3 ms·
You could infer we're seeing the results of the Rebels being funded for insurgency operations by their benefactors. Without large carrier ships, while relativel
by XorNot 2y ago
You could infer we're seeing the results of the Rebels being funded for insurgency operations by their benefactors. Without large carrier ships, while relatively expensive hyperdrives on fighters might not be cost-effective, they'd also be the only survivable assets the Rebellion could field. A squad of X-wings is perfect for a hit and run strike mission because it can actually pull off the mission. You could've supplied the Rebels with ten times as many Tie fighters and they'd be completely unable to use them since they wouldn't have large carriers able to move them around (also whether or not they're shielded is AFAIK one of those "not really explained" things in the movies - we never really clearly see much of a survivability difference between a Tie and X-Wing once someone has a lock, other then X-wings usually have heroes in them).
- sdrothrock 2y agoVery well stated! I completely agree with this and this is why I feel like the rebels don't actually have a carrier doctrine as proposed by the article.
- TheCoelacanth 2y agoThey also may have even more of a shortage of trained pilots than of fighters since they were willing to give a fighter to a random farm boy who happened to show up for a battle. While the Empire can afford to throw away pilots, the Rebels need to give their pilots every chance to escape from a failed battle.
- sillywalk 2y ago> a random farm boy who happened to show up for a battle. To be fair Luke did "bullseye womprats in his T16", and his friend and rebel pilot Biggs could've vouched for him.
- science4sail 2y ago> they were willing to give a fighter to a random farm boy who happened to show up for a battle. My impression was that Luke's X-Wing was his reward for saving Leia - in the same scene we see Han leave the Rebels while carrying a sizeable amount of money.