You should cover the T-70 X-wing. Or maybe you could try covering the CAS-class assault carrier or the CSO-class super carrier from Halo.

Do they practise bird law?

What a bizarre sponsorship

@@lionguardant5468 never been injured in an accident?

@@ThommyofThenn well, no. but it's an odd firm to want to advertise on a star wars lore video

yeah you tend not to see many repeat visits of most craft because they need to sell new toys

Remember when they cancelled the clone wars episodes for when the clones would battle themselves, than Mando planet

I presume those missions were glassified..

​@@ilpoomatili9549🤣

Yet Star Destroyer turbolasers got nerfed instead 😮 make it make sense

@@nomercyinc6783 and tanks can't float in the air. What's your point?

@@nomercyinc6783 maybe not. But those Fusion weapons did turn impact zones into a glass like substance. Plus "glassing" is a general term for a full scale bombardment of all population centers. Base Delta Zero more specifically refers to reducing the surface to slag.

Me too! I feel like they were underutilized and underrated

Would be redundant, the TIE Fighter is very good as is

@@angelic_disappointment7889obviously not since in every single dogfight it’s seen in it can only take one or two shots before being destroyed maybe if it had some lighter shielding the pilots could’ve outmaneuvered the rebel pilots but pappy palpie was being jewy about it

The TIE defender along with other TIE variants like the phantom, opperor and aggressor were very hard to produce ,the empire probably had millions of pilots and a million tie defenders would be the same cost as 30 million tie fighters and 2000 ISD-IIs thus making them useless for a expanding empire which needed to fill its lost ranks with fresh recruits. Thats why they were even more deadly in the hands of ace pilots like during the bacta war under the 181st squadron.

It was noted that a TIE Defender cost as much as five TIE Fighters but was also worth as much,considering that one TIE Defender was designed to be even more capable then a flight of four TIE Fighters,and a flight of four TIE Defenders was more likely to survive then five flights of four TIE Fighters. Experience shows that more often then not,the Imperials would loose several flights worth of TIE Fighters every single time the Rebels showed up for a raid,replacing them was easy enough but mounting costs far exceeded the costs of having TIE Defenders instead,and with Imperial might,replacing TIE Defenders would've only been hampered by the requirement of having good enough pilots. Of course,greedy local Imperial politcal staff at their respective posts didn't realise this,and the Rebels did manage to hamper production enough that they weren't produced as much as intended,but their design made them so good that an entire class,the Missle Boat,had to be made to counter them,and were still competitive even in 44 ABY. No,they were not useless for expanding the Empire,which was already galaxy emcompassing in the first place,and actually needed them to ensure their hold on the galaxy. We shall also never ever accept the bull crap that was their demise in Star Wars Rebels,like nearly all Disney canon.

@@NareshSinghOctagon I agree with your points on the cost of producing TIE defenders being less than replacing destroyed or lost TIE fighters and how the greed of local imperial moffs wanting the budget to go into thier pockets instead of strengthing thier local sector fleets hindered the overall ability of the TIE defender.Also a fun fact,Rogue squadron briefly flew TIE defenders when they allied with issard in 9 aby. Now for the nerdy part.TIE fighters are known for thier simple design and the ability to mass produce them ,TIE defenders on the other hand need to have thier shield generators and hyperdrives manufactured in addition to the actual craft itself thus doubling the time it takes to produce a TIE fighter compared to a TIE defender. The empire under the very dumb tarkin doctrine was very willing to absorb losses if it meant achieving the strategic objective and the lost pilots could be replaced with newer ones ,tieing the populace to the empire as thier very way of life so they are less likely to rebel. I can also see TIE defenders giving imperial technicians the same headaches as the Y-wing and B-wing gave to the rebel techs,the addition of shielding and hyperdrives would be a nightmare to maintain specially considering the numbers game the empire plays so often. The logistical side would be another nightmare as alot of the empire's shipyards and maintenance facilites are catered to take care of TIE fighters,bombers and interceptors and not TIE defenders,oppressors and aggresors . Now keeping all these points in mind it would not be practical to replace tie fighters with tie defenders since the Empire is activily fighting a war with the Rebel alliance who by 4 aby had 1750 capital ships and several squadrons of superior star fighters on board said ships.If i were the empire I would have the TIE fighter as my main fighter and would reserve the better variants like the Phantom,oppressors ,Agressors and defenders to pilots who survive battles and get alot of kills.Give them a ton falk carrier and two lancers as escorts and the rebel alliance doesnt exist anymore.

