Practical or For Show?

[Silenceo]

Starfighter squadrons in my opinion are far more effective than ship-to-ship exchanges ever were.

 

I still think the Venator-class was the perfect ship, sticking to overwhelming fighter waves rather than throwing your Capital Ships into direct line of fire.

 

While starfighters have their place, I am not sure they are the most "effective" considering how many are needed to kill opposition bigger than themselves. Granted, they have a much larger scaling skill ceiling, but ships such as Destroyers are still relatively more effective. Not only can it take out carriers rather well, many carry star fighters as well to supliment their great firepower.

 

Nothing is stopping them from firing into oncoming enemy fighter swarms either. They may not be able to track as quickly with the large guns, but the more star fighters there are the more likely that the larger ships can take out swaths of fighters/bombers. Even if a capital ship loses all of its own fighters, its shields will still hold quite a while against even bombers unless it is seriously out numbered. They by the end will likely be heavily damaged, but average pilots piloting bombers will need quite a few wing men to be able to disable large portions of the vessel before they are taken out.

 

Star fighters are effective, but most effective is up for debate.

 

Side Note: Enemies specializing in star fighter elimination will likely decimate the Venator's fighter swarm rather easily. If I recall correctly, isn't a Venator about equal to an Imperial-class if you include the fighters? Without the fighters, how much of its power does it lose? 50%?

[StarSquirrel]

Side Note: Enemies specializing in star fighter elimination will likely decimate the Venator's fighter swarm rather easily. If I recall correctly, isn't a Venator about equal to an Imperial-class if you include the fighters? Without the fighters, how much of its power does it lose? 50%?

 

I'd say closer to ~30-40% reduction, its not a carrier...

 

I think Venators bring a good balance, but I also like the more evolved Imperial tactics were they used large ships (like Imperial and Imperial-II SD's) to blast apart the enemy capital ships and used carriers with fighters (Interceptors, Scimitars, Defenders) to handle their enemy's smaller ships.

 

The New Republic relied too much on freighters, frigates, and corvettes. Those are the capital ships I think fighters can decimate and the Imperial Remnant eventually worked that out I think. Honestly, there is no "best strategy" imo, its a matter of exploiting the weakness in your opponent's first.

Edited June 10, 2014 by StarSquirrel

[LadyKulvax]

Venator-class had as much firepower as an Imperial-class( 8 DBY-827 heavy dual turbolaser turrets made all the difference) besides the starfighters but also had a much larger fighter complement, the best Venator-class ships in the Open Circle Fleet would attach SPHA-Ts to the ventral hangar making them even more powerful than the Imperial-class was.

 

Combine all three and take into account the superiority of the starfighters the Republic used compared to the Empire and we have a very clear winner.

[Silenceo]

Venator-class had as much firepower as an Imperial-class( 8 DBY-827 heavy dual turbolaser turrets made all the difference) besides the starfighters but also had a much larger fighter complement, the best Venator-class ships in the Open Circle Fleet would attach SPHA-Ts to the ventral hangar making them even more powerful than the Imperial-class was.

 

Combine all three and take into account the superiority of the starfighters the Republic used compared to the Empire and we have a very clear winner.

 

Dang it! Had a full, long explanation and response all written up and the browser had an error...*Sigh* Guess I can try again... Going to put my Empire Fanboy side back into its cell, and try and stick to cold facts, no matter which way they cut...*slams cell door* let us begin.

