Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars (Revived)

[Patroklos]

The fact remains all sides replace them. The Empire especially as the successor state to the Republic had access to the entire inventory and production line of all those fighters and consciously chose to shut them down and replace them with the TIEs. This is the same Empire that was on one of the largest military expansion binges in SF history. There is no cannon reason to assume the OT era fighters were not superior (on all sides).

Which I suppose means we need to stipulate when in the timeline this ISD comes from because there are generations between its introduction and its last known on screen appearance. If it was early enough it probably shares the same fighter types with the Venators.

[Q99]

The fact remains all sides replace them. The Empire especially as the successor state to the Republic had access to the entire inventory and production line of all those fighters and consciously chose to shut them down and replace them with the TIEs. This is the same Empire that was on one of the largest military expansion binges in SF history. There is no cannon reason to assume the OT era fighters were not superior (on all sides).

Which I suppose means we need to stipulate when in the timeline this ISD comes from because there are generations between its introduction and its last known on screen appearance. If it was early enough it probably shares the same fighter types with the Venators.

I wouldn't think they'd be very significantly superior- slow tech advancement and all that- and more the TIE-family fit their needs better.

Or, I should say, it's not until Interceptors etc. that I think the total advantages become significant rather than just a small incremental improvement and focus on desired specializations. Design tech improves, but it tends to tick up slowly with new generations tend towards 'only slightly better than the prior generation fighter in the same niche.' (and I don't overly count things like Defenders in that because they're awesome in large part because they cost more than any other fighter by a lot)


Headhunters, while not a bad fighter, weren't the top of the curve in either firepower, maneuverability, or toughness even in the Clone Wars, they were just a reasonable general-purpose fighter, and they can match up against basic TIEs ok. Well enough that going up against TIEs in a Headhunter feels more 'they're in the same league, just a minor difference,' for most pilots.

[Adam Reynolds]

While the Imps are superior designs, lacking the structural weakness of the Venator, a three to one advantage in numbers is more than enough to make up for this, especially with absolute fighter supremacy. Though I would also argue that the Venator never actually carried a full complement of fighters in service, as there were never enough fighters to go around, which made the massive hanger bays a structural weakness more often than they were an asset. The reason that the Empire standardized on 72 for a star destroyer is because they could reliably fill that many. And with an emphasis on capital ships over starfighters, it was plenty for doing things like chasing smugglers or dealing with early Rebel cells. It wasn't until something like Endor that they realized their weakness.

The other factor is that the Clone Army is also superior qualitatively by all accounts, and I have no doubt that this also extends to starship crews and fighter pilots. The average clone pilot is almost certainly superior to their Imperial counterpart, even with inferior ships.

As for starfighter quality, it is likely that the ships from the Clone Wars era were worn out more than anything. TIE Fighters are a design from peacetime, when their primary purpose was chasing smugglers rather than gaining space superiority. There is a reason Thrawn wanted the TIE Defender, as he recognized that Imperial starfighter doctrine was inherently inferior.

It should be noted that Y-wings seem fine in Rebel service, with at least one case of a Y-wing over Endor successfully running down TIE Interceptors. Though they are somewhat modified and stripped down from their Clone Wars incarnations.

[Q99]

As for starfighter quality, it is likely that the ships from the Clone Wars era were worn out more than anything. TIE Fighters are a design from peacetime, when their primary purpose was chasing smugglers rather than gaining space superiority. There is a reason Thrawn wanted the TIE Defender, as he recognized that Imperial starfighter doctrine was inherently inferior.

Or inferior for his position, specifically. He no longer had the material position the TIE was designed for. His personal tactics also benefited from local superiority more than usual (which is not to say that other commanders under him benefited more than usual, so there's still the drawbacks of such an expensive fighter and the difficulty in replacing them).

[Lord Revan]

I wonder if with the TIEs it wasn't so much that they were superior to Clone Wars era fighters (or "modern" designs) but rather they were cheaper to make, I could see a senate sub-commitee or similar asking why they're spending this much resources on fighters they don't need since there's no real threat to the imperial navy and TIE-line of starfighters was the compromise between the military brass wanting starfighters to support their ships and the senators wanting to cut costs where ever they could.

[Patroklos]

The other factor is that the Clone Army is also superior qualitatively by all accounts, and I have no doubt that this also extends to starship crews and fighter pilots. The average clone pilot is almost certainly superior to their Imperial counterpart, even with inferior ships.

LOL whut? I think you can make an argument that the Imperial Army shed some of its heavy equipment compared to what we see in the PT. It all depends on if you think Hoth was a fluke or not. But I see no reason to think the militaries of the Empire and the Republic were not at the top of their games. In fact, the movies require this or there is zero tension. Its bad enough as it is that SW uses plot armor so liberally that we have a hard time believing all the pronouncements of doom and gloom from the main characters. If you have the bad guys intentionally incompetent as a plot point what does that say about our "heros" who supposedly struggle against them?