That coupled with the amount of real world WW2 parallels in how ships designed in star wars function and perform. On screen we usually only see the turbo lasers firing on capital ships which are of course the equivalent of main guns on irl naval ships with heavy turbolasers being basically the heavy cruiser/battlecruiser/battleship guns of star wars and regular turbolasers being more like the main guns of destroyers and light cruisers means they are basically eyeballing their shots with no or limited tracking data the way those irl ww2 ships would have. So yeah, you COULD hit a bomber or fighter with the laser equivalent of a 6in or larger naval gun (152mm for those who dont know naval gun sizes) but your gonna need to basically fill the "sky" with shots from multiple guns and have a combination of good aim and luck. With all that ECM its not til they are basically skimming the hull and in range of the smaller blaster and laser turrets they would have a hope of hitting one consistently. Its a good bit of world building to explain why we have this older style of combat filled with dogfights in star wars when even in irl most combat at sea or air is done beyond line of sight from miles away via missles.

It really is. In Legends I think it was specifically those kinds of bombers that were set to raze Felucia. The most comparable craft is the Missile Boat from the X-Wing/Tie Fighter games. The fact Missile Boat was hand designed by Thrawn to counter the Tie Defender should tell you just how scary a Tie Punisher/Interdictor is if it’s anywhere near comparable.

I think U are from diffrent timeline, because U write TIE-Bomber, in this timeline is TIE Bomber. I'm from other timeline too.

Bad idea. It's a dedicated bomber and performs in that role. You guys severely need to understand every starfighter/aircraft is not supposed to be some unstoppable killing machine that can just annihilate anything. That would make zero sense in lore and it also just outright says "I'm not intelligent enough to craft a complex world so here's a ship that's literally unstoppable" ala X-Wings in modern canon. Dedicated roles exist for a reason.

The TIE bombers role is an ordinance truck, kinda like F15 eagles nowadays. Its not meant to dogfight or clear the skies by itself. For ground support, the Bomber is used once air superiority is attained via TIE Interceptors or TIE/ln fighters. For fleet engagements, it is meant to be escorted. This could be frigates like the carrack or tartan, corvettes like raiders or CR92As, or TIE/ln or TIE/in escorts forming a screen in front. Because of the amount of customizable ordinance options, the bomber could perform as missle boat, taking on enemy gunships and starfighters. The bomber was also devastating to enemy capital ships. Yes, more independent imperial "bombers" did arise as imperial resources became scarce. This includes the scimitar and the Starwing. Even gunships like the heavily protected Delta DX9 could perform as an assualt platform. To conclude, the TIE bomber is still quite useful, and is certainly underrated.

@helghast1149 interesting, we seem to be in agreement, but your tone and opening sentences suggest you strongly disagree with my statement. Would you care to explain your thoughts?

Sure. I believe the standard TIE Bomber as a platform is actually an amazing craft. In addition to the speed and maneuverability you've mentioned; it is my belief that the modularity of the craft is what makes it such an effective and versatile bomber. In a standard configuration the TIE Bomber is best used for either bombing enemy capital ships or enemy ground installations. It can be outfitted with an array of ordinance that varies from proton bombs and ion bombs or proton torpedo's and shield-piercing torpedo's. However, it can also be outfitted with anti-starfighter measures such as a rotary cannon for tightly grouped fighter craft or even for ground assault strafe runs. Micro-missiles can also be equipped which are capable of swarming a single enemy or attacking multiple enemies at the same time. The tradeoff with the micro-missiles is that if used on multiple enemies depending on the craft it may not be enough to guarantee a kill albeit a mission-kill is just as good. The platform also has several variants due to it's modularity so that it can perform other roles without sacrificing the integrity of the ship. It's important to note that the roles these variants perform are in a limited capacity and are niche in nature. There's the TIE Boarding Craft and TIE Command Shuttle, you can make an argument for the TIE Scout but it's chassis differes enough that I'll exempt it. @@anthonyklanke1397

Lul what?

Exacly! Weird this is.

All light/medium bombers need three things to accomplish their mission: the best ECM possible, survivable structure, and adequate defensive armament.

At that point, you almost have a Tie Advanced, and yeah, that would be an incredible single person cargo and transport vessel

Idk if you'd be able to carry enough to make it worth it

@@perrywaaz3660 10+ tons of cargo, low maintenance, giga tons of spare parts around, might be really cheap.

