiendo lo que dice, es obvio que el victoria no se va a quedar viendo cómo le disparan con Mac.
I think that the best chance for the Halberd Destroyers is if they can get the nukes out quickly. The EMP caused by their detonation is potentially powerful enough to completely disable the Star Destroyer's shields. The Halberd Destroyers could then fire off the MAC rounds without having to worry about the shields.
Mate, 6 nuclear missiles and 4 Mac rounds is a lot of power. I don’t care what kind of shields a ship has, I honestly find it stupid that anything in science fiction can be hit with that in space and not be turned to plasma.
That's the problem with Star Wars, its fantasy with a little soft science to fill out the pages of the novels. Halo on the other hand is pretty 'hard' as far as science fiction goes. So there is a huge disconnect between the factions, cause Star Wars has everything-proof-shields and exist in a universe where physics doesn't matter, and space magic exist.
I think you may be giving the CIWS on the destroyers too little credit, like with the star destroyer's shots on the UNSC destroyers, a glancing blow on a TIE from a 50mm cannon would probably destroy it and definitely neutralise it, and when you consider rate of fire and computer guidance, the TIEs become more or less, a nuisance. That said, yes the MAC cannons would barely crack the shield at best and my guess is that the UNSC would also use their nukes to break the shields, at which point it is up to the archer missiles, not powerful, but numerous enough to at least dustup the normal firing sequence of the star destroyer. Something you mentioned, but did not use in the fight were the pelican dropships. You have said before that these can be configured into gunships. Pack a company of UNSC marines onboard one of those, and you have a raiding party, assuming the shields are down and the destroyers are lucky enough to have dodged the incoming turbolaser volleys and ion cannon blasts. All in all I'd still call it a star wars victory, but a 7 or 8 out of 10 this time
There were some other things he didn't consider as well, such as range and FTL. Ultimately though, the outcome likely would be the same. Victory can just take a hell of a lot more of a pounding then the Halberd can.
Ed Lippincott this discussion was had in the comments section of a previous video, to avoid any further conflict, without any atmosphere to buffer against the considerable shockwave and heat of a nuclear explostion, it is, in fact, more powerful, also, an EMP would come into play
Dodge turbolaser bolt? Hmm, at one blog I saw analysis of blaster and turbolasers bolts. Blasters for ground units travel at speed 50 to 250 m/s (blackpowder bullet traveled at least 250m/s ) with majority of shots at speed 75-100m/s. Those are small speeds. For turbolasers those speeds are like (90% of shots) up to 5000m/s or on more powerful vessels up to 35000m/s. So, as in this forum forums.spacebattles.com/threads/turbolaser-speeds.67811/ they state that at lower speed max range would be 28km, but at greater speed (around 100 000 kph) it would be like 280km. To contraty MAC round travels at speed of 30 000 m/s but its range is not limited by plasma diffusion. Yes, turbolasers are not lasers but similar to Halo plasma torpedoes (plasma in magnetic containment field). Also power of bolts from turbolasers degrades with distance, so at 280km they could not cause much damage. If Halberds would stay at distance over 280km and pound target with Archer missiles and MAC rounds (I think 8 shots would drop shields and cause damage). Oh, I forgot! MAC round, even single hit did penetrate shields on Covenant vessels but hit this vessel with reduced energy! Shields are not absorbing 100% of energy from kinetic projectile - to do so, you would have to use harmonic freq. equal to corresponding wavelenght of incoming projectile (at great speeds every object could be described as wave according to quantum mechanics, which can be applied from 1% of speed of light). So each hit would penetrate shield and cause some damage. If that happens, you could just point in the area of turbolaser turrets and damage them, then close range and finish this fight :) As per point defence of Halberd-class, well... in Halo: Reach, in Sabre fighter (it has energy shields) you got hit by one, then you are dead. Lets say that fighter with shields could get 2-3 shots before going down. Then 4 twin barreled M910 would be enough to fend off fighters. Wait 2x12 fighters... it means 24 shots to disable them, divide this to 4x2 projectals and you get how many single salvos is required to kill both squadrons if accuracy was 100% and that gives... 3 salvos! So, if we have accuracy at 20% this would mean 15 salvos. Let's double this! 30 salvos! That would take... 10 seconds at most... So that is how long it would take to kill all fighters ;) 10 seconds... and if Halberd has "smart AI" then I assume that TIE-fighters would not stand up to 5 seconds. Also remember that Cortana used Halcyon-class destroyed 12 Covenant ships (including seeral CCS-class) before having it's MAC disabled by boarding party. I would give Halberd also some credit - Keyes performed Keys Loop and destroyed RPV-class destroyer and 2 Covie frigates with single Halberd-class destroyer... oh, did I mention that he had no 'smart' or 'dumb' AI to assist him at that time? Imagine what would 'smart' AI do in that odds ;)
hey Eckhartsladder you forgot the halberds broadside cannons in the armament section and i should mention that newer macs fire rounds that are heavily electrified that assist with the penetration of capital ship shields, i just think that this may have made a difference, also for the battle i believe it would have been a bit different bc i think one halberd would have tried to get in close and underneath the victory to deliver a point blank assault bc of the halo universes omni directional space tactics. a good example would be the keys maneuver that was performed with the UNSC Iroquois. plus on last fact even though both were piloted by equally competent crew the unsc had a knack for spotting ship designs and layouts and i think this would have made a big difference bc most of the victorys weapon systems were very easy to spot on its dorsal hull making its ventral hull a handicap. but still loved the video
I believe the Halberds would win surprisingly easily. Between the two have six nuclear missiles, which cannot be intercepted by the Victory because it doesn't have any point defense systems. The nuclear missiles are enough to knock out the shields, which would then leave the reactor dome and shield generators unprotected. The shield generators could be easily knocked out by a barrage of Archer missiles. Because the Halberds are capable of firing the MACs at any range (it's space), they could fire at the reactor dome while still out of range of the Victory's main armaments. Since that whole process could take only a minute, the Ties would be about halfway to the Halberds, which at that point could just leave since the Victory would be crippled and probably calling in backup. Also, I don't think it would take six nukes to take the Victory's shields out, which could mean more devastation. At worst, one of the Halberds would be destroyed. Why didn't they use this strategy more often? Nukes and friendly fighters don't mix. how often do destroyers hang out solo?
They pretty much always use these tactics, why do you think they don't have fighters? The Halberds typically operates in groups of 4-6. And I only know of 2 times one operated alone. Once was a pseudo stealth refit investigating an Insurrectionist smuggling ring. And the other was the Unsc Iroquois, which was on a routine patrol when a nearby colony came under attack. Strangely both of them had future Captain Keyes as part of the command crew (as second (later first, the captain died) in command of the first vessel. And as commanding officer of the Iroquois. The second action is what earned him his promotion to Captain, and occurred shortly before (and is directly responsible for) the Battle of Reach.
Problem is just the massive gap in the scale... Our world strongest nukes are on lower power level than star wars capital ship turbolaser from star wars. And the heavy ships can take hundreds of turbolaser shots. So 4 or 8 nukes are like nothing to star wars shielding. Star Wars is just absurd. It doesn't make sense to compare something which is trying to look somewhat realistic with star wars or WH40k. These universes are just crazy, inconsistent and absurdly over the top with its technology and power. For example single max power blaster bolt from e-11 hand held blaster is about 70 kg of tnt with much faster effect (yeah, surviving this doen't make any sense but this is its power against material in movies) but without the explosion. And even star fighter weapons goes into the range of small nukes. So yeah Star Wars is crazy overpowered in sense of energy.
@@marektoufar9690 The Halo universe is no stranger to ridiculous numbers either. The orbital defense macs supposedly fire a 3 thousand ton tungsten rod at 25%the speed of light for a 300 gigaton yield. About the same as a single shot from a heavy turbolaser. They used the wrong math thou and the yeald (for the MAC) should be much higher. And the math for the turbolaser comes from a Legends novel. Edit: oh and for comparison, the largest nuke ever detonated irl (the Tsar Bomb) had a approximate yield of 200 KILOtons.
Do some Gundam matchups! -Gundam Wing Zero Custom vs Imperial Star Destroyer -RX-78 Gundam vs AT-AT -Zeon Forces at their height vs. Imperial Fleet at Endor (minus Star Destroyer II)
I believe that the Halberds would be able to take on the SD. One very simple reason, mentioned in this video; Halberds are made for hit-and-run tactics. SDs are made to slug it out with larger ships. If the Halberd captains are smart, they can use their superior speed and maneuverability to wear down the SD, and close in for the kill when it's weakest. The same methodology was used against the US army in Vietnam. Further evidence, look at the primary opponents of the two contestants. The UNSC are used to fighting a technologically superior enemy in the Covenant. Conversely, the Galactic Empire has trouble dealing with the Rebel Alliance. Since the UNSC is essentially Viet-cong when it comes to space combat, SD captains will have an extremely tough time forcing them into a stand-up fight. A good captain acknowledges the strengths and weaknesses of his ship, and always keeps that in mind in any engagement. The best option for the two Halberd captains would be to constantly 'wolf' the SD; have one ship draw it's attention, then have the other target weak points and critical systems. Then once the SD focuses on the second Halberd, the Halberds switch roles.
