The Real-Life Y-Wing Equivalent

[Vanger Chevane]

IF we accept that the P-47 is the real-life equivalent to the Y-Wing, then the latter EU novels are so far off the mark as to be ludicrous; it seemed to me that each successive EU novelist downgraded the Y-Wing's "speed" until, in the latter novels, it would be hard pressed to outrun or outmaneuver an AT-AT!

This is not in keeping with either the on-screen performance of the Y-Wing in the movies, the production notes of/from the movies, or the published stats from the various game systems. And as such, I felt that the margins of difference between an X- and Y-Wing are nowhere near as profound as some people like to believe they are.

I agree. If they were as old, slow, and combat-ineffective as some of the EU insists, the Rebellion wouldn't have invested in keeping a large number of them around as a front-line part of their terribly small & expensive (given the circumstances up to at least ROTJ, think England's fighter force during the Battle of Britain - can't turn them out nearly fast enough) Fighter Force. A few may have been used for training & target/gunnery practice if the reality was as the latter novels imply, with a different Snub being on-hand in decent supply for Attack & Bombing missions.

IRL examples: The Vietnam-Era A6E Intruder served with multiple upgrades until less than a Decade ago (1962-1997) as it did its job very well. The B-52 Stratofortress as well as the AH1 Cobra have been upgraded numerous times (IIRC the latest AH1 upgrade in service with the USMC is the AH-1Z Super Cobra), and are still on active & combat duty. IMHO the same applies to the Y-W: old but still gets the job done...with the right Upgrade Packages.

I believe that the Y-W may not be quite as good as the X-W in turn-and-burn furballs with light, fast, & maneuverable TIEs...but with good pilots & tactics that turn the fight to the Y's strengths could easily be a Bad Day for the Empire. Avoiding a turning fight & going for a nose-to-nose attrition battle would almost always go in the Bone Squad's favor. Think along the lines of the WW2 Pacific Theater, specifically the Mitsubishi A6M Zero vs. Grumman F6F Hellcat engagements for useful Y-W vs Tie tactics.




One of my Disney-Canon annoyances is the Rebels cartoon showing non-experimental versions (IRL these would not be XF nor YF models) of both A-Wing & B-Wing fighters on a fairly regular basis in an early Rebellion / mid Imperial Era timeframe. It'll be interesting how the Big D will explain them not appearing in the Premium-level Canon movies until ROTJ.

If the Rebellion had manufactured & deployed A- & B-wing designs in respectable numbers significantly before ROTJ why where there absolutely none present on neither Yavin 4 or Hoth?


Faux pas, Mister Mouse, serious faux pas...

GAH! Did not mean to go into "rant mode;" sorry.


Originally Posted by Vanger Chevane
Fun Fact: According to pilots who flew the P51 in WW2, the drop tanks were made in England & pretty much Papier Mache.


Neat! I had always assumed that they were aluminum. Given the price and difficulty to process Bauxite ore into aluminum in the WWII-era. that would have made aluminum drop tanks an expensive proposition.

No offense taken, I seem to have had a bit of a rant myself. I do think the Y-W has been given short shrift given the Primary Movie Canon performance.

It wasn't IIRC about price as it was Strategic Resource Allocation. Aluminum was a high-demand material. Both the DeHavilland Mosquito & P51 drop tanks were made mostly of wood products as it wasn't in such high demand to make everything else. The UK also had a lot of rather idle skilled cabinet and furniture makers along with a vast source of trees in Canada alone.




PS: I hate Otto von Logout for making composing well-reasoned posts of a middling length for this site a general Pain in the Sith...

[coldskier0320]

IF we accept that the P-47 is the real-life equivalent to the Y-Wing, then the latter EU novels are so far off the mark as to be ludicrous

I'm not so sure it's a solid line of reasoning to use approximate, spitballed real-world references to debunk bits of lore we don't like. Especially when said references are being made from an already biased position in favor of the very craft that is being discussed.

I also feel that it's important to note several distinctions in the EU, namely the long service lives of some craft compared to others (we see no other clone wars era fighters at the time of the OT except for the Y-wing and Z-95), and the range of situations where various fighters are used...which might have an analogy in the way some WW2 fighters were used in various roles for extended times after the war...either in the forces of non-US military forces (which might correspond to the Z-95's popularity among planetary governments and outlaws) or in roles where they wouldn't be seeing cutting edge opposition designed to combat them (see the Skyraider in Vietnam). In fact, there's a good example: Vietnam saw the Skyraider flying missions in the same overall campaign as the F-4 Phantom jet. That's not to say that the A-1 wasn't a capable craft in it's own right, but it's unreasonable to argue that, because it was still being used, that it must be the equivalent of an F-4.

Ultimately, it's also worth considering that there's a bit of a technology issue in SW...namely that tech progresses slowly...yet there is a disproportionate amount of turnover that we see in ship designs. Even at that, though, I've never liked using RPG stats to reflect equivalence across eras because it just doesn't hold up. The only effective way I've seen to handle this sort of thing in a gaming context is to have the de-facto time frame set the standard, then apply an abstract disadvantage to significantly older craft involved with modern ones. So an OT dogfight that sees the players taking on clone wars era fighters might see the older ships take a -2 "Archaic" penalty on piloting and damage checks. A simple system of speed ratings simply isn't designed to be flexible enough to meaningfully communicate the creep of technology.

