Star Wars: Fighters vs Capital Ships revisited

[AnonymousRedShirtEnsign]

"Seems to me that Dr Saxton saw the effects of equipment in the Star Wars movies and let logic and science guide his conclusions."

And how do logic and science explain the use of fighters against capitol ships assuming Dr. Saxton's firepower numbers? Thousands of fighters couldn't hope to match a single capitol ship using ICS figures so why are they used so extensively?

[Gandalf]

"Seems to me that Dr Saxton saw the effects of equipment in the Star Wars movies and let logic and science guide his conclusions."

And how do logic and science explain the use of fighters against capitol ships assuming Dr. Saxton's firepower numbers? Thousands of fighters couldn't hope to match a single capitol ship using ICS figures so why are they used so extensively?

If you watch the movies fighters are never employed against capital ships with the hope of directly damaging them. Rather they are used to damage parts of the ships that have become vulnerable due to the sheilds being droped by enemy capital ship fire IE: taking out Executors targeting sensor globe in ROTJ, ramming the Executors bridge, which never would have been possible if her particle sheilds had still been up. The only exception we see are the MF's desperate manouver in ESB when the Avengers sheilds were still down and of course the forlorn hope against the Death Star.

[Dragoon]

"Seems to me that Dr Saxton saw the effects of equipment in the Star Wars movies and let logic and science guide his conclusions."

And how do logic and science explain the use of fighters against capitol ships assuming Dr. Saxton's firepower numbers? Thousands of fighters couldn't hope to match a single capitol ship using ICS figures so why are they used so extensively?

If you watch the movies fighters are never employed against capital ships with the hope of directly damaging them. Rather they are used to damage parts of the ships that have become vulnerable due to the sheilds being droped by enemy capital ship fire IE: taking out Executors targeting sensor globe in ROTJ, ramming the Executors bridge, which never would have been possible if her particle sheilds had still been up. The only exception we see are the MF's desperate manouver in ESB when the Avengers sheilds were still down and of course the forlorn hope against the Death Star.

The EU (of which the ICS is a part of) has fighters taking down capital ships. I believe there was also a scene cut from RoTJ that had B-Wings taking down a SD. And if fighters can't hope to hurt cap ships, there's no point in ahving them. There's a reason that carriers became the main weapon of war on earth: it's because fighters and bombers can deliver a lot of hurt onto a target.

[Gandalf]

The EU (of which the ICS is a part of) has fighters taking down capital ships.

Which is over ridden by the higher canon of the movies. Note that in TPM the Naboo fighters stood no chance against the Trade Federation Droid Control Ship until Anakin got lucky and crashed into the landing bay while it's sheilds were down launching more Vulture fighters.

I believe there was also a scene cut from RoTJ that had B-Wings taking down a SD.

Whose sheilds were obviously down. That was the entire point of the B-Wing, to assualt unshielded capital ships.

And if fighters can't hope to hurt cap ships, there's no point in ahving them.

Other than the fact that they give the audience a plucky heroic character to empathise with I gave a reason why fighters are used in Star Wars. But you don't want to accept it because it doesn't fit with your view of Star Wars.

There's a reason that carriers became the main weapon of war on earth: it's because fighters and bombers can deliver a lot of hurt onto a target.

That's totally irrelevant to the argument at hand. Modern warfare doesn't have impenatrable shields.

[SailorSaturn13]

Yes, the "Wing commander" manual states the same

"
Prior to Kilrat'hi war, main spaceships were heavy cruisers with huge plasma beams, as only they could hope to penetrate each others' shields...
This changed when Kilrat'hi introduced a ship-killing torpedo...
"

[AnonymousRedShirtEnsign]

We already have a thread about the accuracy of the ICS, debate this there. http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... p?t=38[url][/url]

[Gandalf]

Well perhaps Jedi Master Spock would be kind enough to split this over to the appropriate thread.

[Kazeite]

And, of course, there's still medical frigate from ROTJ which is about to be attacked by fighters. I wonder why? :)

I guess that TIE pilots just wanted to scare some poor Rebel patients to death by doing close fly-bys ;]

[Gandalf]

And, of course, there's still medical frigate from ROTJ which is about to be attacked by fighters. I wonder why? :)

I guess that TIE pilots just wanted to scare some poor Rebel patients to death by doing close fly-bys ;]

He says they are heading for the medical frigate, you'll note that they never actually attack it.

[Dragoon]

Whose sheilds were obviously down. That was the entire point of the B-Wing, to assualt unshielded capital ships.

There is no indication that it was to be used against unshielded cap ships. Please provide me with a reference.

Other than the fact that they give the audience a plucky heroic character to empathise with I gave a reason why fighters are used in Star Wars. But you don't want to accept it because it doesn't fit with your view of Star Wars.

I believe it would make much mroe military sense to develop a ship-klling torpedo and put it on your bombers and fighters, thus giving you a highly mobile striking force. Nothing in canon contradicts the idea of using fighters as such. In Ep. 1 we never saw the N-1s even fire a single volley of proton torpedoes. They were attacking with laser cannons. It is concievable that they simply did not have torpedoes.

The name "torpedo" itself implies a ship-killing weapon.

The one who is having trouble accepting things is you. You ahve this vision of Star Wars as laid out by the ICS and you'retrying to fit everything around that. Instead of going from the movies and then looking at the ICS yo uare looking at the ICS and then looking at the movies.

That's totally irrelevant to the argument at hand. Modern warfare doesn't have impenatrable shields.