Yes, the UNSC Halberd captains are very smart, so I don't think they'd even take the risk of fighting an enemy that large without more help! I could see two trying to delay a Victory-II class with long range MAC shots while waiting for reinforcements, but not much else unless Star Wars shields proved ineffectively weak. The TIE Fighters aren't much compared to what the Covenant has, but a Star Destroyer is as huge.
Eyharts Ladder also said both crews were equally skilled... I think the UNSC has higher standards of skill while the Empire mostly values loyalty to Palpatine. He also seems to ignore range too much... though with different units of measurement and conflicting sources, I shouldn't blame him as much.
Also with UNSC mastering in system jumps as soon as the first ship is focuses it will jump out of harms way. Rinse and repeat.
Also aren't the nukes more than enough to disable the victory's shield?
@@eliogabbalo0965 Possibly... I'm not sure how the EMP would compare to an Ion Cannon. With the size and tech disadvantages, it's hard to imagine only two ships winning without superior crews to out think the Star Destroyer. If Spartans were allowed it would be a fairer fight, whether as a boarding party or pilots... but with the crews being equally skilled, the UNSC's worst probably couldn't figure out how to use their equipment any more effectively than a Storm Trooper whom hits their head marching down a corridor!
Star Wars Legends fanboys would probably insist it would take both ships detonating all their nukes at the same time just to disable the shields for a few seconds, then Halo could barely scratch the armor before it's back online. After all, fantasy Hyper Matter annihilation is a lot more powerful than the realistic fusion reactors we could perfect in a few centuries.
@@christopherschmeltz3333 or we can just use a nova bomb because you know its op as fuck
"Its weird to put imperial and victory in the same sentance" Me: Am I the only one that got the joke?
I was like did he just roast the empire😂🤷🏻♂️
Vice Admiral Cole vs Grand Admiral Thrawn.
Thel 'Vadam
Yess!!
I NEED IT
Hey that was my suggestion don't take it look on the discord on the suggestion section
Thel 'Vadam You have a really great idea for a video. Thank you for thinking about it and posting it for all to see! :)
Thel 'Vadam No.
I think the only thing I would like to point out is that with a total of 6 nuclear weapons at their disposal, each of which generate electromagnetic pulses, which ships in star wars seem to be particularly prone to, that said a nuclear weapon is one of the first things that the ships would use in such a situation, regardless of their knowledge of the ship
Alex Rubey pretty much. If I recall correctly, then the first thing that's said before a battle is 'prepare a Shiva'.
I'd like to point out that a large part of an emp blast is created by interaction with the atmosphere. Source: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse
I will concede that the nukes still probably do massive damage, even without an emp.
julius mikala You really shouldn’t concede that though because of the empire strikes back asteroid scene where the ships and their shields were taking asteroid hits far more powerful than nuclear bombs.
@@masonkiefer1222 because that's IMPACTdamage not taking into account of any other type of damage
Nukes can only generate an EMP in high atmosphere, e.g. they need some air to create one. In pure empty space, no EMP would be generated. Read the Wikipedia page on Nuclear EMPs and how they are generated for proof.
I have to point out that fighters are actually a huge disadvantage for the Victory. Want to know why? In Star Wars, ships have to let down their particle shields to release fighters (otherwise the fighter would impact the inside of the shield). Now, against an opponent that heavily relies on alpha-striking (UNSC ships) this is a terrible idea. Whether a UNSC AI could properly exploit that or not is up for debate, but I don't think a Victory-II is going to want to tank a nuclear missile or MAC round without particle shields up.
Yes, try shooting down a missile going at twice the speed of sound. That's a pretty normal speed for an anti-ship missile in the modern era in atmosphere. Archer missiles are 24th century weapons for use in space, where there is no air resistance. A human-aimed point defense laser (or perhaps light turbolaser) isn't going to hit that in a million years, even if you assume Star Wars laser travel at the speed of light, which they clearly do not.
Scythe Seven they only only have to drop shields over the fighterbays. In the books Thrawn used a manoeuvre where he turned the ship's hanger away from the enemy so the top of the star destrouer faced them and he could safely launch fighters while under fire.
That's a "maneuver?" You'd think that would be standard operating procedure. It would be a really stupid weakness to projectile weapons any other way. Not that the Empire has ever shied away from glaringly obvious stupid weaknesses.
Scythe Seven Well, usually the SDS just quickly drop all the forgers out of the hanger whilst moving towards the enemy since the engagements usually start off at some distance. Thrawn chose to do it that way because the engagement was starting much closer
Its up against two destroyers both of which would have veteran crews who have seen actual combat against a superior enemy that would eat the Victory II Star Destroy for a snack . And they survived that kind of enemy for 30 years .. The Imperial Navy crews are used primarily for policing the empire using sheer numbers and fear as their weapons. In this match up even if we assume that both crews are equally skilled . The UNSC crews have two advantages the first being actual combat experience. The second being there are two ships vs 1 ship . That means were is the Victory II crew going to maneuver to avoid both ships which don't have to stay together . Ie they are using a tactical advantage . Its most likely for one ship to fire at the Victory from one direction getting its attention while the other maneuvers into a position behind it meaning the minute those hanger bays open and the 24 Tie fighters are released either one of two things is going to happen either those hangers are going to take a direct hit from two MAC rounds and several hundred missiles or if available the UNSC will remote pilot a few Longsword fighters with 50-100 megaton nuclear missiles onboard directly into those hanger bays and boom there goes part of the ship and the shields start to loose power. follow that with several MAC rounds and more missiles and the ship no longer exist.
Lego Obi Wan vs Mega Bloks Masterchief
Alex Mauney ha ha
That's a really good idea guys!!! Let's like this comment!!!!!!!!!!
EPIC !!!
Yeah i need this
Lego always beats Master Blocks.
Thanks for watching guys! If you wanna vote on future videos, join the Discord! discord.gg/3jbNnaK
Also, follow me on twitter! twitter.com/Eckhartsladder
Wraith (Stargate) vs Galactic Empire (Star Wars)
BC-304 Daedalus-Class Battlecruiser (Stargate, Post-Unending, No ZPM & With ZPM) vs Imperial Escort Fleet (Star Wars)
BC-304 USS Daedalus (Stargate, Pre-Unending, No ZPM) vs SSV Normandy SR-2 (Mass Effect)
Can the Reaper Invasion from Mass Effect 3 take the UNSC controlled Earth from Halo 2, 3, & ODST?
yes
Would love to see some stargate 'verse matchups.
With no prep time, yeah, Reapers take pre-war UNSC, but they can put up a solid fight. Mid-war UNSC though (Halo 2, 3), they'd fall very fast. By that time the UNSC barely has any fight capability.
yay! im not the only one that wants to see some stargate get in on this action
Definitely would want too see one of these matchups, maybe not Daedalus vs Normandy tho
Something you forgot to place in the battle. Wolfpack tactics where used because they work to great effectiveness. More than likely if they saw the star ship before it saw them they would lead it into an ambush. Using the nukes and mac's the battle would be decided in a few seconds. Then it would just be cleaning up any fighters. If both see each other the halo ships would again use their nukes to great effectiveness. Do not forget that a nuke produces an elector magnetic pulse. In space the range of one of these is massive. Giving the same effect as the hoth ion cannon the star wars ship would be defenseless. The ship board AI would be able to find the bridge in a matter of seconds and on shot from just one mac would decide the battle. The only way dreadnaughts like this would come out on top would be if they all started in range of each others primary weapons. In that case there is a high probability that at least on the of halo ships would be disabled or destroyed before having a chance to outmaneuver the enemy.
I feel like the TIEs would be shredded by automated defenses. Not that would help much.
I do feel that if they did manage to pop the Victory's sheilds (probably with the nukes), they could just ram MAC slugs through the Victory's bridge, her engines, her reactors, with more or less impunity.
Top 5 Super Weapons in all Sci-Fi
For example:
Death Star
Halo Rings
Reality Bomb (Doctor Who)
Minton good idea I will support you
Jonathan Pirolo cheers man.
cheers
Minton annihilargg (ben 10) :D
Nasheed Lyrics I’m not familiar with it but sounds cool
If I were the commanding officer of the lead Halberd, I'd launch a full volley of Archer missile pods to force the SD to disperse it's weapons fire and make it try to track and destroy the incoming missiles. At the same time flank the SD around its ventral and dorsal areas.
Then launch a second volley when I reach my destination to give me time to align my MAC weapons.
I'll try to keep rolling and keep the TIEs between my two ships crisscrossing point defense fire.
I'll launch simultaneous strikes with both MAC weapons. 4 simultaneous hits with MAC rounds going 5580mi/sec should ring the SD's bell or severely wound it.
That’s a pretty good strategy and would probably work.