As for starfighter quality, it is likely that the ships from the Clone Wars era were worn out more than anything. TIE Fighters are a design from peacetime, when their primary purpose was chasing smugglers rather than gaining space superiority. There is a reason Thrawn wanted the TIE Defender, as he recognized that Imperial starfighter doctrine was inherently inferior.

Inferior to CURRENT Rebel designs in SOME circumstances, all of which (especially the X-wing) were actual the results of Imperial R&D. That tells us nothing regarding their comparison to earlier generation designs.

Remember that both Y-wings and X-wings got shellacked at Yavin by TIEs.

It should be noted that Y-wings seem fine in Rebel service, with at least one case of a Y-wing over Endor successfully running down TIE Interceptors. Though they are somewhat modified and stripped down from their Clone Wars incarnations.

Y-wings are generally always considered left over junk the Rebels have to use. That's why we end up with B-wings. And just because a design is generally inferior doesn't mean individual they will never score a success in vs combat. Soviet pilots did get hundreds of air victories over the Luftwaffe in 1941 despite their entire airforce winking out in the space of a month. The Japanese still shot down American pilots until the end of the war. Outdated MIGs did shoot down contemporary US designs in Vietnam, but nobody is going to claim those MIGs were the superior airframe. Least of all the dead MIG pilots on the wrong side of a very lopsided K/D ratio.

The alternative is to just assume the Empire intentionally retarded its starfighter force for no real reason. Its one thing to not invest as hard in further development or to prioritize production of something else over them. This can easily lead to another contemporary outpacing you in further development. Or you traded one capability for another but overall trend to more capable. Its an entirely different thing to claim the Empire actually downgraded its fighter capabilities below capability thresholds from over 30 years ago. Especially since, again, we are witnessing a colossal military spending bonanza and I don't think there is any actual canon source that Imperial starfighter design was actual neglected rather than just trending in a particular direction conceptually.

[Adam Reynolds]

Or inferior for his position, specifically. He no longer had the material position the TIE was designed for. His personal tactics also benefited from local superiority more than usual (which is not to say that other commanders under him benefited more than usual, so there's still the drawbacks of such an expensive fighter and the difficulty in replacing them).

When Imperial pilots are incapable of winning space superiority, I would say they are inferior overall. Though I suspect that even Thrawn would not be in favor of scrapping everything in favor of TIE Defenders, as they are too expensive to replace everything.

LOL whut? I think you can make an argument that the Imperial Army shed some of its heavy equipment compared to what we see in the PT. It all depends on if you think Hoth was a fluke or not. But I see no reason to think the militaries of the Empire and the Republic were not at the top of their games. In fact, the movies require this or there is zero tension. Its bad enough as it is that SW uses plot armor so liberally that we have a hard time believing all the pronouncements of doom and gloom from the main characters. If you have the bad guys intentionally incompetent as a plot point what does that say about our "heros" who supposedly struggle against them?

Saying that the Clone Army is superior doesn't mean that the Empire is utterly incompetent. They are competent enough to be a threat, but stormtroopers and Imperial navy crews are generally less competent than their clone predecessors. Equipment wise the Empire generally has an advantage, but they are willing to treat both pilots and stormtroopers as expendable units to a greater degree than the Republic.

Inferior to CURRENT Rebel designs in SOME circumstances, all of which (especially the X-wing) were actual the results of Imperial R&D. That tells us nothing regarding their comparison to earlier generation designs.

Remember that both Y-wings and X-wings got shellacked at Yavin by TIEs.

I would actually say TIEs are adequate as high agility designs, as an evolution of the Jedi starfighter. The problem is that the Jedi starfighter was intended for extremely talented Force wielding pilots operating on the knife's edge. Putting these into the hands of merely average pilots leads to problems in that they are not as capable of surviving without proper combat shields. It produces a negative feedback in that Rebel pilots have a greater chance to learn from their mistakes than their Imperial counterparts.

Over the Death Star, with all of the cards stacked in their favor, TIE units are still incapable of stopping Rebel fighters from making several attack runs. The only cases we see die are those making attack runs that cannot exactly dodge, as well as those that are caught off guard due to jamming.

Endor is a more representative example, in which Rebel fighters gain and maintain space superiority throughout the battle. While they cause casualties, at no point can Imperial fighters ever prevent Rebel fighters from doing whatever they want, leaving them free to destroy multiple star destoryers including Executor as well as to make their run on the Death Star.