By the same system we're using here to debunk the EU's evaluation of the Y-wing being too slow to be a frontline fighter later in the war, the fighters of the Tales of the Jedi era would barely be able to move beyond a walking pace!

I think it's far more likely that the opinions in the EU reflect the attitudes of elite pilots flying with a cutting edge military. In those same time frames, a story that concerned some Outer Rim anti-piracy group would probably see Y-wings get glowing reviews, and even Republic trainees in the more stable regions of the republic would likely see them as fast, agile, deadly fighters too...maybe not on par with the X-wing in terms of pure dogfighting ability, but fast, tough, and deadly all the same.

[Ash DuQuennes]

I'm not so sure it's a solid line of reasoning to use approximate, spitballed real-world references to debunk bits of lore we don't like. Especially when said references are being made from an already biased position in favor of the very craft that is being discussed.

Well, note that I put a fairly well emphasized "if" in front of the quoted statement. But, that reference puts other craft, like the X-Wing, in the category of the P-51 Mustang, F4U Corsair, and Spitfire. IOW, it's being compared with contemporaries, not as an "older" craft.

I'd thought that I established that in the OP. See below.

I also feel that it's important to note several distinctions in the EU, namely the long service lives of some craft compared to others (we see no other clone wars era fighters at the time of the OT except for the Y-wing and Z-95),...

We only really have The Clone Wars cartoon to support the notion that the Y-Wing actually is a Clone War-era craft.

...and the range of situations where various fighters are used...which might have an analogy in the way some WW2 fighters were used in various roles for extended times after the war...either in the forces of non-US military forces (which might correspond to the Z-95's popularity among planetary governments and outlaws) or in roles where they wouldn't be seeing cutting edge opposition designed to combat them (see the Skyraider in Vietnam). In fact, there's a good example: Vietnam saw the Skyraider flying missions in the same overall campaign as the F-4 Phantom jet. That's not to say that the A-1 wasn't a capable craft in it's own right, but it's unreasonable to argue that, because it was still being used, that it must be the equivalent of an F-4.

See above statement about comparing contemporaries; you're equating X-Wings and TIEs to Phantoms and Migs, versus the Y-Wing to an A-1; see below.

Ultimately, it's also worth considering that there's a bit of a technology issue in SW...namely that tech progresses slowly...yet there is a disproportionate amount of turnover that we see in ship designs.

Or is that just producers trying to "Wow!" audiences with something "new" with each subsequent movie release?

Even at that, though, I've never liked using RPG stats to reflect equivalence across eras because it just doesn't hold up.

Not gonna answer that; I reference you to above statements about comparing contemporaries.

The only effective way I've seen to handle this sort of thing in a gaming context is to have the de-facto time frame set the standard, then apply an abstract disadvantage to significantly older craft involved with modern ones. So an OT dogfight that sees the players taking on clone wars era fighters might see the older ships take a -2 "Archaic" penalty on piloting and damage checks. A simple system of speed ratings simply isn't designed to be flexible enough to meaningfully communicate the creep of technology.

ANY Analogy breaks down if examined too closely; my using the A-1's (WWII-era craft) service in Vietnam wasn't meant to imply that the Y-Wing was a WWII-era craft still operating in a Cold War Jet Era, though I see in retrospect how it could all too easily be interpreted that way.

But I rather thought that my follow-on example using the F-15 Eagle made it abundantly clear that I was illustrating how a 49 year-old design, as a 44 year-old flying platform, is still, with upgrades and improvements, one of THE premiere jet fighters on the planet; it's certainly on the short list of "deadliest plane in the sky" even as I type this.

As such, I was implicitly comparing the Y-Wing (that is, if it is indeed a 20+/- year-old Clone War-era design/craft, something I'm not altogether willing to concede based upon a single cartoon series) to the F-15, but only in terms of service life and continued relevance, and NOT in terms of relative performance or their respective doctrinal roles; Vanger's example of the A-6 Intruder is very well taken, too; an excellent example, indeed.

That would make the F-15C the T-65AC4 or somesuch, and the Y-Wing is then, perhaps, something analogous to, say, the Su-27 or F/A-18 (E and earlier models), and the notional "Y-Wing, mk. II" is then the Su-35 or F/A-18F Super Hornet.

While I didn't articulate it very well in The Departed (I'm not altogether sure I've articulated it as well as I'd like, here), it was essentially this line of reasoning behind the Y-Wing II's performance in that game. It was also in keeping with the published stats I had established for the game from the very outset.


ON a side note, I think the Russians make some really sexy jet fighters.

[coldskier0320]

Well, note that I put a fairly well emphasized "if" in front of the quoted statement.

Oh absolutely.

I guess I'm just concerned about going off on a tangent based on "If A & B, then C & D"...when A is subjective and B is unsupported...and C & D are not at all in a position where they *must* logically follow.