A couple of things, When you said at the end that the victory is made for ship to ship combat, so are the UNSC destroyers.
1)-Although the victory II Star Destroyer is relatively more powerful, it is poorly designed. The shield generators, the bridge, and the reactor dome are exposed. Although your assumption that a single MAC shot can not destroy/pierce the shields of a Victory II is logical, It is very likely that the Victory II will have recoil against the MAC wherever it hits- Although no real damage, the Victory II and it's crew are certain to feel an impact.
2)-I think a single MAC shot to one of the shield generator domes will be enough to take out that shield generator, as the exposed generators have been noted to be a weakness of the Star Destroyer line thus a common target. a fact which has been exploited by the rebel alliance. When 1 of the shield generators go down, The Star Destroyer is in a lot of trouble, and rightfully so- It's shield will collapse.
3)- Although constant turbolaser fire can kill an unshielded ship pretty quickly. I think you underestimate the armor of the UNSC, especially the Halberd-Destroyer. Although pre/mid war UNSC ships did not have shields, their ships, for the most part, made up for it in armor. DuraSteel is known to be stronger than conventional steel, yet weaker than titanium. The UNSC use Titanium-A plating, which is reinforced Titanium. By extension, this means that the UNSC has better armor that SW, especially for the Halberd, which you stated has heavy armor. UNSC armor is very effective against kinetic weapons, which the turbolaser is a mix between kinetic and heat. Unfortunately and obviously for the UNSC, this high kinetic resistance didn't matter much during the Covenant War.
Conclusion: My opinion would be that this match would be closer to a tie than a victory for the..well, uh Victory.
Love the videos! Keep it up!
"DuraSteel is known to be stronger than conventional steel, yet weaker than titanium." that little peice of evidence you have there is from a mobile tower defense game's tech tree. It's blatantly contradicted by Rebels, Clone wars, quite a few canon novels, and The Force Awakens. TIE's are made of Titanium BTW, and they suck in star wars.
Except Star Wars: Galactic Defense is also currently canon. so that means the sturdiness of Durasteel, like the turbolaser, are in question due to narrative discrepancies between writers.
game MECHANICS should never be treated as canon to any franchise If gamemechanics are canon, then A-wings have no shields (false), Cr-90's can be destroyed by one shot from a TIE fighter (false) Fighters are 50 meters long (false) and blasters completely vaporize people, but only a few seconds after they have already been killed. I would have no problem if you bring up a CUTSCENE from a canon game, but in this case, especially since it's directly contradicting pretty much all other forms of canon, it is to be treated as false.
Alright, fair enough. But then again the sturdiness of the Halberd's armor is still underrated. 2 meters (~6 feet/ slightly taller than the average person) of Titanium-A armor. UNSC armor is very kinetic resistant. Since the turbolaser is a mix between kinetic and heat, The armor of the destroyer is likely to withstand a decent amount, but not too much, turbolaser fire before systems get damaged. Even if the turbolaser were entirely plasma based, a couple shots of a turbolaser would likely not do much.
Turbolasers will likely not due much, because even though UNSC armor melts when facing off against plasma-based weaponry, the fact they melt so easily against the covenant is due to the fact covenant ship-based weaponry use EXCESSIVE amounts of plasma (The Energy Projector/ *Plasma* Lance is the prime example of this)
Although pre/mid war UNSC ships do not have shields, they partially make up for it in terms of armor strength/durability.
www.halopedia.org/Pulse_laser_turret
These weapons are only in the kilowatt range, and yet they can melt through 45 cm of Titanium-A. that armor stands no chance against turbolasers, which are in the terawatts (literally billions of times more powerful than "kilowatt range"), or hundreds of gigawatts (hundreds of millions of times more powerful than Kilowatts) at the very least.
Donnager Class Battleship versus Halberd class destroyer. They have similar tech levels, weaponry and size so it would be a cool matchup
The battle of bigger rail/coil guns vs more destructive missiles (although the usually useless Archer missiles might do something for once)
I'd probably give it to the Halberd. It's designed several hundred years after the Donnager, and masses significantly more for one. (Donnager is 250,000 tons "dry weight" while a Halberd is 1.8 million tons. The Halberd may actually have more armor in mass than the Donnager as a whole!) So probably significantly better computer systems, automation, and far more weaponry. And nothing the Donnager has in weapons is unfamiliar to the UNSC. Besides, UNSC warships seem to generally do fine against other human warships like they were originally designed to fight...
IMO, The Expanse's basic setting looks like it could be similar to the UNSC in the 23rd Century, before FTL, when they were locked into colonizing the different parts of the solar system.
bldude2 but the Donnager has been confirmed to fight at thousands of kilometers
NuclearBowlerHat The Donnager's PDCs and railguns are listed as
bldude2 well the torpedoes were their primary method of engagement, and (I almost forgot) the Donnager has two bombers like the Rocinante
While you do have a point that particle shields were shrugging off asteroids, those asteroids were not traveling at a percentage of the speed of light. They were floating and being pushed aside by the particle shields like a plow. They weren't designed to stop objects going 3% the speed of light which is 5,580 miles per second. That's many times faster than the armor piercing concussion missiles we've seen used against armored hulls on ships in star wars. Since the SD doesn't have anti-snubfighter capabilities, it's that much more vulnerable to volleys by Archer missiles as well.
Since UNSC ship armor can take up to several hits by plasma weapons from the covenant, and Turbo lasers are essentially plasma weapons, I'd rate the Halberds survivability a little higher. Also, Halberd do have point defense weapons, they can roll ship to keep vulnerable points protected from TIE fighters.
i say this every time
big, semi-hollow asteroids going very slow made of rock with pockets of various materials is nothing like a smaller, solid, dense mass projected at very high speeds. it's like comparing those riot beanbag rounds vs a shotgun slug. especially if all 4 shots were aimed in the same spot and aimed at the bridge area. and we see energy from shots still having an effect on parts of the ship hit so even if they are all stopped, with the kinetic energy of all that hitting the same spot, the people on the bridge are not going to be getting up anytime soon and i can very well see damaged systems on the bridge.
Dark Helmet Vs Darth Vader
your right m8 and together we can spam the comments
@MonolithEnforcer I would think Anakin Skywalker had his schwartz burned off before becoming Darth Vader... LOL
The problem with turbolasers being under the gigaton-range is that it would make the Death Star weapon and power-generation system hundreds of thousands of time more efficient than the one of a standard destroyer, even accounting for the difference in volume, despite being based on the same technology (namely an hypermatter-reactor) and developed by the same organisation.
chris pearson a massive technological leap who was fully made using imperial-era technologies, materials and scientists. And the point still stand, hypermatter-annihilation reactors and superlasers were not new, just vastly upscaled for this occasion, which, in itself is a pretty big technological feat already.
Nobody can pretend with a straight face that a society would or could multiply the efficiency of all of its main technologies by a million in the space of two decades without any exterior aid. It would be like if a civilization leaped from horses to nuclear power in a generation, and even then, a turbolaser shot would still be worth hundreds of megatons. In order to compare to halo, it would have to be well under that.
And frankly, current canon can f*ck off.
The Halberd was actually around the same size as standard UNSC frigates of the time. It had much greater mass, however, due to the increase in armour and weapon systems.
"It's a little confusing when you have imperial and victory in the same sentence" lmao I love you more than ever now xD
1. Stargate SG1 Replicators vs. Star Wars Galaxy
2. BC-304 USS Odyssey w/o ZPM (Stargate) vs. EF76 Nebulon-B escort frigate
3. GateShip AKA Puddle Jumper (Stargate) vs. X-wing starfighter
Odyssey after Unending? If so, then at least it'll have the Asgard Plasma Beams & upgraded shields.
lol Gateship good one
gATeShIp can easily destroy an X-Wing with a drone.
direct hit with a havoc nuke, to an unshielded victory II is definitely a confirmed kill.
Hey eckharts what about the nukes ??? Couldn't they play a role
Kingx Kai117 no nukes are nerfed in star wars look at the expanded universe
panda god then turbo lasers are nerfed on the Halo universe. Boom.
Daenon Janis turbo lasers were never featured in the Halo universe. Panda said that because nukes were featured in the Star Wars universe.
Zeh Crazy Gamer Yeah, nukes are really strong in Halo
A Vietnamese Flashback It's a not effective way of dealing damage, actually. In space nukes are much weaker than in atmosphere, due to inverse square law
every unsc ship have a dediceded ai
Yo Eckharts, can we get a rematch video on this?
Behemoth class Battlecruiser vs Venator Star Destroyer
I will never give up!!!!!!!!!!!
AT-AT vs A6 Clone juggernaut tank
Dark trooper vs clone commando
Corperate tank alliance droid vs the clone tank(the one you can play in in Star Wars battlefront 2 2005)
The Juggernaut wins against the AT-AT, no doubt
@@alejandroelluxray5298 What about an AT-AHT or an Elite AT-AT
You should start a series where commanders are given equal ships from their faction and it's the admirals or captains who we are looking at. May I recommend Grand Admiral Thrawn vs admiral Hood in fleets of approximately the same power.