 

Weaponry:

 

Venator:

DBY-827 heavy dual turbolaser turrets (8)[1]

Medium dual turbolaser cannons (2)[1]

Turbolaser cannons (unknown number; may be a modification)

Point-defense laser cannons (52)[1]

Tractor beam projectors (6)[1]

Heavy proton torpedo tubes (4)[1]

16 torpedoes each[3]

 

Imperial MK-I:

Dual heavy turbolaser turrets (6)[1]

Dual heavy ion cannon turrets (2)[1]

Quad heavy turbolasers (2)[1]

Triple medium turbolasers (3)[1]

Medium turbolasers (2)[1]

Taim & Bak XX-9 heavy turbolasers (60)[1]

Borstel NK-7 ion cannons (60)[1]

Phylon Q7 tractor beam projectors (10)[6]

 

Edge: Imperial MK-I

It is a dedicated ship-to-ship warship whereas the Venator is a versitile carrier-destroyer. Most of the Venators weaponry is of the point defense variety leading it to be able to defend it self very well against bombers. The MK-I has much less of such weapons and instead focuses on taking out the enemy capital ships instead.

 

Star Fighter Compliment:

 

Venator:

Alpha-3 Nimbus-class V-wing or V-19 Torrent starfighters (192)[1]

ARC-170 starfighters (36+)[1]

Eta-2 Actis-class light interceptors (192)[1]

 

Imperial MK-I:

6 Squadrons *72 star fighters*

4 Squadrons of TIE/LN Fighters

1 Squadron of TIE/LN Bombers

1 Squadron of TIE Interceptors

 

Edge: Venator

The Venator not only has a numbers advantage but it also has the quality unit advantage that forces the TIE units on the defensive, and unless they were all aces in TIE/Defenders this is a dog fight they just can't win.

 

Durability: Hard to quantify due to lack of data

 

Venator:

Shield Strength is equal to that of a Victory-class Star Destroyer

Hull Armor seems to be decent, but varies greatly in the TCW making it hard to judge

 

Imperial MK-I:

Shield Strength vastly superior to Victory-class Star Destroyer

Hull Armor is top of the line and able to withstand impacts of large asteroids easily (as long as it missed the bridge...)

 

Edge: Imperial MK-I

It simply was designed to be able to slug it out with other capital ships meaning that its durability had to be able to withstand something with similar firepower that it throws around. Though it is hard to get into shield strengths due to lack of much information, so sadly this point can not be gone into beyond the basics.

 

Concerning the SPHA-T on the hull, that is considered special modifications and is not standard procedure since they do not come in that condition. Nor was it a often used tactic since it was mainly specific to Skywalker's fleet.

 

Probable Scenarios:

 

#1: The Venator and MK-I meet in firing range, deploying their fighters. The MK-I manages to destroy the Venator with its overwhelming amount of firepower, though is likely critically if not fatally wounded by the fighters/bombers. *Just...SO MANY!!!*

 

#2: Venator plays it WWII style and stays out of range/sight and uses its star fighters to eliminate the enemy fighters and cripple the MK-I before manuevering to engage with a clear starting advantage. The Venator likely wins and picks up its few remaining fighters/bombers.

 

#3: Fleet battle: 10 Venators vs 10 Imperial MK-I. Hard to decide but the MK-I's ability to focus such firepower would likely lead to the MK-I's decimating the Venators only to be swarmed by the fighters. At that point however they could simply collect their remaining TIE's and leave. *If any survived*

 

Conclusion:

While I agree that the Venator is a very powerful combination of firepower and fighter compliments and could of gone far if the Empire had expanded its design instead of the Victory-class's, other than its fighter compliment it just is not able to compete with the MK-I. Then again, Carriers are meant to stay out of the center of the battle field and let their fighters/bombers do the talking. See scenario #2.

 

After Thought: Star, when a ship carries 420 fighters/bombers and has a very, very light ship-to-ship weapon load out, it is indeed a Carrier.

 

Side Note: As to which is more practical, in a fleet engagement with their usual support it feels to me that the Imperial MK-I is more practical. By themselves though, I would have to say the Venator is more practical. After all, carriers like the Venator usually requires a brute in front of it such as an Imperial-MKI Star Destroyer to take the brunt of the enemies attacks.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Silenceo

[LadyKulvax]

DBY-827 heavy dual turbolaser turrets are vastly superior to anything on the Imperial-class they maintain the ability to fire in three different patterns supported by seven different intensity levels, with ability to redirect almost all reactor power output into these 8 batteries.