Y-wings are generally always considered left over junk the Rebels have to use. That's why we end up with B-wings. And just because a design is generally inferior doesn't mean individual they will never score a success in vs combat. Soviet pilots did get hundreds of air victories over the Luftwaffe in 1941 despite their entire airforce winking out in the space of a month. The Japanese still shot down American pilots until the end of the war. Outdated MIGs did shoot down contemporary US designs in Vietnam, but nobody is going to claim those MIGs were the superior airframe. Least of all the dead MIG pilots on the wrong side of a very lopsided K/D ratio.

They are outdated, but my point was they are still fast enough to keep up with brand new TIE Interceptors. It is akin something like the F4F or P-40 against the Zero. My point is that all of that R&D didn't produce that much of an advantage. There was likely a bit of an edge, but not a massive one, with plenty of evidence of technological stasis, with the extremely rare exceptions like the Death Star.

The alternative is to just assume the Empire intentionally retarded its starfighter force for no real reason. Its one thing to not invest as hard in further development or to prioritize production of something else over them. This can easily lead to another contemporary outpacing you in further development. Or you traded one capability for another but overall trend to more capable. Its an entirely different thing to claim the Empire actually downgraded its fighter capabilities below capability thresholds from over 30 years ago. Especially since, again, we are witnessing a colossal military spending bonanza and I don't think there is any actual canon source that Imperial starfighter design was actual neglected rather than just trending in a particular direction conceptually.

If the Clone Wars era designs were leaving hanger bays mostly empty on a regular basis, as seen in Clone Wars, shifting the focus towards cost cutting is perfectly rational, even as hanger bays also shrunk significantly. You are really ignoring the value of a cheap design in many respects, especially for a military not currently at war. By the time the realized they needed something better, they had to compromise with the TIE Interceptor post-Yavin, because so much of their military spending ended up directed towards the second Death Star.

[Patroklos]

Saying that the Clone Army is superior doesn't mean that the Empire is utterly incompetent. They are competent enough to be a threat, but stormtroopers and Imperial navy crews are generally less competent than their clone predecessors. Equipment wise the Empire generally has an advantage, but they are willing to treat both pilots and stormtroopers as expendable units to a greater degree than the Republic.

The problem is that you present zero evidence to back this up. You can probably greatly eclipse the number of dead stormtroopers in all three OT movies with the death toll of clone troopers from just ATOC or RotS by themselves. If you watched the PT and thought anyone in any position of authority cared in the slightest about clone troopers I don't know what to say. In the OT, in the very first scenes we ever see storm troopers we get the image of one lifting the head of a fallen comrade. We get the same thing in the first scene of the new trilogy. The ONLY time any sort of care is given for a clone trooper is in at the beginning of AotCs, and the overall point of that sequence via Obi Wan's part in it is that they really REALLY don't care about clones. Lets not forget about the Padme death taxi scene from AOTC shall we...

I would actually say TIEs are adequate as high agility designs, as an evolution of the Jedi starfighter. The problem is that the Jedi starfighter was intended for extremely talented Force wielding pilots operating on the knife's edge. Putting these into the hands of merely average pilots leads to problems in that they are not as capable of surviving without proper combat shields. It produces a negative feedback in that Rebel pilots have a greater chance to learn from their mistakes than their Imperial counterparts.

Is the linage between the Jedi fighter and the TIE a thing?

Over the Death Star, with all of the cards stacked in their favor, TIE units are still incapable of stopping Rebel fighters from making several attack runs. The only cases we see die are those making attack runs that cannot exactly dodge, as well as those that are caught off guard due to jamming.

Zero defect fallacy. The fact is the TIEs completed their mission, the Mk1 human Rebels did not. Luke only made it because he is a space wizard. Again, plot armor. All of the mooks, both Rebel and Imperial, had a chance to go toe to toe and the Imperials won.

Endor is a more representative example, in which Rebel fighters gain and maintain space superiority throughout the battle. While they cause casualties, at no point can Imperial fighters ever prevent Rebel fighters from doing whatever they want, leaving them free to destroy multiple star destoryers including Executor as well as to make their run on the Death Star.

What the hell are you talking about? TIEs were present contesting space superiority throughout the entire Endor sequence. Not only are there plenty left to follow the MC down to the reactor, there are TIEs left when they are ESCAPING the reactor as well. Sure we see more TIEs than Rebel fighters die on screen, but then again we are following the main characters of the film too.

We don't see the Rebels gain space superiority at Endor (quite the opposite according to Ackbar AND Lando), the only damage we see a Rebel fighter inflict via normal means is one strafing run on a shield generator, The Executor was a flook and how it was taken out by the A-wing tells us nothing about its normal capabilities whatsoever. What exactly do you see that tells you the Rebel fleet and the fighters were not being massacred or at best just holding their own before the Death Star blows up?