Imperial Royal guard vs elite honour guards (star wars vs halo 2) or the first order vs the banished (ground battle or 3 ships each) due to banished small navy
Also really enjoy these bids and glad you take everything into account like the bs range values for both ships
Resolution class battleship (wh40k) vs executor class ssd
Okay, you have done this in every single video with the UNSC vs star wars thus far. You always say that the Empire's weapons are better. No, no they are not. The one thing you seem to constantly overlook is the range. UNSC missiles (something you also omit from the UNSC armament for no discernible reason) are guided munitions and are launched as the primary weapons anti-ship weapon, with the MAC only being used to crack hardened targets. Turbolasers are dumb-fire plasma bolts, which cant change flight path like Covenant Plasma weaponry. Engagement ranges would favor the UNSC here, as missiles can be fired from outside a Turbolasers effective range. Judging from what we see in almost all Starwars media, the Star Wars Galaxies point defense is laughable at best. I mean how many fighters do we really see ever actually get shot down by them? The UNSC would easily be able to heavily damage any starwars vessel with missile fire from outside the Empire's Turbolaser combat ranges before closing to MAC range, if even needed at all.
agreed with you... the only thing star wars is good at is the "technobabble" (that they endorse star trek with) when it comes to weaponry, as UNSC ships are way used to fight plasma weapons (wich should be more energetic than near-plasma turbo"lasers"), while the star wars universe never fights electric cannons (MACs)... In star wars, the only thing "particle shields" can counter is missiles, asteroids in average quantity and possibly fighters, while they never encountered weapons that fire projectiles overcoming projectile speeds of over 14km/s, wich is way faster than anything star wars can show us...
Even if the victory was able to deflect the MAC shell before it pierces the shield, it's massive inertia will be transfered to the ship, wich will be knocked around, forcing the "destroyer" to redirect energy to stabilise the ship, so that the manually controlled weapons (who thought it was a good idea) can fire without making the gunners sick due to spinning; overall, even inferior ships, if in sufficient numbers...
Star wars is not technologically superior to the unsc, a turbolaser is a mere human naval cannon scaled up and put on a ship, with the shell replaced by some pretty fluorescent green light...
Besides, star wars is not so advanced, it's just that their world's physics are different, and laughable for scientists, while halo keeps a bit of realism...
Anyways, star wars TIE fighters are no use, as point defence will squash them anyways.
Shit, with this comment, I might bring butthurt star wars no-life wankers with an ego problem that will do the dumbest things to try to prove wrong...
I like star wars, but bear in mind it's space FANTASY, like warhammer 40k, and not science fiction...
Also, I hate those combats who overlooks some aspects like the missiles and nukes to only focus on a meme gun platform vs two mobile MAC guns; it's unfair and sill...
Nanomachines Son! Those missiles won't do shit against their shields. Actually no, I take that back. They might, but I'm sure there aren't enough to crack em. Star wars turbo lasers are far more powerful than conventional missiles. And said lasers are computer controlled. They won't miss.
+ragemonkey117 but they aren't computer controlled, they are manned...
Each ship has 28 archer missile pods which are described as carrying 30 missiles a piece. That's 840 Archer missiles (not gonna count the 6 Shiva Class Nuclear missiles they have) which were described as being able to inflict critical damage on a UNSC vessel with only 1 hit. They were rendered a low threat due to the covenant mainly due to the fact the covenant had incredibly advance point defense systems. Now ask yourself this, when was the last time in Star Wars you actual saw a point defense system shoot anything down. Judging by how we see imperial star destroyers being destroyed by flying through an asteroid field, im gonna say that actual, purpose built, anti ship weaponry would be able to do at bare minimum comparable damage. Discounting 840 anti ship missiles like that seems like a horrible conclusion to reach. Also, star wars turbolasers are manned for some unknown reason.
be careful with the asteroid scene, some haters might use that to say things that weren't depicted in the movie, like it already stayed there for weeks and was being pounded by too many asteroids and blah blah
that said, even a SSD's point defence can't destroy an A-wing flying in a straight position, and due to the mentionned very low PD systems on a victory class, they literally have no chance
I can't believe a victory's shield can resist 840 missiles and 6 nukes... mosly if an ISD get destroyed by some asteroids (wich is the #1 reason why all ships are supposed to have some sort of point defence anyways, because without a powerful one, you're dead...)
So yes, as usual, star wars doesn't deserve the win... here, mostly because they have no PD to speak of, and that's for all of their ships...
To be honest, that comment was not even close to star wars facts, as turbolasers are manned stations, wich makes them very innacurate when fighting constantly moving targets that basically "kite" them...
If the DDs could get the jump and attack at the rear of the victory and go guns blasing ramming speed with the nukes duck-taped to the very front of the ship to use as an explosive battering ram. I say the could do it. I mean UNSC is used to "unconventional" methods against superior foes :D
they don't need the nukes just a slipspace transition.
The destroyers go behind the VSD and dump their nukes, and RUN LIKE HELL. Boom, job done.
@@richardscepton3114
Particle shields: Oh, I don't think so
The Milano(Guardians of the Galaxy)VS The Millennium Falcon (Star Wars)
Falcon, it has the most plot armor.
I've not even gotten past the ad yet, but I'm so happy you made another starship versus, I've watched every single episode and I started watching when you made your first one. Love the channel keep it up my man
+BACON DAVID :)
+BACON DAVID :)
love your vs videos, i think a good match up would be Vader's Super Star Destroyer vs Oryx's Dreadnought from the video game Destiny
I think the halberd would win as their high mobility would allow them to get under the Victory and hit its vulnerable underside, I think that 1 would get disabled as it tried to get under, but once they are under they would only be under threat from the small fighter complement, I’d give the fight to the halberds as it’s other weapons would be sufficent to protect it from the fighters of the Victory
UNSC Infinity vs Star Wars Malevolence Heavy Cruiser (from the Clone Wars)
So Necro Post.
The Victory II Star Destroyer is very ineffective for its size. We are talking a massive ship with very small guns with a very short range. The halberd easily has a larger main cannon compared to the SD with a larger range to boot. The SD is a sitting duck without the firepower to defend itself against a properly designed capital ship like we see with alot of UNSC ships.
I can understand the reasoning, but I will always think halo ships are better. Star Wars ships are designed to look good, halo ships are designed to fly through hell itself 100 times over and bring the entire crew home safely. While not always successful, they just inspire me more. UNSC PRIDE! HALO FOR LIFE!
Conner Ambrose Don't ever say that again. It is horribly annoying.
TECK3
Yeah I agree , Halo is love Halo is life
lol nice
TECK3 I don't think so. The Imperial Star Destroyers are some of the most powerful front line ships in all of science fiction. Meanwhile UNSC ships are unshielded and can barely handle a glancing blow from a plasma torpedo. If you know anything about the UNSC Navy you would know that. And before you scream "WUT BOUT DA MACS" keep in mind that the MAC guns, while powerful, have to be aimed by moving the entire ship. And Covanant ships have been said to easily move out of the way of said rounds. I love Halo and Star Wars but I will always take Star Wars ships over any of Halo' s.
Ragemonkey117 I am well aware of all those facts, and I do take them into account. Do keep in mind that I did not make that post with actual capability in mind. I was thinking in terms of style and appearance. I my opinion, UNSC ships are simply more practically designed. If you were to replace UNSC technology with Star Wars technology, and keep the basic structure of the ship, I do believe you would have a mighty competitor for the Imperial Star Destroyer. Plus, if the last bit isn't an indication, I'm clearly bias towards Halo, so don't worry too much about my opinion.
Halberds launch every missile they have, nukes last. Time their MAC shots to hit the SD right after the last missile impact. Failing penetration, maneuver to behind the SD and shoot at its engines. If that doesn't work, run.
MC90 Star Cruiser vs Nebula Class Star Destroyer
A bit of a departure from the norm: Caesar's Legion vs the Dothraki horde
This is a tough one because I don't think we have much canon information on how well Star Wars weapons deal with heavily armored, but unshielded vehicles as well as anti-ship ballistic weapons. The UNSC ships had a very large amount of armor. One thing we typically see from sci-fi is that ships tend to get a bit lax with conventional armor once they develop effective shielding, and we've seen unshielded acclamators take turbolaser shots from Munificents and Providences and keep on trucking. Also, I think Archer Missile Pods are undervalued, especially in an anti-fighter role. I seriously doubt that even several squadrons of Tie Fighters would survive long enough to do damage when they have hundreds of missiles coming towards them.
All star wars ships are heavily armored in conjunction with their shields. Also, TIE bombers Carry thermonuclear yield weapons, as per the size of craters made by the old republic bombers in _Tarkin_, and as per the mention of "thermonuclear fireworks" in the Return of the Jedi novel.
@@yourewrong9028 Tell that to the bridge crew of the Executor.
Josh Adams it was through the viewport, but fair enough, if a MAC hits a viewport it’ll puncture.
