Star Wars: Fighters vs Capital Ships revisited

[Knife1138]

The problem with your dish drawings is that the angle of the second picture is wrong.
The second picture shows the "supposed" dish just to the right of the tower, in the shadowed portion of the hull, whereas the first picture, the one in which the dish blows up, shows the dish to be in the lighted portion of the hull.

Huh?



You mean the one on the port side of the ship, in the shadow of the tower? Huh?

[Mr. Oragahn]

I don't see any problem with the shadow, and the ship may have moved a bit. Some time passes between the three shots.

[Praeothmin]

Whoops!
Sorry, i thought the explosion we saw on the main hull was the first dish, and so the one found in the shadows could not be the exploding dish.

I don't have any image hosting accounts, so its kinda hard for me to find an image an highlight what I meant.

[SailorSaturn13]

That would indicate that even at that point, their shields were far from spent. If that dish had been destroyed, the dialogs would have or should have been a bit different. That's impossible, while the bridge shields are low, the aft shields are still good- or something akin to it.

except Anakin DID get past the shield. I'd say shields do allow surface damage. It's just that no hit could reach the reactor with shields up.

Also a reactor could have addon shielding on the way.

Fighters in the SW universe can still have many missions besides cap ship engagment. If you insist on having a WWII ish analogy, look at WWI. Planes were more or less not up to attacking heavily defended targets, but they still fought in the war and attacked lightly (all things being realitive) defended targets.

During WW1, no commander would lead an attack of 20 planes against a dreadnought. No one would even consider it, and when ordered , would answer it is impossible. Planes were used for recon, and that's it.
Also, why was Needa terrified by MF flying towards his ISD? shields would stop it , or?

[Mr. Oragahn]

Qui Gon considered that attacking the control ship with fighters was a good plan, safe that it was also dangerous, and that their weapons may not pass through the ship's shields.

Basically, he was saying that it could work.

Now, we've seen that the ship in question had auxiliary power sources placed at the end of the hangar bays (highlighting the exceptional nature of their use), thus explaining the buffed up shields.

[watchdog]

During WW1, no commander would lead an attack of 20 planes against a dreadnought. No one would even consider it, and when ordered , would answer it is impossible. Planes were used for recon, and that's it.

I hate being a nit picker but I love studying WWI. You are right that no one would have tried to sink a Dreadnaught with aircraft, that idea did not come until Billy Mitchell showed it could be done in the 20s. but there were other aircraft designed for more than just recon (fighters for instance), there was the Gotha twin engine bomber, Germanys most successful bomber, I believe that none were ever shot down but dont quote me on that. There were also anti-sub aircraft in use by the British in the later years.
Thank you,
useless rant over now.

[SailorSaturn13]

The point at hand is the ICS claim that fighter have a kT weaponry, whereas capships have 200 GT and TT shielding. This would make ANY idea attacking a apship moot. Just like using 7,62 MGs on a Battleship. To attack target, you n eed weapons that can at least damage it.

Also it is telling that most capships house fighter squadrons. If fighters are only useful against small targets, why place them on ISD?

[SailorSaturn13]

The point at hand is the ICS claim that fighter have a kT weaponry, whereas capships have 200 GT and TT shielding. This would make ANY idea attacking a apship moot. Just like using 7,62 MGs on a Battleship. To attack target, you n eed weapons that can at least damage it.

Also it is telling that most capships house fighter squadrons. If fighters are only useful against small targets, why place them on ISD?

[AnonymousRedShirtEnsign]

If the embarked craft are scouts and interceptors rather than fighters, and are equipped with FTL drives then they could be used for patrol and scouting missions. However TIE fighters and bombers do not fit that description. It is reasonable to assume based on ANH dialog that TIE fighters are used in convoys, probably as escorts, though I'm not sure how well they would do in that role since they lack Hyperdrives. TIE fighters seem to be primarily used in an anti-fighter role, though they were likely also involved in anti-capitol ship roles during the battle of Endor (which has been covered in this thread).

[Mr. Oragahn]

Anti-fighter fighters to escort capital ships?

Wouldn't this, by definition, show the relevance of destroying any enemy fighter attacking a capital ship in sufficient numbers (a wing at least)?

[Knife1138]

Anti-fighter fighters to escort capital ships?

Wouldn't this, by definition, show the relevance of destroying any enemy fighter attacking a capital ship in sufficient numbers (a wing at least)?

You never know, considering the huge amount of fighters the Clone Wars era ships carried in comparison to the Imperial ships, fighters might be a hold over from earlier times (CW's).

Still think, though, that with all the various different sized ships in the SW universe, fighters serve a function.

[AnonymousRedShirtEnsign]

ARC 170s would be good for scout and patrol missions, at least short range ones. Unlike the ICS says, I doubt anyone would take an ARC-170 on a multi-day long mission. But TIEs aren't ARCs.

As for the hold over idea, cavalry was a hold over during WWII, it was completely ineffective against tanks and was therefore dropped as a feasible combat option.

[Nonamer]

During WW1, no commander would lead an attack of 20 planes against a dreadnought. No one would even consider it, and when ordered , would answer it is impossible. Planes were used for recon, and that's it.

I hate being a nit picker but I love studying WWI. You are right that no one would have tried to sink a Dreadnaught with aircraft, that idea did not come until Billy Mitchell showed it could be done in the 20s. but there were other aircraft designed for more than just recon (fighters for instance), there was the Gotha twin engine bomber, Germanys most successful bomber, I believe that none were ever shot down but dont quote me on that. There were also anti-sub aircraft in use by the British in the later years.
Thank you,
useless rant over now.

I'm pretty sure airplanes were never used in naval combat until after it was learned that airplanes could sink ships.