 

This allowed just one Venator-class to obliterate an entire Lucrehulk-class in three minutes the reason this was rare during the Clone Wars was due to the need to use point defense batteries against the repeated swarms of CIS Fighters, a perfect example of this maximum intensity firepower was when the Guarlara gunned down the very powerful Invisible Hand in ship-to-ship broadside exchanges. They were also highly accurate even in long range shoot-outs.

 

As far as the hull armour and shielding goes, in the final year of the war Rothana Heavy Engineering allowed KDY the use of the armour and shielding that the Acclamator-class used, hull armour impregnated with neutronium making the hull practically impervious to massive energy blasts and rockets of the fusion variety.

 

As well as that the shield grnerators were spread across the hull allowing sections to remain dormant so as to focus power into appropriate sections

 

Much like the rest of the Republic's military when the new order was established the Tarkin Doctrine eventually passed which relied on fear of force rather than force itself to maintain order and system loyalty, this also meant that the Imperial Navy went for quantity and mass production over quality, hence 25,000 ISDs which were relatively easy to mass-produce, the TIE series(no explanation needed), Stormtrooper recruitment over clones producing a much poorer army, the list goes on but make no mistake the Republic Navy and the Grand Army consisted of far more quality and efficiency than the Empire did.

 

Oh and it most certainly is not a carrier it is a multi-role warship.

Edited June 10, 2014 by LadyKulvax

[StarSquirrel]

After Thought: Star, when a ship carries 420 fighters/bombers and has a very, very light ship-to-ship weapon load out, it is indeed a Carrier.

 

Side Note: As to which is more practical, in a fleet engagement with their usual support it feels to me that the Imperial MK-I is more practical. By themselves though, I would have to say the Venator is more practical. After all, carriers like the Venator usually requires a brute in front of it such as an Imperial-MKI Star Destroyer to take the brunt of the enemies attacks.

 

Ok, I can see your point. Also, nice write up!

 

Do note about the Starfighter compliment for the Imperial-I though that they had Skipray Blastboats. Those things were like pocket corvettes essentially in terms of the sheer freakin firepower they could bring. But yeah, the Venator does rule in Starfighter compliment all the way.

 

As to your side note, I agree Venators are a better ship when used in individual actions making them useful in fighting in the outer rim. And yes, the Mk. I is easily the superior ship in group engagements.

 

Also, tactically the number of fighters being used by the Venator strikes me as easily seen and fired upon at long range. A pattern of missiles and long-distance turbolaser shots could break up their formations, whittle down their forces (a stray shot could take out 3-4 in tight formation as we saw in the Malevolence episode of TCW), and make them fodder for the faster TIEs. Happened more times than I can count to the Rebellion, ya gotta remember the imps fought for decades against fighter-based tactics.

 

Want to know a ship that is for show? The Acclamators. God can any ship be more fragile and useless? They'd be better off just letting Venators secure a system and then run their forces down in dedicated cargo ships.

 

The Acclamator is really just a rickshaw with a water pistol attached that thinks it can take on tanks.

Edited June 10, 2014 by StarSquirrel

[Silenceo]

Ok, I can see your point. Also, nice write up!

 

Do note about the Starfighter compliment for the Imperial-I though that they had Skipray Blastboats. Those things were like pocket corvettes essentially in terms of the sheer freakin firepower they could bring. But yeah, the Venator does rule in Starfighter compliment all the way.

 

As to your side note, I agree Venators are a better ship when used in individual actions making them useful in fighting in the outer rim. And yes, the Mk. I is easily the superior ship in group engagements.

 

Also, tactically the number of fighters being used by the Venator strikes me as easily seen and fired upon at long range. A pattern of missiles and long-distance turbolaser shots could break up their formations, whittle down their forces (a stray shot could take out 3-4 in tight formation as we saw in the Malevolence episode of TCW), and make them fodder for the faster TIEs. Happened more times than I can count to the Rebellion, ya gotta remember the imps fought for decades against fighter-based tactics.