Great video as always! I'd still love to see the Battlestar Galactica versus the Pillar of Autumn
1 Imperial-class star Destroyer and 1 Imperial Quasar Carrier with tie fighters and tie bombers VS 1 Wraith Have Ship
You can win the battle by going under that star destroyer and using the missiles
Fr
Harrower Class Dreadnought VS Venator Class Star Destroyer
venator is way better than victory as it carries quality fighters with shields and a hell of a lot of em.
Thyre Radim Victory?
UA-cam can try but i will see every video. I look for your new content daily! Keep up the amazing work!
+Toggle Fire that is my dude!
Bellator class SSD vs a Mediator class star cruiser
I WILL NEVER GIVE UP!!
Also, isn't the whole point of the VSD that it has a large number of missle pods which would be very effective against the unshielded Halberds
Alexander Rogers VSD II traded missiles for more turbolasers
I case that makes sense
Depend on source VSD II have less or none missile tubes.
bellator vs mediator!!!!!!!!!! or mandator III vs mediator as the mandator III is well armed
wouldn't the nukes be able to take down the VSD 11 becuase it has very very weak shields.
Still here and backing you man, keep up the good work!!
Protoss high templars vs jedi
darth vader High templars win 80+% of the time the Jedi is out classed
I'd love to see that! I'm going with Protoss
1v1 or against multiple Jedi?
darth vader high temps only have a chance if feedback will work
High Templar all the way
"I'm kidding. There's no need for any Countdown whatsoever."
More Stargate!
Could the Empire survive a Wraith invasion?
EckhartsLadder you covered almost every argument for both sides that I have see. fantastic job
m41a pulse rifle vs E11 blaster
your content is definetly getting better, i wouldnt worry about the dip in current views, im betting with football starting and school that may be a reason why, the only advice i would give is to upload earlier in the morning. allowing more people to watch it throughout the day. Best of Luck!!!
I love watching your videos but in so many halo vs SW you always forget or sidetrack the range advantage of the UNSC. They can pepper the shield any SW ship before it can even fire back. And you don’t account for the UNSC AI that provides pin point accuracy (AI’s are in every UNSC ship). I think it would be like 6-4 SW wins just bc I believe it can 2-3 shot each USNC destroyer
Not every UNSC ship has a 'smart' AI (or even a 'dumb' AI, although a destroyer nlt having at least a 'dumb' AI would be unusual) (especially frigates, very few of those would have had a 'smart' one). They are simply too expensive. But destroyers did have a fairly high chance (depending on the mission and stage of the war) to have a 'smart' AI.
you are doing the lords work eckhartsladder! keep it up!
USS Vengeance (Star Trek) vs BC-304 Daedalus (Stargate) both with full capabilities
TheRevyFilms
BC-304 Daedalus class battlecruiser wins
why?
TheRevyFilms
The BC-304 posses better weaponry, armor, shields, speed, maneuverability, sensors, and has two F-302 Squadrons.
The Vengeance may be Star Fleet's most advanced and power warship, but it couldn't stand a one on one battle with the Narada.
The BC-304 has both Asgard/Atlantean technologies who are more advanced than Star Fleet.
+Joseph Santos Ok i'm not so sure about shield's but the weaponry on Vengeance is highly advanced capable of penetrating a ships shield with a focused barrage of shots and the same can be said for Daedalus's beam weapons, and the Enterprise is faster than the Daedalus and knan himself said Vengeance is three times faster than the Enterprise so no question the Vengeance has more maneuverability.. as for technology more advanced? idk even know how you can rule that out? I'd imagine the Vengeance was intertwined with alien tech, and the hull..Come on? we saw the Vengeance blow up from the inside with little damage, fall from orbit and crash against the planet and still mostly intact. Pretty sure it can take a few hits and as for 303s Daedalus only holds what six or eight? I think the Vengeance could handle that.. Also Vengeance can fight in warp, that's when I'd imagine a ZPM comes into play
16 302s dunno much about the vengeance not into trek but bc 304 with a zpm is kinda insane. i would say run first without it and if its one sided bloodlust the bc 304 with a zpm
Gotta give it to the hailberds two v 1
Dalek Emperor’s Flagship vs Entire Galactic Empire
daleks suck, lose even to me! II rape doctor who in the ass.
+DRapior Sure NOT.
I think you're probably right about the final result, and I know you said that you were ignoring skill, however I do think that it is worth mentioning that the UNSC is very used to fighting a technologically superior enemy. This, whilst not enough to flip the result would IMO make it a bit closer.
Third try
IMC from Titanfall vs the Galactic Empire
Star Commander I think that goes to the empire
UNSC vs IMC would be more fair
Or a titan vs atat
Pat Fuwell thatd be an interesting one I’d have to go with the titan there
Pat Fuwell I think a titan vs 2 atdp’s or 3 atst’s would be a more fair match. The reason why is because of the atat was facing the titan it would easily destroy the titan with a few shots but if the titan was on the sides or rear of the atat it could just keep firing and outmaneuvering the atat until it’s destroyed
put a mac to the overexposed and unprotected shield emmitter, and BOOM victory royale.
like they destroyed these before with light X-Wing fire. i am sure a Mac would obliterate that one. also the overexposed Bridge and Reactordome would make prime targets to shoot
The Arbiter Vs Chewbacca
Dr Draconian
Easy Kill
Dr Draconian arbiter will tear him in half
William Isaacson I assumed you meant H3/5 Arbiter.
Not sure if this was a recent change but the Halberd actually carried 4 plalicans and 2 squadrons of Nandao space fighters (10 - 20 fighters) I know this video is 4 years old but after a quick look in the comments I didn't see anyone mentioning this
CCS Battle cruiser vs imperial 2 star destroyer
I think he has said that a CCS would likely be able to take out a ISD-2 in his Covenant vs Empire video.
Amazing video once again!
NECRON VS THE FLOOD!!
flood loses, cause they suck.
WTF
+Lord Anubis he's a troll. He should go back to mount Mordor lol.
where the fuck is "mount Mordor"?
+DRapior Middle Earth.
Great video. The problem with UNSC vs Star Wars is that Halo Human developed tech is merely 400 years from what we have now while The star wars universe has seen at 5000 years of generalized FTL travel and count with the research and development of thousands of species. This technological disparity would be the same reason the Forerunners could wipe out nearly anything the star wars universe may throw at them.
Marker Infection (Dead Space) Vs Clone Wars Era Coruscant.
Jack Clarke yes i want to see that
Oh god
I would contend that the UNSC ships do in fact have a chance simply because of the disproportionate advantage the UNSC's use of AI and networked tactics affords it. The Halberds would be able to coordinate a time on target strike between their MACs, Archer Missiles, and Shiva Nukes that would combine all that firepower on a single point of the shield of the Victory II. This is a pretty standard tactic they use against covenant ships, so it would probably be one of their go-to tactics. Concentrating on the shielding in front of, say, the bridge would enable them to swiftly take out the command structure of their opponent. The loss of the bridge probably wouldn't take out the star destroyer, but it would give the UNSC ships precious time to coordinate further time-on-target barrages that would take out the star destroyer.
As for the question of the fighters, I would keep in mind that the point defence weapons of the UNSC ships are going to be computer controlled high caliber autocannons. We're talking 50mm-70mm weapons. Real life warships typically have just two 20-30mm weapons for use against incoming missiles and aircraft, so 4 is a realistic number for their point defense weapons. Given that TIE fighters are human controlled and therefore unable to do half the evasive maneuvers a modern anti-ship missile can do, they should be easy prey for the autocannons should they get in range. A cloud of 70mm shells should make quick work of an unshielded TIE fighter.
In a straight up slugging match the Victory would win every time just because of the shields and its firepower advantage, but the UNSC's ability to act faster, coordinate their fire to a greater degree and to bring it to bear on vital parts with high precision would give it the edge to avoid a battle of attrition and win the battle in the first salvo.
I'm sorry but this was blatantly favoring the victory. let me say that I'm using the wiki's for this but the first point I want to bring up is star wars ships can't fire with particle ships up, here's the link to confirm it starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Particle_shield/Legends. second, i can't find any mention of point defense systems on a victory II class which would leave it extremely vulnerable to the halberd's archer missiles, each ship carries 1,560 missiles. Also, each halberd carries three Shiva-class Nuclear Missiles as part of its standard armament. the TIE fighters wouldn't be that much of a problem because A: their weapons are fairly weak, B: their armor is almost paper thin and C: each halberd is equipped with eight 50mm Point-defense guns. Finally, both halberd's are covered in two meters of Titanium-A battle plate, the reason covenant weaponry was so effective was the plasma torpedoes were past the titanium's melting point and I don't know if turbolaser bolts run that hot.
"star wars ships can't fire with particle ships up, here's the link to confirm it"
did you read that quote? it says "The shield had to be deactivated to launch spacecraft such as shuttles or starfighters, or if a starship wished to fire its own _*projectiles*_". (emphasis mine)
It can still fire its turbolasers fine, turbolasers aren't projectiles. also, if you're going to argue they have to lower them to launch fighters, they can just lower the shields over the hangar.