Absolutely not, it way to small to be used as a cargo ship, and that's with the space you save by not having either of those things

@@calebbarnhouse496 Why not,? a class 5 hyper drive would take less space then the pilot and you could use cargo pod shields modules, one fifth the cargo capacity (20 tons) of a yt-1300 at less then 1/4th it's size, so I say yes It can be.

Usually proton bomns are considered to be a type of nuclear weapon.

@@emilsinclair4190 the blue low yield ordnance are the Proton Bombs.

@richardched6085 ... yeah. The fore of those blue bombs has variet quiete a bit over different instances. It's strongest depiction are basically op nukes while ist weakest is basically firecracker. From a lore perspective proton bombs are a kind of nuclear bomb. Big versions can even be used to glass a planet.

@@emilsinclair4190 they explicitly called them Fusion Bombs in Mando Season 3 though. If Proton Bombs were used, they would have said Proton Bomb.

@richardched6085 ah welcome to the world of fan interpretations and inconsistencies. It is basically just an endless filed of could. In legends proton bombs definitely could have the same yield. And in canon it is unlikely that nukes were used do to no radiation. Proton bombs also work by a nuclear process.

Yes,it should.

Rogue Squadron is only lauded so much because of nostalgia it was poorly written and does not hold well to modern standards. The whole TIE's being easily destroyed was always a movie flaw that was highly exaggerated by early Legends writers. Write Rogue Squadron again, but actually make them work for it and LOSE more than once.

The writing is good. However the lore and the scale of it are not in line with a more modern understanding of the lore.​@helghast1149

I will compromise on that point and acknowledge that I appreciated the characterizations. @@emilsinclair4190

@@helghast1149 unfortunately I only read them in 2018 after finishing the Thrawn trilogy so no nostalgia for you to complain about sorry. I felt the x wing novels are fun and easy read that step away from the big names and did something different for a Star Wars novel especially in that time for the EU. so what if it cheesy action that took liberties with lore (it was the 90s lore was constantly changing depending on the author). You seem to have such a jaded attitude towards Star Wars that you feel the need to jump on a comment that was about good memories that this video brought up for me about a book set in a fictional universe and complain that it wasn’t lore accurate your the type of person that make fandoms toxic I hope you find something to enjoy that doesn’t involve complaining about what other people enjoy. Read and watch what you enjoy in a fandom forget the rest and let others do the same.

Mate we gatekeep communities to keep casuals like you out because you enable the watering down of lore. I'm not jaded towards the Star Wars I knew. I'm jaded towards what it's become and how carelessly new fans treat it's lore. You just read them in 2018 so don't speak on the EU in the nineties as if you were reading them then. Because when people say the EU jumped around it's because there's thirty years worth of stories there. Not because there was zero consistency across stories. Either way have your fun. @@andrewd5894

That wouldn't have made the slightest difference, no.

@@papapalps2415 yes, yes it would have. the empire lost incredible amounts of resources with each death star blown up. the larger the percentage of military might from one unit the greater the damage done when said unit is destroyed. the death stars made up huge portions of the empires military might, both times they were destroyed were huge blows to the imperial war machine. if the resources were spread out among hundreds of smaller vessels it would have been a lot harder for the rebellion to sabotage the empire in any meaningful way. ultimately the deathstars could only threaten one place at a time, hundreds or thousands of smaller vessels can be concentrated or spread out. with enough vessels the rebellion could've been crushed through sheer military presence, it pretty hard to do sneaky guerilla warfare tactics if every possible hiding spot has imperial forces stationed.

@@gabrielhenson5751 "the Empire lost incredible amounts of resources with each Death Star blown up..." They didn't, no. Both Death Stars were built on hidden black budgets, in the middle of nowhere, with zero pre-existing logistical support or drydocks, and in the case of the second, was both exponentially larger and built exponentially more quickly. These things were built in total secrecy. They very, very obviously didn't actually strain the Empire overly much. "If the resources were spread out among hundreds of smaller vessels..." Hundreds? Lmfao. I understand a total and complete lack of understanding of scale is a common concept with randoms, and I sense this will be no exception. Try millions. In terms of sheer volume of raw material, the DS1 alone (to say nothing of the second) is equivalent to quite literally millions of ISDs, and tens of thousands of Star Deeadnoughts. Granted, that's just raw volume, which means little, but nevertheless. Of course, before you begin to cry out a 'ah-ha! Gotcha!', the Empire having the abillity to shit out a truly breathtaking number of ships, and them WANTING to do that are not at all the same thing, nor is 'producing large numbers of ships' and 'producing a Death Star' mutually exclusive (obviously; seeing how, y'know, the entire Imperial Starfleet was more or less built from scratch in the same 2 decade time span as the first DS, lul). "ultimately the Death Stars could only threaten one place at a time..." Lmfao what? This is akin to saying nuclear weapons 'can only threaten one place at a time'. Its...technically true, of course, but it ignores so much context as to be laughable. Nevermind that the fact you think the Death Stars were even MEANT to truly represent a physical threat per say indicates you have zero actual idea what they were meant to do, lmfao. "with enough vessels the Rebellion could've been crushed through sheer military presence...." The fact you have zero understanding of sheer scale whatsoever is hardly suprising, unfortunately. Either way, go away, little random. You are boring me.