 

Want to know a ship that is for show? The Acclamators. God can any ship be more fragile and useless? They'd be better off just letting Venators secure a system and then run their forces down in dedicated cargo ships.

 

The Acclamator is really just a rickshaw with a water pistol attached that thinks it can take on tanks.

 

Well, the Acclamator is a better armored transport than most. Though, it really should not try and pass itself off as a dedicated warship... As for the Skiprays, they were rarely used though the ones that were got extremely high praise, so I tried to stick with the ordinary compliments for both vessels. Though, this is just a random thought, but didn't the Venators have trouble keeping a full compliment during the clone wars? *Not having to do with the comparison, just curious*

[LadyKulvax]

DBY-827 heavy dual turbolaser turrets are vastly superior to anything on the Imperial-class they maintain the ability to fire in three different patterns supported by seven different intensity levels, with ability to redirect almost all reactor power output into these 8 batteries.

 

This allowed just one Venator-class to obliterate an entire Lucrehulk-class in three minutes the reason this was rare during the Clone Wars was due to the need to use point defense batteries against the repeated swarms of CIS Fighters, a perfect example of this maximum intensity firepower was when the Guarlara gunned down the very powerful Invisible Hand in ship-to-ship broadside exchanges. They were also highly accurate even in long range shoot-outs.

 

As far as the hull armour and shielding goes, in the final year of the war Rothana Heavy Engineering allowed KDY the use of the armour and shielding that the Acclamator-class used, hull armour impregnated with neutronium making the hull practically impervious to massive energy blasts and rockets of the fusion variety.

 

As well as that the shield grnerators were spread across the hull allowing sections to remain dormant so as to focus power into appropriate sections

 

Much like the rest of the Republic's military when the new order was established the Tarkin Doctrine eventually passed which relied on fear of force rather than force itself to maintain order and system loyalty, this also meant that the Imperial Navy went for quantity and mass production over quality, hence 25,000 ISDs which were relatively easy to mass-produce, the TIE series(no explanation needed), Stormtrooper recruitment over clones producing a much poorer army, the list goes on but make no mistake the Republic Navy and the Grand Army consisted of far more quality and efficiency than the Empire did.

 

Oh and it most certainly is not a carrier it is a multi-role warship.

 

Allow me to quote myself.

[Silenceo]

I do not wish to start an argument over such a minor disagreement, so let us change the topic since we seem to be at an impasse. Perhaps we can examine the ARC-170 or the ETA-2 interceptors? I do not know much about either except for the basics though I would love to learn more.

 

Side Note: Updated the OP with somewhat of a directory for what has been discussed with the post numbers of the relative topics. Makes it easy if we ever want to go back and bring a topic up again and easier to reference.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Silenceo

[Beniboybling]

Starfighter squadrons in my opinion are far more effective than ship-to-ship exchanges ever were.

 

I still think the Venator-class was the perfect ship, sticking to overwhelming fighter waves rather than throwing your Capital Ships into direct line of fire.

I don't know, I think the main reason they were so effective was because of what they were up against i.e. the Confederate Navy which in terms of vessels has a ton of structural weaknesses to exploit.

 

They are not rigid sheets of metal like an ISD, they're skeletal and a bit mish-mash and given that so much of their structure is exposed they are easy targets for starfighters. And lets not even get started on the fact that the bridge on the Munificent is massive unprotected target sticking right out.

 

I doubt they'd fair as well against an ISD or a Mon Cal vessel which seem far more resilient.

[StarSquirrel]

Perhaps we can examine the ARC-170 or the ETA-2 interceptors? I do not know much about either except for the basics though I would love to learn more.