Keep in mind the fleet was SUPPOSED to be massacred. More accurately they were expecting to be massacred. They were sacrificing themselves to get any chance at a run on the DS reactor. If everyone one of them died taking out the DS that was a win.

They are outdated, but my point was they are still fast enough to keep up with brand new TIE Interceptors. It is akin something like the F4F or P-40 against the Zero. My point is that all of that R&D didn't produce that much of an advantage. There was likely a bit of an edge, but not a massive one, with plenty of evidence of technological stasis, with the extremely rare exceptions like the Death Star.

Edges are exactly what we need to take into account in vs. discussions.

If the Clone Wars era designs were leaving hanger bays mostly empty on a regular basis, as seen in Clone Wars, shifting the focus towards cost cutting is perfectly rational, even as hanger bays also shrunk significantly. You are really ignoring the value of a cheap design in many respects, especially for a military not currently at war. By the time the realized they needed something better, they had to compromise with the TIE Interceptor post-Yavin, because so much of their military spending ended up directed towards the second Death Star.

Sorry, this is not ST5. There is nothing in any movie that hints in the slightest there is any sort of downsizing or any military want going unfulfilled whatsoever. Quite the opposite. At every turn the Empire is portrayed as nothing other than a militaristic dictatorship. Thats the point, so our heros have a chance to be heroic. You have nothing to back up your wild speculation.

[fractalsponge1]

While the Imps are superior designs, lacking the structural weakness of the Venator, a three to one advantage in numbers is more than enough to make up for this, especially with absolute fighter supremacy. Though I would also argue that the Venator never actually carried a full complement of fighters in service, as there were never enough fighters to go around, which made the massive hanger bays a structural weakness more often than they were an asset. The reason that the Empire standardized on 72 for a star destroyer is because they could reliably fill that many. And with an emphasis on capital ships over starfighters, it was plenty for doing things like chasing smugglers or dealing with early Rebel cells. It wasn't until something like Endor that they realized their weakness.

1) If warfare was hitpoint based, 3 = 1+1+1. There are threshholds however. Small ships can either coordinate extremely well and divide the big ship's fire enough to survive and win, or they can be taken apart in detail without breaching a big ship's shields.

2) Hangars are a structural weakness or they are not. It doesn't matter if they are filled with fighters, and during combat they aren't anyway.

3) Any evidence that either the Republic or Empire didn't have enough fighters for full complements?

4) PT vs OT comparisons suggest fighter shields aren't really all they're cracked up to be. In game-mechanic terms yes shields are amazing, especially since they serve as an extra general energy resource and there is no absolute advantage for unshielded fighters in terms of performance. But the movies show that shields routinely cannot survive single bursts from opponents (Vader's fighter annhilating Y-Wings for instance, but this happens to X-W as well). And a fighter-heavy navy explicitly converts from shielded to unshielded fighters, even during the same war (there were likely a LOT more Actis than Jedi). Perhaps small craft shielding (past the obligatory navigational shielding) isn't always heavy enough to be worth the performance cost?

[Lord Revan]

I suspect that fighter shields are like most modern combat armor, not good enough to stop a good direct hit from fighter scale weapon (the shields that is) but good enough to make poor hits or hits from weaker weapons something that the fighter could survive from.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Honestly, arguging about various qualities of fighters doesn't make much sense here - A full load for a Venator is, as per Wookiepedia, 192 V-Wings, 192 Eta-2a and 36 ARC-170's for 420 total. With 3 ships that's a total force of 1,260 fighters, or 17.5 times the ISD's loadout. Even if the TIE's are materially better, unless they're 17.5 times better, they will still lose out.

Add to that the fact that if these are late Clone War era ships, those Republic pilots probably have prior experience in ship to ship combat, which the TIE pilots may not have. Quantity has a quality all it's own after all.

[Adam Reynolds]

The problem is that you present zero evidence to back this up. You can probably greatly eclipse the number of dead stormtroopers in all three OT movies with the death toll of clone troopers from just ATOC or RotS by themselves. If you watched the PT and thought anyone in any position of authority cared in the slightest about clone troopers I don't know what to say. In the OT, in the very first scenes we ever see storm troopers we get the image of one lifting the head of a fallen comrade. We get the same thing in the first scene of the new trilogy. The ONLY time any sort of care is given for a clone trooper is in at the beginning of AotCs, and the overall point of that sequence via Obi Wan's part in it is that they really REALLY don't care about clones. Lets not forget about the Padme death taxi scene from AOTC shall we...