"second, i can't find any mention of point defense systems on a victory II class which would leave it extremely vulnerable to the halberd's archer missiles, each ship carries 1,560 missiles."
great. now how fast can it FIRE those missiles, and how much damage will they do? not fast enough, and not enough.
"Also, each halberd carries three Shiva-class Nuclear Missiles as part of its standard armament. the TIE fighters wouldn't be that much of a problem because A: their weapons are fairly weak, B: their armor is almost paper thin and C: each halberd is equipped with eight 50mm Point-defense guns."
TIE bombers carry thermonuclear-yield weapons, as per _Tarkin_ and the Return of the Jedi novelization.
"Finally, both halberd's are covered in two meters of Titanium-A battle plate, the reason covenant weaponry was so effective was the plasma torpedoes were past the titanium's melting point and I don't know if turbolaser bolts run that hot."
Dude, TIE's are made of Titanium, and they go down in literally one shot from even the lightest turbolasers. this point is absolutely nil, and if anything, it hurts you more than it helps you.
ok, I admit I missed the part about projectiles. but a victory doesn't carry any tie variants just tie fighters. When you look at the executor class it says "tie series starfighters" but for the victory, it just says tie fighters. TIE's are made of titanium but titanium-a is composed of a high-grade Titanium-50 alloy, specially strengthened at the molecular level vastly superior to regular titanium. for the archer missiles, the halberd's have 26 launchers each with 60 missiles and they can fire them all at once.
Urielv59
I'd reckon turbolasers could destroy missiles they hit, especially considering their RoF and size.
not really the wiki says that turbolasers struggle to hit starfighters let alone missiles. that's why point defense lasers are used instead. besides archer missiles are computer-guided to their targets and have no problem crippling or out right destroying covenant ships if the shields are down.
"but a victory doesn't carry any tie variants just tie fighters. When you look at the executor class it says "tie series starfighters" but for the victory, it just says tie fighters."
while i admit that's true, TIEs in canon have Torpedo launchers, which probably have about atomic-range yield:
starwars.wikia.com/wiki/TIE/ln_space_superiority_starfighter
also, another thing to point out here is that a star cruiser brushed off these same thermonuclear bombs from TIE bombers like it wasn't that much, so the 6 nukes from the halberds almost certainly won't destroy the ship.
"TIE's are made of titanium but titanium-a is composed of a high-grade Titanium-50 alloy, specially strengthened at the molecular level vastly superior to regular titanium."
www.halopedia.org/Pulse_laser_turret
45 Cm Of Titanium-A can be burned through by one shot from kilowatt range lasers. That's absolutely pathetic, a hand grenade is hundreds of kilowatts, so even if this means hundreds of kilowatts, it's still only hand-grenade calibur. Turbolasers are well above Kilowatts. Even if you ask the most rabid Star Wars detractors, they'd say hundreds of megawatts (1 megawatt = 1,000 kilowatts) to a dozen Terawatts (1 Terawatt = 1,000 megawatts) or so.
"the halberd's have 26 launchers each with 60 missiles and they can fire them all at once."
each missile launcher can fire 60 missiles at once? I'm not sure i believe that...
Instead of having to relying on the Mac guns to take out the shields of the star destroyer at the start, I would have at least launched a Shiva nuke as a emp to weaken the shields while I then fire the Mac gun volley to damage the ship or at least fire more nukes and archer missiles towards the hangers to ground the ties
Realistically, your space battles are going to be taking place at hundreds of thousands of kilometers. It will be at a range where you are firing by sensors alone, and you can't actually see the enemy ship with your naked eye. This is something I have always had a problem with in sci-fi. I understand the need for the thematic element, but bearing this in mind, I don't think ANY of the Empire ships, or Star Wars ships in general, are actually built for space combat.
They are designed to look good as a ship fighting on a two-dimensional plane, when space battles are going to be in reality hectic, three dimensional deserts with ships many hundreds of thousands of kilometers apart trying to take pot shots at each other. In this case, I don't see turbo lasers manned by actual humans, with some targeting computer or not, being able to hit anything at all out in space.
Here in the 21st century, we already have artificial intelligence programs which run most of our vehicle-bound weapons platforms. The idea that every single ship in the Halo universe doesn't have it's own personal AI which runs all of the operations and weapons is frankly ludicrous. It's not that they're all going to have a Cortana-level of capability, but they should be present.
The ONLY time you would likely have a battle anywhere closer than out-of-sight range is going to be around a planet, and even then I think the main battle will take place well away from the planet itself, out in the system before the invaders ever get anywhere near their target. After all, in a battle like the one you see over Coruscant in the Revenge of the Sith movie, what is to stop any of the ships turning their guns downward and laying absolute waste to the cities below? Very bad, tactically, to let the enemy get that close in the first place.
Lorewise they are, the reason they don't rely so much on AI is pretty simple:
Ion cannons and ion torpedoes
Those two weapons alone are enough to kill any AI, which is why is unreliable to trust ONLY on AI to run your system or weapons in Star Wars
@@alejandroelluxray5298 You'll have to explain, because that makes no sense to me.
@@troublemaker9899 First of all do some research about countermeasures and sensors on Star Wars wikis, second of all, AI driven weapons are suicidal against a ship that has many ion weapons (Victory 2 SD in this case because those are made specifically to disable every single system on a ship, and if all your gun batteries are run by AI and an ion cannon Shoots you, you are render defenseless against your enemy, that's why Star Wars ships still rely on gunners. On the other hand turbolasers do have a pretty good range, and can some can fire at a range of 10 lightspeed minutes, firthermore they have more than enough power to pierce most hulls, also projectile base weapons are useless against particle shields
@@alejandroelluxray5298 That doesn't preclude the existence of AI programs to run your targeting systems, it just means that you need to have manual backups.
@@troublemaker9899 which is why is logical having gunners running your weapons
The reason of why Halo's universe doesn't follow that rule is because they do not run the danger of their AI being taken out by ion cannons since neither humans or Covenant have that kind of armament
3 Arquitens class cruisers vs 1 Carrack class cruiser, or 2 Carrack class cruisers vs 1 Gladiator class star destroyer.
squad or platoon battle between B1 battle droids vs grunts from halo
Tj Barnes you may be on to something, say, how many grunts to you plan on giving fuel rod cannons to
mike n and plasma grenades
grunts, grunt SGTs, grunts uldrs we'll
Tj Barnes Yes! Fair and interesting fight!
we normal see in the games coming at the players in groups of 5. this consist of a grunt major (squad leader) and 4 minor grunts. minor grunts have a plasma pistol and plasma grenades. the major can have the needler from halo 1 so it explodes
I've got some good star ship versus ideas!
*1.* 100 CR-90 Blockade Runners VS 1 Alligiance Star Destroyer
*2.* Tyrant Heavy Missile Cruiser VS World Devistator
*3.* Aclemator Class Assult Ship VS Nebulon B Frigate
*4.* Droid Control Ship VS Scarif Shield Gate
*5.* Tie Phantom VS Tie Defender
*6.* T-800 Terminator VS IG-88
*7.* World Devistator VS Late Clone War Lukerhulk Droid Control Ship
*8.* Victory 1 Star Destroyer VS MC-75
*9.* Abeloth VS Early DBZ Goku
*10.* 1,000 Tie Defenders VS The Sun Crusher
Republic VS Separatists
Who should have won
Spaceman 28 Separatists because of their massive manpower advantage and their easy ability to grow it by the millions
Republic,because the CIS was created to fail
@@Death-bd1tl weren't they both created to fail? Also I think the Republic would eventually win. The cost is high on both sides and the droids are made faster but are less effective than clones and thus, in a way, more costly than clones. With the banking clans under republic control half way through the war cost would likely hit the cis first. Since the outer rims do have more material wealth but not the trade structure without the core and banking clans. Also the republic already began making the first series of imperial star destroyers which were edging the space battles towards them and clones were more effective in ground battles since they could think and react without orders from higher up.
@@rasgrizrevelations4145 not both,only the CIS,but if it was not,the republic would win,just it would of taken way longer to
@@Death-bd1tl by designed to fail I dont mean outright. They were both designed to make the war last as long as palpatine needed it to. The republic army had giant glaring issues with their navy that was never fixed when it came to ship to ship combat. They were under powered carriers and not suited to combat the CIS in space warfare. The cis had far more weapons and carrier ability with their lukerhulks and providence. However the clone adaptation and free thinking suited them better for planetary combat. Any time the republic got ahead a blockaid around a few planets would cut those planets off from supplies and dwindle down the clones while at the same time any planet captured by the droids would be taken back by the more efficient clone ground troops.
That's what I mean by the Sith designing both to fail.
Speed wouldnt matter. The victory would use it's tractor beams, slow the ships, and slag them
Colonial Marines vs UNSC Marines
Unsc marines duh
Their best tactical option would be to split up?