 

ARC 170 reminds me of the F-14 Tomcat (My favorite aircraft ever). A multi seat, rather heavy attack fighter that can do almost anything, and do it well. I like it well enough I guess, but the X-wing is far superior imo. Also, I think it would be a nice ship against the more fearsome heavy CIS fighters, but against large numbers I think it is pretty weak and easily swarmed even in groups. Also, from what I've seen it has less durability than I'd like, not like it isn't durable just not up to my standards.

 

ETA-2's I'm less familiar with though, it (likely on purpose) reminds me of the A-wing though I'd say I like the A-wing more especially with its superior armaments. The ETA-2 is a little too underarmed for my tastes. It can dance, but it has no bite.

[Silenceo]

ARC 170 reminds me of the F-14 Tomcat (My favorite aircraft ever). A multi seat, rather heavy attack fighter that can do almost anything, and do it well. I like it well enough I guess, but the X-wing is far superior imo. Also, I think it would be a nice ship against the more fearsome heavy CIS fighters, but against large numbers I think it is pretty weak and easily swarmed even in groups. Also, from what I've seen it has less durability than I'd like, not like it isn't durable just not up to my standards.

 

ETA-2's I'm less familiar with though, it (likely on purpose) reminds me of the A-wing though I'd say I like the A-wing more especially with its superior armaments. The ETA-2 is a little too underarmed for my tastes. It can dance, but it has no bite.

 

Interesting. So essentially the ARC-170 is great all around, but does not specialize in any one thing? As for the ETA-2 I am sure Jedi were pros in those due to their agility, and they more than made up for the lack of out right firepower. Though, would it kill them to add a missile launcher...

[StarSquirrel]

Interesting. So essentially the ARC-170 is great all around, but does not specialize in any one thing? As for the ETA-2 I am sure Jedi were pros in those due to their agility, and they more than made up for the lack of out right firepower. Though, would it kill them to add a missile launcher...

 

EXACTLY! But yes, in the hands of a Jedi it'd be a nice fighter much like the Stealth-X was a death trap for almost anyone but Jedi (at least in combat)

[Silenceo]

SUGGESTION: I propose that we examine the use of droid units, to see how technology over the course of the millennia has furthered their advancement. This most certainly is not an attempt to hijack advanced schematics to upgrade myself. Surely not.

 

REQUEST: I require more data on CIS star ships, if anyone could indulge my curiosity it would be quite helpful in my mission to assimilate all droid knowledge.

[StarSquirrel]

REQUEST: I require more data on CIS star ships, if anyone could indulge my curiosity it would be quite helpful in my mission to assimilate all droid knowledge.

 

One word answer? Dumb.

 

Now, my dear Silenceo, I shall rant till the apocalyptic explosions of the stars burn across the galaxy in a cataclysm of breathtaking beauty and ferocity.

 

CIS ships are, for the most part, not intentionally designed as warships and so tend to be rather weak. Beginning with the Lucrehulk of course. At this point I should mention that Aurbere, Beni, Sel, and Rayla likely have a better perspective on this than I but I shall endeavour to provide as helpful an opinionated analysis as I can.

 

The Lucrehulk is obviously a transport used by the Trade Federation. This lends it to being a better carrier for obvious reasons, with a compliment of 1,500 vulture droids and assorted land forces. Unfortunately, it rarely carried heavier fighters making it less of a threat as a carrier. It also sported an insane number of point-defence turrets (useful against the Venator's fighter complement) as well as good number of laser and turbolasers. It certainly packed a punch for its size.

 

In all honesty, imo it was how they were used that made them a sub-par ship in the clone wars. Most often they were transports (understandably so) and thus entered a battle close to the action and was forced to bear the fire of its opponents at closer range than would be ideal. Had it been used as a carrier against the Venators and had a good bomber complement this ship could have easily overpowered its contemporary.

 

Aside from the location of its reactor, I like this ship.

 

Good ship, badly used is my verdict.