Obviously soldiers fighting a full scale war will take more casualties. And my source is Clone Wars, which is canon in either continuity. Jedi generals generally tend to treat their clones with mutual respect, and are willing to make sacrifices in order to protect them when they can. The only Jedi who doesn't care for the clones under him is Krell, who had actually fallen to the Dark Side.

Zero defect fallacy. The fact is the TIEs completed their mission, the Mk1 human Rebels did not. Luke only made it because he is a space wizard. Again, plot armor. All of the mooks, both Rebel and Imperial, had a chance to go toe to toe and the Imperials won.

Without their own space wizard, the Empire would have also failed to defend the exhaust port.

What the hell are you talking about? TIEs were present contesting space superiority throughout the entire Endor sequence. Not only are there plenty left to follow the MC down to the reactor, there are TIEs left when they are ESCAPING the reactor as well. Sure we see more TIEs than Rebel fighters die on screen, but then again we are following the main characters of the film too.

What I mean is that Rebel fighters prevent TIE fighters from successfully doing any real damage to their capital ships, which is something TIE fighters are incapable of doing in return. We also see Rebel fighters chasing TIEs far more often than the inverse in the general space battle as time goes on, with the obvious exception of the Death Star run.

We don't see the Rebels gain space superiority at Endor (quite the opposite according to Ackbar AND Lando), the only damage we see a Rebel fighter inflict via normal means is one strafing run on a shield generator, The Executor was a fluke and how it was taken out by the A-wing tells us nothing about its normal capabilities whatsoever. What exactly do you see that tells you the Rebel fleet and the fighters were not being massacred or at best just holding their own before the Death Star blows up?

As badly as they are outgunned and outnumbered, the Rebel Alliance does amazingly well. After the destruction of the shield generator, the Alliance fleet massively gains the upper hand, both with the destruction of Executor as well as several other star destroyers.

Keep in mind the fleet was SUPPOSED to be massacred. More accurately they were expecting to be massacred. They were sacrificing themselves to get any chance at a run on the DS reactor. If everyone one of them died taking out the DS that was a win.

It wasn't supposed to be massacre in terms of planning, it was supposed to be a surprise attack. Han wasn't worried when he saw Executor, as it was largely expected that there would be a fleet around the Death Star. It was just assumed that the Rebels would be the ones with the advantage of surprise rather than the Empire. WIthout that on their side, getting in the sucker punch early on was impossible and they were left in a slugfest against superior firepower.

Edges are exactly what we need to take into account in vs. discussions.

But my point is that R&D is not all that significant at this point, as technology is at virtual stasis.

Sorry, this is not ST5. There is nothing in any movie that hints in the slightest there is any sort of downsizing or any military want going unfulfilled whatsoever. Quite the opposite. At every turn the Empire is portrayed as nothing other than a militaristic dictatorship. Thats the point, so our heros have a chance to be heroic. You have nothing to back up your wild speculation.

While they are a military dictatorship they still suffer from resource limitations, and building a much larger replacement Death Star likely would take a large percentage of the resources that could otherwise be thrown at new starfighter designs or new star destroyers.

1) If warfare was hitpoint based, 3 = 1+1+1. There are threshholds however. Small ships can either coordinate extremely well and divide the big ship's fire enough to survive and win, or they can be taken apart in detail without breaching a big ship's shields.

Sure, but the Venator is a dedicated warship that takes on much larger Separatist vessels on a regular basis, with a stronger emphasis on its heavy weapons that star destroyers usually show, so it presumably has firepower in the same general range as an ISD.

2) Hangars are a structural weakness or they are not. It doesn't matter if they are filled with fighters, and during combat they aren't anyway.

Obviously. What I meant is that if the hangers are not consistently able to be filled, then there is no net benefit to having one that large given the structural weakness it represents. It can then be reduced to the smaller ventral hanger as seen on the ISD.

3) Any evidence that either the Republic or Empire didn't have enough fighters for full complements?

The Empire presumably did not, but with complements that are roughly 1/6th the size of their Republic predecessors.

The source that seems to indicate mostly empty hangers is Clone Wars. For a case in which it is a plot point, in Storm Over Ryloth Anakin's fleet has enough spare room to combine the compliments of two vessels.

4) PT vs OT comparisons suggest fighter shields aren't really all they're cracked up to be. In game-mechanic terms yes shields are amazing, especially since they serve as an extra general energy resource and there is no absolute advantage for unshielded fighters in terms of performance. But the movies show that shields routinely cannot survive single bursts from opponents (Vader's fighter annhilating Y-Wings for instance, but this happens to X-W as well). And a fighter-heavy navy explicitly converts from shielded to unshielded fighters, even during the same war (there were likely a LOT more Actis than Jedi). Perhaps small craft shielding (past the obligatory navigational shielding) isn't always heavy enough to be worth the performance cost?