I think the opposite it true; by staying as close to each other as possible, they DO force the Imperial ship to split the fire of whatever weapons can be brought to bear; splitting the ships solves that problem for the Star Destroyer, and would let it put MORE firepower onto each of the attacking ships.
Likewise, having both Halo ships firing from nearly the same position means that their combined fire will be impacting the same part of the SD's shields, which can only improve the chances of getting something through.
I still think the SD would win, but that's no reason to make it easy for them.
the death fleet from starcraft vs the endor fleet
ah fuck it, just send a nova nuke out there, I'm sure the star destroyer won't be able to detect it.
I don't know if the halberd destroyer could win, but let alone that, you're clearly star wars biased. Like really.
And you are a Halo biased
@@alejandroelluxray5298 Of course i am. "You're an idiot."
AI controlled ramparts? they're basically 50mm CIWS weapons. the destroyers would chew the ties rather easily. macs also have substantially more power behind them than a rando asteroid. like they say in mass effect. newton is the deadliest SOB in zero G. the other thing is the victory's lack of PDCs. halberds proscribe to the all the missiles form of combat. so the multiple repeated impacts angle is also covered. the halberds also in theory enjoy something of a superiority in evasion. covenant weapons tended to be guided to some extent and halberds have been seen evading them. see unsc iriquois.(probably spelled that wrong) star wars on the other hand has something of a stagnation problem. their guns are still largely analog control. look how often over the movies we see ISDs missing targets that are flying flat and level at knife fight range. now translate that to a pair of halberds which even with dumb AI are going to figure out pretty quickly when the ISD blazes away with abysmal accuracy that its guns are analog, and extrapolate firing vectors for the turbo lasers as the ships engage in jinking flipping and various other hard burn ai controlled maneuvers. the halberd AI are actually the deciding factor here in my opinion. even as "dumb" AI they can out compute and outmaneuver the ISDs organic crew. typically ISDs are designed to win a ship of the line type fight with other similarly armed capital ships. where every body squares up and kicks the shit out of each other with turbo lasers. where do ISDs struggle? high speed maneuver warfare. the rebels consistently had better luck engaging ISDs with fighter strikes where the only real problem was the defending ties. care to guess which ships are accomplished turn and burn fighters? the same ones used for the famous keys loop. the halberds would see even more success than the rebels did. turbo lasers tend to be a punch weapon not the cutting beam of the covenant. so the halberds are likely to weather a few hits, and six nukes is six nukes. with the effects of ion weapons I'm guessing the ISDs aren't protected against EMPs.
1. the halberds scan the ISD and get a full report of suspected ability from the AI.
2. using the report the halberds coordinate their attack to hit the most vulnerable portion of the ship.
3. with AI controlled targetting the halberds consider the victory's ties as a marginal annoyance at best. both squadrons are butchered trying to close into range of their light blasters. what few shots they get off are easily tanked on the halberds thick plating.
4. the destroyers use there speed and agility to get behind and below the ISD. unfamiliar with their opponent the captains elect for the everything at the wall approach and empty everything into the victory's belly just forward of the engines.
5. 4 mac rounds in rapid succession deliver substantially more force than any number of asteroids. they either break or horrifically deplete the victory's particle shields. the following 1600 missiles and 6 nukes atomize what evers left and tear a massive ragged hole in the victory's belly.
6. the analog nature of the ISDs turbo lasers are causing problems. the rapidly moving and maneuvering halberds are unlike anything a victory was designed to face. what few hits do land tend to be glancing blows at best and the damage doesnt appear to be effecting the ships to substantially.
7. if the nukes havent fried every system in the ship then the ISD is still suffering from catastrophic damage. power fluctuates wildly, and the smaller ships have assumed near constant position behind and below the victory.
8. the halberds have recharged their macs and put an additional four shots into the ISDs gaping wound and now unprotected hanger.
the only thing an ISD has ever encountered even remotely similar to a halberd might be the corvettes and blockade runners the rebels use. and those are often converted civilian ships with modest laser cannon armaments. remember most of star wars considers slug throwers to be primitive weapons. particle shields are more to protect against running into things than combat work. the shields designed to catch lasers are the more powerful ones as thats what every fleet in the galaxy is generally operating. and no rebel blockade runner carries the level of ordinance a halberd does. pitting a UNSC ship against a victory the way the empire fights is going to give the empire a win. forcing a victory to fight unsc ships fighting the way they're trained to? yeah victory's aren't designed to do that. spinal MACs essentially demand turn and burn fighting styles. especially if theirs no lynch pin fleet heavy to work off of. think less along the lines of UNSC fleet versus X covenant ship and more along the lines of iriquois stand against multiple covenant contacts. in a big fleet halberds are shackled somewhat by needing to stay in formation relative to the larger cruisers and carriers. but a pair of them working independently? thats an AI coordinated game of tag no ISD could hope to keep up with. star wars may be technically more futuristic but its also horrifically stagnant, naval engagements haven't changed substantially since the old republic era outside that one oddity during the clone wars era, and they still lined up to slug it out. UNSC naval engagements and star wars naval engagements are two entirely different games. And through AI the UNSC are palying a significantly more complicated one. ramble over.
This is one of those videos that while ok, isnt nearly as well thought out as it could have been. The glaring weakness of imperial ship designs dont need to be mentioned here. Titanium A battle plate is stronger than o feel its given credit for, doesnt mean the destroyers will just tank any damage they receive but they most certainly arent glass cannons. A single mac round may not penetrate a victories shields but you have more than one ship and while these universes dont always abide by the laws of physics the impact will not go totally unabsorbed. The UNSC destroyers are much faster and more maneuverable, and UNSC point defense systems are incredibly effective meaning most if not all of the victories missiles would likely be destroyed before reaching their target meaning the victories lasers/turbolasers will be the only weapons of use for it. Each unsc destroyer in addition to its macs (which each destroyer has TWO of) and excluding its nukes (of which each has 3) each ship boasts 26 archer missile pods. Slip space is much different than hyperspace and unsc ships/captains have perfected in systems jumps. Now its entirety possible that the UNSC ship captains would readily identify the victories weaknesses (doubtful considering the bridge layout is quite noticeable) or that the victory could catch them off guard destroying at least one of them thus making it that much harder for the second ship to contend with it. However the UNSC destroyers would significantly outrange the victory, allowing them to fire off at least 4 mac rounds before the victory has time to react or evade, and thanks to again the UNSC's incredible point defense systems the victorys longest range weapon systems would be effectively useless. If the engagement began at some distance the destroyers would win hands down. This isnt even considering that with a total lack of rear facing armerment that all the destroyers would have to do to destroy the victory would be to get behind it and stay there, something quite easy for a ship of their size, speed and maneuverability. If the victory were facing a standard unsc frigate or perhaps even a cruiser like the halcyon (which while extremely durable is lightly armed) the victory would likely win more often than not. There simply isnt any rational behind the victory winning here, not when your putting it up against not one but TWO ships that not only effectively outrange it and posses far superior point defense systems rendering the victories missile systems moot, but that are also smaller (and therefore harder to hit) more maneuverable, faster, and packing a similarly capable armerment.
Thank you mate, he does a lot of Halo vs Star Wars n consistently overlooks Halo facts giving Star Wars victory everytime.
Halo would come out in front majority of the time.
He also stated that the MACs on the Halberd are weaker than a Frigates.
One is a standard MAC, same type on most ships. The other is (depending on era, but he said modern UNSC so Gen 3) a Super MAC. The Super Mac as he stated in a UNSC vs the Reapers has the equivilant of 63 quintilitons of TnT. And these ships can fire a round a second.
Hands down, SW loses, I don't care how many turbo lasers they have, we have em outranged and out powered with AI assisted targeting. (Think AI like Auntie Dot, don't need a smart AI like Cortana, but all UNSC ships do have a shipboard AI.)
Agree w/ u. There is also wolf-pack tactics, since these are 2 Halberd Destroyers. What's stopping the other one from going behind the Star Destroyer and nuke it?
No se puede estar seguro de que la defensa de punto logré interceptar los misiles incluso si son efectivos, los misiles de contución y torpedos de protones tienen escudos que los protejen de armas que los quieran interceptar, además de ser sumamente versátiles y ágiles, bastaría con un torpedo de protones para inhabilitar un cañón Mac, ya que el torpedo es capas de entrar en la boca del cañón. Incluso siguiendo lo que dice, es obvio que el victoria no se va a quedar viendo cómo le disparan con Mac.
I think that the best chance for the Halberd Destroyers is if they can get the nukes out quickly. The EMP caused by their detonation is potentially powerful enough to completely disable the Star Destroyer's shields. The Halberd Destroyers could then fire off the MAC rounds without having to worry about the shields.
I like oranges
Sobbingraxn that is random
+Jonathan Pirolo Embrace the randomness
I like apples more.
Fight me.