 

Munificent... god I hate this thing. Ugly, sketchy, with a ton of structural weaknesses and its shape limits its own gun's firing arcs in some cases. It routinely gets thrown into combat against Venators in equal or slightly higher numbers, and while it can deal significant damage to the front, if the Venator can use its fighters well there is no reason a Munificent should win. I think as a ship used in fleets fighting an enemy head-on it is decent, but otherwise it is bad.

 

My verdict, bad ship used even worse.

 

Listed as a carrier/dreadnought, its wiki page leaves some info about fighter complements out that I'd like to see. Still, if it had at least 200 fighters (or like Grievous's ship) a crapton of Vultures on the hull I think this ship could grow on me. We see it do well against the Venators in close-combat, and it seems to be slightly superior in terms of sheer firepower. Typically we see it with a fleet, and in that context it seems like a good all-around ship and perhaps could have been a fantastic piece of the Separatist arsenal had the war lasted longer. I love the torpedo count, especially against Venators with their fighters as well as just increased firepower against capital ships.

 

Verdict, mediocre ship that probably needed more work or opportunity to become a truly good ship.

 

All the ships have exposed bridges (ok, well maybe not the Lucrehulk) is this just a hallmark of the Sep's design team? It seems like poor planning, I mean they keep getting this bridges blasted to hell. Plus, why don't they have droids piloting the ship, I mean like a droid brain and not some retarded B1, no bridge to damage at that point, sit the commander in the bowels of the ship and use holoprojectors to give them a 360 view of the battle. Seriously, why don't they do this!

 

That's my opinion on the three big Sep ships.

[Ventessel]

ARC 170 reminds me of the F-14 Tomcat (My favorite aircraft ever). A multi seat, rather heavy attack fighter that can do almost anything, and do it well. I like it well enough I guess, but the X-wing is far superior imo. Also, I think it would be a nice ship against the more fearsome heavy CIS fighters, but against large numbers I think it is pretty weak and easily swarmed even in groups. Also, from what I've seen it has less durability than I'd like, not like it isn't durable just not up to my standards.

 

ETA-2's I'm less familiar with though, it (likely on purpose) reminds me of the A-wing though I'd say I like the A-wing more especially with its superior armaments. The ETA-2 is a little too underarmed for my tastes. It can dance, but it has no bite.

 

The Tomcat? Really, bro?

 

How about the F/A-18 Super Hornet? Different loadouts facilitate air-to-air, air-to-ground, recon, etc. Superior avionics, durability, and awesome maneuverability. That airframe rocked! (Maybe it's the Navy man in me being biased, but still.)

 

On another note...

 

Carriers are pretty much always going to dominate non-carriers in the capital ship arena. We saw this beginning in World War 2, and for good reason. The ability to project force far beyond the range of your own guns is a game changer. We don't always see the most logical tactics used in Star Wars space battles, but fighters and bombers are inherently offensive tools and lend a tremendous advantage in combat.

 

They're small and difficult to target at long range, allowing them to close in and start wreaking havoc. They can double as a defensive screen to fend off incoming vessels, and provide vast situational awareness via long range reconnaissance.

 

What are the advantages of a dedicated battleship?

 

Practically none. Fighters will always be faster than capital ships, so no matter how long range a ship's guns are a carrier can always stand off behind an asteroid field, planetary body, etc. and grind down the battleship while remaining sheltered. A battleship needs to split its energy between firepower and shielding, whereas a carrier can instead focus primarily on shielding, and even ignore engine/thrust to a large degree while weathering out enemy fighter/ship attacks if need be.

 

Fighters can be replaced rapidly, without the need to place the carrier in drydock or conduct lengthy repairs. If a battleship sustains heavy damage in battle (which is inevitable given the way it engages the enemy) it is far more likely to require more extensive repairs and be out of action.

 

Lastly, a carrier can divide its fighter forces between offense and defense, or between multiple targets. This allows a greater range of flexibility in combat, whereas a battleship can only be in one place at a time.

[Beniboybling]

But fighters don't have the capabilities to take down a dedicated battleship alone, so such a battleship can easily fend off fighters long enough to cripple the carrier and have corvettes/fighters etc. clean up the rest.