I tend to think of it as equivalent to the F4F vs the Zero. It won't always save you, but it will do so often enough that it will lead to a higher ratio of veteran Rebel pilots over time, while Imperial squadrons take greater losses to attrition. When you combine this with the fact that Rebel squadrons get more combat time in general, it leads to an overall increase in quality.

As for the Actis, we never actually see them in use by anyone other than Jedi, likely indicating that they are not all that well liked by clone pilots if they were used at all by them. The only source that I can think that depicts them being used by Clones is Battlefront 2. Personally I would consider that number a design possibility that is never used in service. I have no idea why that number was put there in the first place when Jedi fighters were never used by clones at any point.

[fractalsponge1]

Legends EU had standard Venator Actis complements far in excess of numbers of Jedi. Thematically they are "Jedi Fighters" - but that's about as useful as saying TIE X1 are Dark Lord of the Sith Fighters.

I think ISD fighter complements are dictated by their ground components, and a much larger proportion of internal volume dedicated to "ship" rather than "hangar". The upgrade from AT-TE to AT-AT and the removal of ramps and direct landing to unload means an enormous increase in volume requirements. Strip those out and an ISD can equip hundreds of fighters easily in volume terms. This can be visually demonstrated at will.

I think marginal survivability is a great feature - at the very least it can psychologically affect a pilot's willingness to expose himself to risk. That said, combat isn't always 1v1 and it sucks when marginal gains cost you numbers. I believe the more rapid gain in average experience, but that's different from saying the way an entire fleet is conceived is fundamentally inferior. If you took Imperial pilots with the same combat experience and put them in TIEs vs an equivalent set of Rebel pilots in same credits-worth of XW, I'd bet on Imperial victories most of the time, because by volume of material and kinds of equipment 2-3 TIE/I or TIE/ln per XW isn't too farfetched a notion.

But what I'm getting at with fighter shields is movie evidence doesn't make it out to be non-self-sealing fuel tanks and no armor vs both kind of effectiveness. Everything dies in fighter combat pretty damn quick without plot armor, and no one without plot armor wins 1v3 often enough at overall pretty similar quality levels to be a recurring character.

[Galvatron]

Remember that both Y-wings and X-wings got shellacked at Yavin by TIEs.

Let's not forget that the rebel fighters were ordered to set their shields for "double front," presumably to deflect the Death Star's turbolasers. That left their rear essentially vulnerable to the TIE fighters.

[Khaat]

Remember that both Y-wings and X-wings got shellacked at Yavin by TIEs.

Let's not forget that the rebel fighters were ordered to set their shields for "double front," presumably to deflect the Death Star's turbolasers. That left their rear essentially vulnerable to the TIE fighters.

It's been too long, but I believe when the Yavin CC warned the group commanders of "enemy fighters coming your way", word was passed to balance shields(?). "Stabilize your rear deflectors. Watch for enemy fighters."

[Galvatron]

You're right. I forgot about that.

Still, the trench run was ridiculously perilous for the rebel fighters. They were not only caught between the Death Star's turbolaser towers and Vader's TIE fighters, but they also couldn't maneuver for shit between the trench walls. Too bad we never saw the Y-wings use their turrets to defend their rear.

[Esquire]

That's exactly the point, though - if shields, etc. don't let an X-wing deal effectively with multiple sources of incoming fire but do double or triple the cost compared to a TIE, then X-wings are going to be pretty seriously disadvantaged on a resources-expended a basis as well as on an overall-numbers basis in most plausible scenarios. Not being able to handle two- or three-to-one odds reliably while facing those or greater any time you attack a defended target is not the mathematics of victory.

[Eternal_Freedom]

That's exactly the point, though - if shields, etc. don't let an X-wing deal effectively with multiple sources of incoming fire but do double or triple the cost compared to a TIE, then X-wings are going to be pretty seriously disadvantaged on a resources-expended a basis as well as on an overall-numbers basis in most plausible scenarios. Not being able to handle two- or three-to-one odds reliably while facing those or greater any time you attack a defended target is not the mathematics of victory.

There is another possibility that has just occurred to me - the X-Wing is designed with a heavier weapons load than a TIE (four laser cannon versus two), plus torpedoes and a hyperdrive and internal life support systems (so sealed spacesuits aren't needed), meaning it needed a larger powerplant. It's possible that the designers realised they would have space and power to spare so adding shields would be a marginal extra cost that would add some benefit (grazing hits, near-misses from missiles or anti-fighter guns on capital ships), so why not?