I like orange juice
I've been watching his videos for 2 months and decided to subscribe
+John Reineman woo
Space Battleship Yamato vs imperial II star destroyer
The WillardFTW there word wave motion gun
Jamarian Travis hey I've been asking for over a month
??? Would you like that ISD II regular or extra crispy?
Mate, 6 nuclear missiles and 4 Mac rounds is a lot of power. I don’t care what kind of shields a ship has, I honestly find it stupid that anything in science fiction can be hit with that in space and not be turned to plasma.
That's the problem with Star Wars, its fantasy with a little soft science to fill out the pages of the novels. Halo on the other hand is pretty 'hard' as far as science fiction goes. So there is a huge disconnect between the factions, cause Star Wars has everything-proof-shields and exist in a universe where physics doesn't matter, and space magic exist.
I think you may be giving the CIWS on the destroyers too little credit, like with the star destroyer's shots on the UNSC destroyers, a glancing blow on a TIE from a 50mm cannon would probably destroy it and definitely neutralise it, and when you consider rate of fire and computer guidance, the TIEs become more or less, a nuisance. That said, yes the MAC cannons would barely crack the shield at best and my guess is that the UNSC would also use their nukes to break the shields, at which point it is up to the archer missiles, not powerful, but numerous enough to at least dustup the normal firing sequence of the star destroyer. Something you mentioned, but did not use in the fight were the pelican dropships. You have said before that these can be configured into gunships. Pack a company of UNSC marines onboard one of those, and you have a raiding party, assuming the shields are down and the destroyers are lucky enough to have dodged the incoming turbolaser volleys and ion cannon blasts. All in all I'd still call it a star wars victory, but a 7 or 8 out of 10 this time
mike n
I say 73% of the time for SW win
There were some other things he didn't consider as well, such as range and FTL. Ultimately though, the outcome likely would be the same. Victory can just take a hell of a lot more of a pounding then the Halberd can.
nukes do very little damage in vaccumes. they need matter to react to release energy which simply isn't there in a vaccume
Ed Lippincott this discussion was had in the comments section of a previous video, to avoid any further conflict, without any atmosphere to buffer against the considerable shockwave and heat of a nuclear explostion, it is, in fact, more powerful, also, an EMP would come into play
Dodge turbolaser bolt? Hmm, at one blog I saw analysis of blaster and turbolasers bolts. Blasters for ground units travel at speed 50 to 250 m/s (blackpowder bullet traveled at least 250m/s ) with majority of shots at speed 75-100m/s. Those are small speeds.
For turbolasers those speeds are like (90% of shots) up to 5000m/s or on more powerful vessels up to 35000m/s. So, as in this forum forums.spacebattles.com/threads/turbolaser-speeds.67811/
they state that at lower speed max range would be 28km, but at greater speed (around 100 000 kph) it would be like 280km. To contraty MAC round travels at speed of 30 000 m/s but its range is not limited by plasma diffusion. Yes, turbolasers are not lasers but similar to Halo plasma torpedoes (plasma in magnetic containment field). Also power of bolts from turbolasers degrades with distance, so at 280km they could not cause much damage. If Halberds would stay at distance over 280km and pound target with Archer missiles and MAC rounds (I think 8 shots would drop shields and cause damage). Oh, I forgot! MAC round, even single hit did penetrate shields on Covenant vessels but hit this vessel with reduced energy! Shields are not absorbing 100% of energy from kinetic projectile - to do so, you would have to use harmonic freq. equal to corresponding wavelenght of incoming projectile (at great speeds every object could be described as wave according to quantum mechanics, which can be applied from 1% of speed of light). So each hit would penetrate shield and cause some damage. If that happens, you could just point in the area of turbolaser turrets and damage them, then close range and finish this fight :) As per point defence of Halberd-class, well... in Halo: Reach, in Sabre fighter (it has energy shields) you got hit by one, then you are dead. Lets say that fighter with shields could get 2-3 shots before going down. Then 4 twin barreled M910 would be enough to fend off fighters. Wait 2x12 fighters... it means 24 shots to disable them, divide this to 4x2 projectals and you get how many single salvos is required to kill both squadrons if accuracy was 100% and that gives... 3 salvos!
So, if we have accuracy at 20% this would mean 15 salvos. Let's double this! 30 salvos! That would take... 10 seconds at most... So that is how long it would take to kill all fighters ;) 10 seconds... and if Halberd has "smart AI" then I assume that TIE-fighters would not stand up to 5 seconds. Also remember that Cortana used Halcyon-class destroyed 12 Covenant ships (including seeral CCS-class) before having it's MAC disabled by boarding party. I would give Halberd also some credit - Keyes performed Keys Loop and destroyed RPV-class destroyer and 2 Covie frigates with single Halberd-class destroyer... oh, did I mention that he had no 'smart' or 'dumb' AI to assist him at that time? Imagine what would 'smart' AI do in that odds ;)
hey Eckhartsladder you forgot the halberds broadside cannons in the armament section and i should mention that newer macs fire rounds that are heavily electrified that assist with the penetration of capital ship shields, i just think that this may have made a difference, also for the battle i believe it would have been a bit different bc i think one halberd would have tried to get in close and underneath the victory to deliver a point blank assault bc of the halo universes omni directional space tactics. a good example would be the keys maneuver that was performed with the UNSC Iroquois. plus on last fact even though both were piloted by equally competent crew the unsc had a knack for spotting ship designs and layouts and i think this would have made a big difference bc most of the victorys weapon systems were very easy to spot on its dorsal hull making its ventral hull a handicap. but still loved the video
And UNSC can fire at it way beyond any SW ship can return fire. fighting in line of fight.... xDDDD
Empire's fleet at Endor [Star Wars] vs The Covenant fleet at the Battle of Installation 05 [Halo]
I believe the Halberds would win surprisingly easily. Between the two have six nuclear missiles, which cannot be intercepted by the Victory because it doesn't have any point defense systems. The nuclear missiles are enough to knock out the shields, which would then leave the reactor dome and shield generators unprotected. The shield generators could be easily knocked out by a barrage of Archer missiles. Because the Halberds are capable of firing the MACs at any range (it's space), they could fire at the reactor dome while still out of range of the Victory's main armaments. Since that whole process could take only a minute, the Ties would be about halfway to the Halberds, which at that point could just leave since the Victory would be crippled and probably calling in backup. Also, I don't think it would take six nukes to take the Victory's shields out, which could mean more devastation. At worst, one of the Halberds would be destroyed. Why didn't they use this strategy more often? Nukes and friendly fighters don't mix. how often do destroyers hang out solo?
They pretty much always use these tactics, why do you think they don't have fighters? The Halberds typically operates in groups of 4-6. And I only know of 2 times one operated alone. Once was a pseudo stealth refit investigating an Insurrectionist smuggling ring. And the other was the Unsc Iroquois, which was on a routine patrol when a nearby colony came under attack. Strangely both of them had future Captain Keyes as part of the command crew (as second (later first, the captain died) in command of the first vessel. And as commanding officer of the Iroquois. The second action is what earned him his promotion to Captain, and occurred shortly before (and is directly responsible for) the Battle of Reach.
I also think the PD guns of the Halberds would rip the Ties to shreds.
Problem is just the massive gap in the scale... Our world strongest nukes are on lower power level than star wars capital ship turbolaser from star wars. And the heavy ships can take hundreds of turbolaser shots. So 4 or 8 nukes are like nothing to star wars shielding. Star Wars is just absurd. It doesn't make sense to compare something which is trying to look somewhat realistic with star wars or WH40k. These universes are just crazy, inconsistent and absurdly over the top with its technology and power. For example single max power blaster bolt from e-11 hand held blaster is about 70 kg of tnt with much faster effect (yeah, surviving this doen't make any sense but this is its power against material in movies) but without the explosion. And even star fighter weapons goes into the range of small nukes. So yeah Star Wars is crazy overpowered in sense of energy.
@@marektoufar9690 The Halo universe is no stranger to ridiculous numbers either. The orbital defense macs supposedly fire a 3 thousand ton tungsten rod at 25%the speed of light for a 300 gigaton yield. About the same as a single shot from a heavy turbolaser. They used the wrong math thou and the yeald (for the MAC) should be much higher. And the math for the turbolaser comes from a Legends novel.
Edit: oh and for comparison, the largest nuke ever detonated irl (the Tsar Bomb) had a approximate yield of 200 KILOtons.
I just like that the CapBeast guy is, or at least sounds like the Honest Trailer guy or Mr. Movie Phone.
Could the Dalek Empire take over the Forerunners?
Minton I think daleks win every thing
Jonathan Pirolo yeah aha but it would still be such a cool video
Daleks would beat forerunner without much problem. But if theyll fight precursors. Than they might loose
+Jonathan Pirolo The Doctor ( What..............what.............WHAT ) lol.
I don't think they could but I would be really interested in the fight
Do some Gundam matchups!
-Gundam Wing Zero Custom vs Imperial Star Destroyer
-RX-78 Gundam vs AT-AT
-Zeon Forces at their height vs. Imperial Fleet at Endor (minus Star Destroyer II)