 

Now I know little about actual real-world warfare but I'd hazard a guess and say that aircraft would definitely be far more effective given that in modern warfare we lack deflector shields, and aircraft can therefore do massive damage.

 

EDIT: Noting that most battleships in Star Wars come with decent fighter complements as well.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Beniboybling

[LadyKulvax]

Fighters might not do the job but bombers certainly will.

[Beniboybling]

Fighters might not do the job but bombers certainly will.

Very true, but bombers all to often suffer from slow speed, making them easy pickings for even turbolaser fire.

[LadyKulvax]

Very true, but bombers all to often suffer from slow speed, making them easy pickings for even turbolaser fire.

 

Hence swarm formations, turbolasers can only do so much, now point-defense turrets work wonders... unfortunately most battleships forego these in favour of turbolaser batteries we see the results of this when the Alliance would attack individual ISDs with a swarm of quality starfighters and bombers and take the ship out with no larger vessels accompanying them, ironically the carriers in Star Wars often carry many times more of such weaponry and compensate for lesser numbers of turbolaser batteries with really powerful individual main batteries.

[Beniboybling]

Hence swarm formations, turbolasers can only do so much, now point-defense turrets work wonders... unfortunately most battleships forego these in favour of turbolaser batteries we see the results of this when the Alliance would attack individual ISDs with a swarm of quality starfighters and bombers and take the ship out with no larger vessels accompanying them, ironically the carriers in Star Wars often carry many times more of such weaponry and compensate for lesser numbers of turbolaser batteries with really powerful individual main batteries.

Good point, I'm interested to see how battles like this will play out in the Kaggath...

[LadyKulvax]

Good point, I'm interested to see how battles like this will play out in the Kaggath...

 

Oh I have many points to make from many sources, I choose everything carefully, complimentary units that maintain diversity and adaptibility are my forte.

[Ventessel]

But fighters don't have the capabilities to take down a dedicated battleship alone, so such a battleship can easily fend off fighters long enough to cripple the carrier and have corvettes/fighters etc. clean up the rest.

 

You sure about that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW_hGOFukMQ This may change your mind...

 

Oh, and there was that snub fighter that destroyed a battle station with a proton torpedo. What was that again? Oh yeah, the Death Star.

 

Now I know little about actual real-world warfare but I'd hazard a guess and say that aircraft would definitely be far more effective given that in modern warfare we lack deflector shields, and aircraft can therefore do massive damage.

 

EDIT: Noting that most battleships in Star Wars come with decent fighter complements as well.

We also lack proton torpedoes and energy weapons (for now... mwa hahaha!) The offensive capabilities of Star Wars fighters/bombers certainly match the defensive capabilities of deflector shields.

 

As LadyKulvax pointed out, there are always bombers. However, those are designed more for ground attack, etc. There are heavy fighters/hybrid designs such as the venerable X-Wing and ARC-170 which offer a mix of dogfighting abilities and heavy firepower (i.e. proton 'effing torpedoes, not to be messed with).

 

And before you mention that proton torpedoes are rare and expensive, yes they are. But I'm willing to wager they're still cheaper than a battleship!

[Selenial]

Oh I have many points to make from many sources, I choose everything carefully, complimentary units that maintain diversity and adaptibility are my forte.

 

Meh, I just went mostly all out battle for the Kaggath, not like there's going to be much variation in the Battegrounds version....

[Silenceo]

You sure about that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW_hGOFukMQ This may change your mind...

 

Oh, and there was that snub fighter that destroyed a battle station with a proton torpedo. What was that again? Oh yeah, the Death Star.

 

I was just going to sit back and watch this one...but no... I can not, and WILL NOT let this piece pass me by without commenting on it.