@@papapalps2415 bruh, I know the death star was meant to be a psychological weapon primarily _but that DIDN'T WORK now did it?_ the empire was fully aware that the rebels they were fighting relied incredibly heavily on hit and run, sabotage, and other such guerilla tactics and an assortment of . and what do they do? create a giant, moon sized, battle station with a big explodey reactor core and put billions of personnel aboard it. the first deathstar i admit the empire couldn't have predicted a force user would be with the rebels but after the first deathstar that was blown up they knew about luke. so the empire decides "I know, I'll build a second BIGGER deathstar and station all my highest ranking figures on it, then i'll protect it with a shield generator on a f-ing forest planet where these rebels known for using guerilla warfare will TOTALLY NOT have the advantage in ground combat" the biggest mistake the empire made was putting all their eggs in one basket, all their leaders in one deathstar. screw resource cost comparisons having Darth Vader Tarkin and Palpatine in separate vessels would have made the empire last far longer. even if the empire REALLY wanted another death star they could have built 2 deathstars the size of the original instead of one bigger one. and yes, if the empire has enough production capacity for the death star losses to not be major then they could have absolutely stationed a super star destroyer or two and a fleet of other smaller ships above every planet in the known galaxy and I think that would have been far scarier than a death star.

@@gabrielhenson5751 "bruh, I know the Death Star was meant to be a psychological weapon primarily but that DIDN'T WORK now did it?" Given that 2 of the 6 primary Star Wars trilogy films, namely Star Wars Episode 4: A New Hope, and Star Wars Episode 6: Return of the Jedi are entirely/almost entirely centered on the Death Stars representing existental threats to the continued existence of the Rebellion and freedom in the galaxy in general (both fantastic movies, by the by. Widely regarded as cinematic masterpieces. I would highly recommend actually watching them!), with said Rebellion needing to act immediately and decisively (and in the case of ROTJ, with literally almost their entire standing armada) to make sure they cant continue to exist, it's fairly obvious they didn't actually fail at their purpose; quite the opposite, infact. They only failed because, in the firsts case, of a functional act of divine providence; and in the case if the second, because of SEVERAL acts of divine providence. "and what do they do? Create a giant, moon sized, battle station with a big explodey reactor core..." I'm going to give you a tidbit of knowledge that is going to absolutely rock your world. Shatter it to its very fondations. Ready? Large, established bureaucratic institutions, like governments (and only moreso as the size of said institution increases) are inherently not well-suited or well-prepared to deal with asymmetrical insurgent, irregular gurellia forces, and especially not internal ones. They simply just aren't. This isn't something exclusive to the Galactic Empire, nor to the Americans. It's an inherent issue many countries, right now, in our own world, have had to grapple with for the better part of several decades now. And frankly, even going back into anquitity, this has always been true, and amusingly its actually gotten worse and more pronounced as time has marched on relentlessly and technology has increased by leaps and bounds and orders of magntiude, not better. Not even being ruthless and willing to laugh in the face of law when needed, like the Empire or any number of other RL authoritarian regimes I could name, really truly helps all that much. You, inherently, CAN NOT deal with an asymmetrical gurellia force anything like a conventional force. You cannot simply bomb them into oblivion rom on high, nor can you jackboot them into the ground until they just shrug their shoulders and accept it. Conventional military force and tactics, on a grand strategic scale, mean sweet, sweet shit all. To deal with an insurgency, one needs to have considerably different tactics. And out of them, psychological ones are perhaps some of the best. Trying to stamp out an insurgency (or, dare I say, a rebellion, even?) with MOAR SHIPZZS is garbage. It will never work, not unless you drown the skies of every world in ISDs, and even then. You need to stop the insurgency from even wanting or getting to fight to begin with. A TV show that deals with this topic very well is another one I'd highly recommend watching, Andor, another minor cinematic masterpiece. If you want another mind blowing, more spicy revelation, then here's a fun one; most of human civilization as we know