The TIEs are meant for numbers and cheap cost, which makes sense if you're having to fill orders for millions of the bloody things. For the Rebels, well, funding doesn't appear to be as big an issue as manpower. If they only have 1/10th the number of available pilots, makes sense to give them the best fighter you can.

[Shroom Man 777]

Hmmm... TIEs were built to be fielded with ISDs so in their calculations, "being cornered and surrounded by enemy defenses" probably wasn't really factored since that's something the ISDs would handle. ISDs are used for patrolling and occupying territories and suppressing insurgencies, the TIEs work in this context. Whereas if it was a slugfest between other capships and peer-competitors, the heavy hitting would be for the ISDs and not the fighters, that would be busy defending the ISDs.

In themselves, TIEs are cheaper to make than a lot of other designs. But TIEs are just extensions of ISDs, so normal accounting for TIEs should account for the ISDs. And when you think of it that way, TIEs no longer seem as cheap. They are pretty much "disembodied" point defense and anti-fighter light weapons batteries for the ISDs.

Plus also, what the TIEs lack in all those other respects, it really makes up with its weird ass maneuverability. Not only are TIEs fast as heck but look at how they maneuver. There are scenes of TIEs flying sideways lol. I think those "solar panels" are not only radiators but also oversized repulsor arrays or something.

[Galvatron]

I think those "solar panels" are not only radiators but also oversized repulsor arrays or something.

I've suspected much the same for quite a while. Each "panel" could simply be an array of hundreds of tiny vernier thrusters (or repulsors). The TIE advanced/bomber/interceptor/defender-style "panel" could represent the next generation with the more rounded style of the Grand Inquisitor's prototype being a transition between the two.

[RogueIce]

The fact remains all sides replace them. The Empire especially as the successor state to the Republic had access to the entire inventory and production line of all those fighters and consciously chose to shut them down and replace them with the TIEs. This is the same Empire that was on one of the largest military expansion binges in SF history. There is no cannon reason to assume the OT era fighters were not superior (on all sides).

I think it's more changing priorities, than TIEs being 'much better' - at least as far as the ARC-170s and Y-wings are concerned.

The majority of those CW era designs on a Venator are as light fighters, so we can argue that the replacement by TIEs does indicate a superiority.

As far as ARC-170s and Y-wings are concerned, those were heavy fighters (with a secondary role as bombers) and bombers respectively. And Imperial doctrine just didn't call for that, at least not until later on.

Because if you needed to kill a capital ship, that's what the ISD is for! Plus they weren't fighting any near-competitors, but an insurgency that, at best, fields some light corvettes and maybe light frigates. And Rebels has shown us that at least the corvettes and transports are vulnerable to TIE fighters and interceptors, and the Nebulon-B poses zero threat to a Star Destroyer. So why would they need capship killer smallcraft when there aren't meaningful capships for them to kill?

It's also why the TIE bombers, at least in new canon, seem to be much more specialized for ground attack (terror bombings, CAS, etc.) than engaging capital ships.

[Simon_Jester]

Hmmm... TIEs were built to be fielded with ISDs so in their calculations, "being cornered and surrounded by enemy defenses" probably wasn't really factored since that's something the ISDs would handle. ISDs are used for patrolling and occupying territories and suppressing insurgencies, the TIEs work in this context. Whereas if it was a slugfest between other capships and peer-competitors, the heavy hitting would be for the ISDs and not the fighters, that would be busy defending the ISDs.

In themselves, TIEs are cheaper to make than a lot of other designs. But TIEs are just extensions of ISDs, so normal accounting for TIEs should account for the ISDs. And when you think of it that way, TIEs no longer seem as cheap. They are pretty much "disembodied" point defense and anti-fighter light weapons batteries for the ISDs.

Well, the thing is, TIEs can also operate off of other, smaller spaceship platforms, or off of modified freighters for 'escort carrier' missions, or off a big damn concrete pad in the middle of a temperate rainforest.

I've heard it speculated that the TIE fighter's original design concept dates back to the Clone Wars (even if no TIEs actually served in that war), thus explaining why they were designed to be fielded in great numbers, with survivability demoted to a secondary concern. Clone pilots are expendable, some losses are inevitable when fighting huge hordes of droid fighters, and ultimately you just need sheer mass of defensive fighter cover to push back the droids, because a handful of heavily shielded super-fighters can't hold off all the possible threats at once.

This concept then turned out to make a surprisingly versatile light fighter and garrison fighter for other purposes. Cheap, easy mass production means you can spam millions of them and put them all over the galaxy in all the little individual outposts and bases. This is critical for the Empire, which needs presence. It isn't enough to have a big badass hyper-capable fleet that can crush individual star systems; someone has to fly around collecting the taxes and stopping smugglers and so on. Short-range, sublight light fighters help do that job, and I suspect they cost a lot less than FTL-capable heavy fighters.