 

Reguarding the destruction of the Executor:

 

The ENTIRE rebel fleet focused its weapons on that singular vessel. Capital ships, frigates, cruisers, fighters, bombers, corvettes, EVERYTHING. an ENTIRE FACTION focused its entire arsenal on that ship and it still took ages to bring its shields down. Even then the shields would have come back up soon if they had not lost the bridge, which, even then typically is not a fatal blow to a Star Destroyer. Fact is, every Star Destroyer, has a secondary bridge that can be used to regain control within a few minutes if the main bridge is taken out like so. The only reason it did not was due to its low orbit and proximity to the 2nd death star. Which it collided with before it could reroute its systems. That A-Wing that took out the bridge, managed a one in a million shot in a one in a million opening on a ship that had lost its shields just moments before his impact. Given a few more seconds the defensive screen of firepower would have caught the A-Wing, which can you see the admirals are telling the gunners to do. The reason this event even managed to happen with all of those rare pieces, is plot armor. In most cases where it would not be above a planet they would have lost say, 10-40 crewmen due to rapid decompression, and then power would of been rerouted in a few minutes, leading to the ship being back in the fray.

 

As for the second example, I get tired of using this reason at times, but the entire incident with the destruction of the death star wars plot shielded by the fact that Luke was the only pilot in the galaxy besides Vader, or maybe Obi-wan who could make that shot. Vader was evil, and Obi-wan was dead, leaving it to only Luke. This is made easily apparent due to the fact that he turns off his targeting computer because he knows it will fail him. They even question if he is alright for doing this, since no sane pilot without the force turns that off in combat! Even then, the only reason they knew about the weakness was due to the plot of the story which most factions who if they hypothetically went against the death star, would not know.

 

Proton Torpedos are great, but they are not terribly fearsome. For example, if I remember correctly, it took multiple volleys from Rogue squadron to drop the bridge shield on the Corruptor Victory-class star destroyer. Granted, bridge shields are stronger than most other sections, but the mere fact that it could shrug off that many before being compromised shows that if they were not a elite squadron, it likely could have picked them off.

 

I am not saying that Destroyers are epic and the end all be all of naval warfare in star wars. However, the shielding plays such a pivitol role that it is much less of a carrier wins the majority of the time like it did in real life. Here, they have more teeth, more defenses, and they also carry star fighters of their own. They do not even need to WIN the dog fight. They merely have to stop the enemy star fighters from concentrating their fire, which throughout multiple wars they succeeded in doing. When that happened it left the Destroyer plenty of time to tear into the carrier itself if in range. If not, it gave the Destroyers gunners the time they needed to be able to line up more shots on the offending star fighters. As was previously pointed out, bar a few exceptions, bombers carried most of the weaponry capable of hurting the larger ships and they often were ponderous or slow. Lots easier to hit than a fighter. Even the fighter/bombers are not too agile due to their armament.

 

It would by no means be easy nor fast to do so, but if its own smaller compliment can do its duty by simply distracting even a fourth of the enemy star fighters then they have done their job. Without the bombers to take down the shields the fighters will have a tough time even if they are in vast numbers. This isn't even considering that if a capital ship of any kind is in a fight they know they can't win, it is a small matter to plot a hyperspace route out before their shields are breeches. The larger the ship, more often than not, the stronger the shielding. The stronger the shield the more bombers are required to pierce it.

 

Another thing to remember is that even if star fighters are agile and hard to hit, on their initial approach they will likely be relatively close together or at least on similar vectors. This will allow a ship such as a Destroyer to take out multiple star fighters in the opening volleys. Something smaller groups of star fighters do not suffer from, due to room to maneuver, friendly fire, and they tend to not be spotted until they are much closer.

 

CONCLUSION: Both are effective at what they do, and while smaller craft such as star fighters are effective and are able to take down much larger vessels, they are not immune to their slower weaponry even if it wasn't designed to combat them. In essence the star fighters/bombers must get the shield down before the majority of their heavy hitters *bombers/carrier* are taken out, lest the shield will simply be too strong to be brought down. Though using Destroyers and Carriers in concert tend to lead to quite devastating results.