It's not irrelevant, it's military logic. Fighters and bombers carrying high-yield payloads can do a lot of damage to enemy ships and allows you to avoid endangering your own capital ships.

"Impenatrable shields" indeed. Why does the Empire have a dedicated TIE bomber, then? To look pretty?

[Gandalf]

There is no indication that it was to be used against unshielded cap ships. Please provide me with a reference.

It's obvious from both the movies and the ICS that fighters can't harm capital ships. Their weapons yields are too small. In fact in the entire saga we see four ships brought down by fighters:

1: Droid Control Ship-destroyed by proton torpedo from the inside

2: Death Star-destroyed by torpedo's from inside the reactor shaft

3: Executor-bridge rammed when shields down

4: Death Star II: destroyed from the inside

Four cases of ships destroyed under exceptional circumstances. If destroying capital ships with fighters was the norm in the Star Wars universe we'd see them going up all over the place in the movies. Ergo the B-Wing must be designed to attack unshielded ships.

I believe it would make much mroe military sense to develop a ship-klling torpedo and put it on your bombers and fighters, thus giving you a highly mobile striking force. Nothing in canon contradicts the idea of using fighters as such. In Ep. 1 we never saw the N-1s even fire a single volley of proton torpedoes. They were attacking with laser cannons. It is concievable that they simply did not have torpedoes.

Then why did Anakin fire proton torpedo's inside the Droid Control Ship?

The name "torpedo" itself implies a ship-killing weapon.

And against an unshielded ship they may cause damage, even extensive damage when employed enmasse but the fact remains that in the Star Wars universe the yields are too small to cause damage to shield ships or to destroy ships on there own unless in exceptional circumstances.

The one who is having trouble accepting things is you. You ahve this vision of Star Wars as laid out by the ICS and you'retrying to fit everything around that. Instead of going from the movies and then looking at the ICS yo uare looking at the ICS and then looking at the movies.

So we should be taking the observations of Darkstar as a guide? A man with no science training whats so ever. Those of us who use the ICS as a guide have actual science on our side.

It's not irrelevant, it's military logic. Fighters and bombers carrying high-yield payloads can do a lot of damage to enemy ships and allows you to avoid endangering your own capital ships.

You continue to draw real world parallels to SW where none exist. SW is both age of sail and the age of flight rolled into one.

"Impenatrable shields" indeed. Why does the Empire have a dedicated TIE bomber, then? To look pretty?

I've already explained this to you. To exploit the weaknesses exposed on unshielded enemy ships.

[Dragoon]

So we should be taking the observations of Darkstar as a guide? A man with no science training whats so ever. Those of us who use the ICS as a guide have actual science on our side.

I didn't mention Darkstar. I said we should look at the movies before we look at ICS. Not look at ICS, draw conclusions and then look at the movies.

This is the wrong thread to discuss wether the ICS is right or wrong, so I won't say anything on that.

You continue to draw real world parallels to SW where none exist. SW is both age of sail and the age of flight rolled into one.

George Lucas based the space scenes off of World War II dog-fight movies. That by itself should tell us that we can draw real-world parallels.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Whose sheilds were obviously down. That was the entire point of the B-Wing, to assualt unshielded capital ships.

There is no indication that it was to be used against unshielded cap ships. Please provide me with a reference.

I'd like to see this as well. Considering the yields supported by the ICS and the uber armor underneath the super shields, starfighters and bombers would be utterly pointless, not only because their yields wouldn't be enough, even shields down, but also cause it would be much faster for the assaulting capital ship to just fire a few more bolts.

Other than the fact that they give the audience a plucky heroic character to empathise with I gave a reason why fighters are used in Star Wars. But you don't want to accept it because it doesn't fit with your view of Star Wars.

I believe it would make much mroe military sense to develop a ship-klling torpedo and put it on your bombers and fighters, thus giving you a highly mobile striking force. Nothing in canon contradicts the idea of using fighters as such. In Ep. 1 we never saw the N-1s even fire a single volley of proton torpedoes. They were attacking with laser cannons. It is concievable that they simply did not have torpedoes.

The name "torpedo" itself implies a ship-killing weapon.

Actually, there's that scene where two torpedoes are fired, one producing a moderately sized fireball, probably two to three starfighters large, and the other one literally obliterating the super dish array on the core (we later see that the dish isn't there anymore).

So, was the dish shielded to boot?

1. No. Then it shows that sensor arrays on such ships are sticking out of shields. They're vulnerable targets, and easy ways to render a capital ship blind.
2. Yes. Then it shows that the concentrated fire of the N-1 was able to poke a hole in the shield area around the dish, and leave it naked for a final torpedoe to blow it out of the way.

You're also forgetting that Anakin fired two of them into the extra power cores of the droid control ship.

Regarding Saxton, the irony is that most of his claims are derived from the EU, yet according to the fine manual of cherry picking, he ignores instances of starfighters engaging capital ships.

I think I remember Mara Jade leading a wing against an ISD and focusing their fire on a weak spot underneath, during the katana battle (the one happening where the fleet remained for decades, with many dreadnoughts seen missing). That's coming from Zahn's book, not from the so called videogame-inspired X-Wing novels.

So we should be taking the observations of Darkstar as a guide? A man with no science training whats so ever. Those of us who use the ICS as a guide have actual science on our side.

Your words reveal more faith in the writings you adore than anything else.

[Jedi Master Spock]

We already have a thread about the accuracy of the ICS, debate this there. http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... p?t=38[url][/url]

Unfortunately, we do not have a thread merge tool installed yet.

[AnonymousRedShirtEnsign]

This will do, thanks JMS.