This may help to explain why the Empire, in the years prior to the Rebellion, doubled down on TIE production, and largely ignored shielded, hyperdrive-equipped heavy fighters. At least until they found themselves needing fighters that could match the performance envelope of some of the more exotic designs used by the Rebels.

[Adam Reynolds]

Legends EU had standard Venator Actis complements far in excess of numbers of Jedi. Thematically they are "Jedi Fighters" - but that's about as useful as saying TIE X1 are Dark Lord of the Sith Fighters.

My point was that even though we see them listed in the ICS, we never actually see them used at any point in any continuity other than the Battlefront games, which to me indicates they are not considered useful outside of Jedi, and that the theoretical capability to carry them was almost never used in service.

This isn't just a number difference, in that we can say that yields are dialed down. This is the fact that we never actually see those fighters in use by non-Jedi.

I think ISD fighter complements are dictated by their ground components, and a much larger proportion of internal volume dedicated to "ship" rather than "hangar". The upgrade from AT-TE to AT-AT and the removal of ramps and direct landing to unload means an enormous increase in volume requirements. Strip those out and an ISD can equip hundreds of fighters easily in volume terms. This can be visually demonstrated at will.

The Venator also had a proportionally smaller marine contingent, as they still relied on the Acclamator as an assault ship at that point. It does also make sense for the Empire to have something of a jack of all trades ship, given their need to police the entire galaxy at once.

I think marginal survivability is a great feature - at the very least it can psychologically affect a pilot's willingness to expose himself to risk. That said, combat isn't always 1v1 and it sucks when marginal gains cost you numbers. I believe the more rapid gain in average experience, but that's different from saying the way an entire fleet is conceived is fundamentally inferior. If you took Imperial pilots with the same combat experience and put them in TIEs vs an equivalent set of Rebel pilots in same credits-worth of XW, I'd bet on Imperial victories most of the time, because by volume of material and kinds of equipment 2-3 TIE/I or TIE/ln per XW isn't too farfetched a notion.

But what I'm getting at with fighter shields is movie evidence doesn't make it out to be non-self-sealing fuel tanks and no armor vs both kind of effectiveness. Everything dies in fighter combat pretty damn quick without plot armor, and no one without plot armor wins 1v3 often enough at overall pretty similar quality levels to be a recurring character.

I actually wonder if most X-wing pilots tend to virtually drop their shields in favor of greater performance. Which Luke, being a novice, failed to do.

Though at Endor the indication is that Rebel Alliance fighters actually do win against a numbers imbalance to that degree.

There is another possibility that has just occurred to me - the X-Wing is designed with a heavier weapons load than a TIE (four laser cannon versus two), plus torpedoes and a hyperdrive and internal life support systems (so sealed spacesuits aren't needed), meaning it needed a larger powerplant. It's possible that the designers realised they would have space and power to spare so adding shields would be a marginal extra cost that would add some benefit (grazing hits, near-misses from missiles or anti-fighter guns on capital ships), so why not?

Another factor that is interesting is that TIE bombers are stated as being able to take a hit, despite lacking shields.

Which actually leads to what is possibly the best answer. The real value of shields or heavy armor is against capital ships rather than enemy fighters, and thus Rebel Alliance fighter-bombers all carry them. They give only a marginal benefit against enemy fighters, but a massive one against capital ships. It is also consistent with the fact that the Millennium Falcon seems to do better against hits from star destroyers than from TIE fighters.

The cost factor for the Alliance is somewhat negated by the fact that they build heavy fighters in lieu of proper capital ships.

Plus also, what the TIEs lack in all those other respects, it really makes up with its weird ass maneuverability. Not only are TIEs fast as heck but look at how they maneuver. There are scenes of TIEs flying sideways lol. I think those "solar panels" are not only radiators but also oversized repulsor arrays or something.

That is also consistent with the extremely fast but much less agile A-wings in use by the Alliance.

I've suspected much the same for quite a while. Each "panel" could simply be an array of hundreds of tiny vernier thrusters (or repulsors). The TIE advanced/bomber/interceptor/defender-style "panel" could represent the next generation with the more rounded style of the Grand Inquisitor's prototype being a transition between the two.

If that were true why did the First Order go backwards?

[Galvatron]

It's also possible that shields were considered unnecessary since the vast majority of beings in the galaxy are unlikely to open fire on an Imperial fighter out of fear of reprisal.

If that were true why did the First Order go backwards?

Good question. I got nothing but straws.

[Crazedwraith]

If that were true why did the First Order go backwards?

This is a big question about TIEs in any theory.

And also where the Two-Seater version keeps anything that should be inside it.