it is based in large part on fear, namely fear of consquences/force, not the actual usage of it. Golly gee gosh, now what does that remind you of...? "....but after the first death star was blown up they knew about Luke..." Seeing how the flaw with the first DS was fixed with the second, and Luke Skywalker played zero role in actually destroying the thing, I fail to see the relevance. "....where these Rebels known for using gurellia tactics will TOTALLY NOT have the advantage in ground combat..." They...didn't, though...? Again, I would HIGHLY, HIGHLY recommend actually familiarizing yourself with the base source material before trying to debate it with others, especially someone like me, it would help a lot! To clarify; the entire Battle of Endor was carefully orchestrated by Palpatine/the Empire. The Rebels only managed to land at all on his say so, and even then they had a grand total of a single Lamba shuttle's worth of commando's to utilize, meaning a few dozen, at absolute most. Similarly, the Rebels actually lost in the ground battle on their own. They were rounded up and captured. They only survived a likely very soon and very swift execution by firing squad because they had the HILARIOUS string of luck that led to Han and co. ending up finding, befriending, and enlisting the help of the natives to aid them, in a truly unlikely series of coincidences. And EVEN THEN, the Rebel/ewok alliance STILL wouldn't have won if it wasn't for both A. the obscene number of traps around the area that thinned the number of AT-STs considerably B. Chewie managing to, at the eleventh hour, hijack the last one (or at least, one of the last), and C. the base commander making the monumentally stupid mistake of willingly opening the bunker doors. If even ONE of these things had gone wrong, or if the Rebels hadn't allied with the ewoks at all and ended up assaulting the main shield complex instead of the bunker like as planned, they would have lost. "...having Darth Vader Tarkin..." Both Vader and Tarkin are more or less irrelevant, in the grand scheme of things. Everyone, and everything, in the Empire bar Palpatine himself is replaceable. The Death Stars could easily be replaced, there are number of other Grand Moffs or aspiring ones to utilize, and Vader is ultimately an attack dog and enforcer, something that could be fulfilled just as well by Luke, Leia, or some of the other stupendously powerful Force users laying around. Although either way, this little tangent of yours is irrelevant to the actual main topic. Cute red herring, though. "...they could have built 2 Death Stars the size of the original..." There were, actually. There was 2 in construction over Coruscant. "...then they could have absolutely stationed a super star destroyer or two and fleet of other smaller ships above every planet in the known galaxy..." No, they couldn't. Or rather; the Star Wars galaxy probably does gave the military industrial complex for it, but they have zero desire or meaningful incentive to do so, including the Empire. And even so, such an endeavor would be mind boggingly impractical. It genuinely actually makes me giggle out loud when I hear this line of 'logic' expressed by drooling randoms like yourself. You 'people' have such little sense of self awareness or, really, just how shit works in general that it's laughable. You unironically think the Death Stars are 'MUH IMRPACTIXZLA' and the Empire is...I dunno, I guess just entirely made up of drooling invalids, becausd TEH IMPZ ARE DUMBZ or whatever meme shit you have been brainwashed with and internalized (takes one to know one and all that, but I digress)...and then in THE EXACT SAME BREATH, begin whining and whinging about how AKAHDUALLY, the Empire should have used those resources to shit out a unfathomably huge armada, with apparently zero comprehension for how economy of scale works (hint; the crew requirements for a billion ISDs is ORDERS OF MAGNTIUDES higher than that of 1 DS1; a billion ISDs are ORDERS OF MAGNTIUDE more expensive to construct and maintain; a billion ISDs represents ORDERS OF MAGNTIUDES more danger to internal security, and so on, and so forth), or for that matter, understanding of why an authoritarian might not actually WANT a FUEK-HUGEZ-OMEGALULZ fleet of GIGAPLEX ISDs and SSDs running around; whether that be the hysterical logistical issues (the rank inflation would be comical, for one; every former Captain is now going to be a Grand Admiral), or the fact that such a state of affairs would last for all of 10 seconds before every Jim, Bob and Jane decides to go warlord, with less than nothing the federal government can do about it.

The high HP and missle jamming abilities made this thing near unkillable in the early days of the game

I thought TIE bomber had energy bombs?