We only really have The Clone Wars cartoon to support the notion that the Y-Wing actually is a Clone War-era craft.

Also Rebels...and a smattering of references from pre-prequel EU material.

And the sources that dispute it?

I'm not sure that "there's only a few sources that disagree" is a valid case when there's (to my knowledge) none that do agree with a theory.

Or is that just producers trying to "Wow!" audiences with something "new" with each subsequent movie release?

Except that we see it all through the EU too. The base tech changes little, but the overall designs change significantly. That in and of itself is hard to reconcile, let alone to try to make inferences based on it.

See above statement about comparing contemporaries; you're equating X-Wings and TIEs to Phantoms and Migs, versus the Y-Wing to an A-1; see below.

You may have misunderstood.

I'm not making that comparison, I'm showing why it doesn't hold water.

Ultimately, it's not really important that you convince me, but at the same time, I do think it's rational that if you're going to try to justify turning the established lore on the subject on it's head, that there be reasonable in setting evidence that the vast majority of what we've been shown is at least heavily subjective, if not (ideally) outright objectively inaccurate.

In the absence of that sort of evidence, an argument that the lore is wrong about itself is a tricky proposition.

[wolverine]

The Y wings were some of the staple fighters we had in ANH.. And even then they were called old. That to me indicates clone war erra.

[Ash DuQuennes]

Oh absolutely.

I guess I'm just concerned about going off on a tangent based on "If A & B, then C & D"...when A is subjective and B is unsupported...and C & D are not at all in a position where they *must* logically follow.

Well, you picked one particular subset paragraph out of a larger argument to deconstruct the whole; it's not a Janga pile. Maybe my "logical writing" ain't up to snuff with what it used to be.

The original point, in toto, was the "Y-Wing's can't be upgraded because of age" argument I had seen advanced on the Holonet.

My counter were examples of aircraft having 30+ year service lives due to upgrades.

I used the A-1 as one example; the F-15 as another, for "compare & contrast" examples; yes, the A-1, (by the time of Vietnam, 20+ years after its introduction) was outclassed as a dogfighter (though, IIRC, A-1s did manage to being down Migs in either Korea, or Vietnam), serving primarily as a low-level attack platform; the F-15, otoh, is still a premier air-superiority platform ~44 years later.

My argument implicitly accepts the "older design," and therefore older craft IAW Clone Wars, Rebels (haven't seen much of it), and other pre-OT/pre-Prequel video games and novels (haven't played/read 'em).

My argument then shows how/why precluding the Y-Wing from SLEPs is logically erroneous. In this case, Vanger's A-6 Intruder example, while good overall, is actually counterproductive to my position: the A-6 was a single purpose craft; compared to the dual-purpose/multi-role function of the F/A-18 series; therefore, keeping valuable deck-space on our carriers for single-purpose aircraft like the A-6 was less-than-optimal. You can get one plane, the F/A-18, that fulfills multiple roles, simplifying logistics and training on your limited-duration, limited-space platforms (carriers).

Ultimately, it's not really important that you convince me, but at the same time, I do think it's rational that if you're going to try to justify turning the established lore on the subject on it's head, that there be reasonable in setting evidence that the vast majority of what we've been shown is at least heavily subjective, if not (ideally) outright objectively inaccurate.

In the absence of that sort of evidence, an argument that the lore is wrong about itself is a tricky proposition.

I have one really big piece of canon evidence that trumps any number of games/novels (at least before the Disney buyout): Return of the Jedi.

On-screen, the Y-Wing scores more kills than any other Alliance craft we're shown, with the possible exception of the Millennium Falcon.

IME, none of the RPG material up to and including WotC RCRB even describes the Y-Wing as an older craft; I'm guessing that came from games and novels.

On a side note: the most logical argument for the Y-wing's "lackluster" performance comparable to other Rebel craft comes from the original Star Wars movie; Gold Leader et al. were shot down by Vader before even reaching their ordnance release point.

"At least Red Leader, in an X-Wing, got his shot off!" is the common argument.

This argument presupposes a couple of things: primarily, that Gold Flight was going at its maximum possible speed.

This doesn't necessarily follow; as a former tanker, I can tell you for fact that, while the M1 Abrams-series (and contemporary designs, too) MBT has impressive (most impressive!) shoot-on-the-move capability, it varies upon terrain. Even the M1-A2 can't flat-hat cross-country without taking some degradation in its gunnery accuracy.

Thus it's my contention that Gold Flight wasn't going "top speed;" in their attack role, they were flying at their optimal velocity for maximum accuracy against their target: a two-meter wide opening perpendicular to their axis of advance. You saw all of the Rebel pilot's reactions to General Dodonna's description of the target shaft.

This jibes with not only IRL experience as a tank gunner, but also several game mechanics in various TT RPG systems; as a long-time Y-Wing pilot/player (1987, WEG 1st ed.), I literally cannot count the number of times I've gone slower to improve my accuracy on "the tough shots;" sometimes, slower than was tactically advisable, given the opposition we faced.

Gold Flight succumbed to the erroneous assumption (possibly, just a wild hope) that they'd get at least one easy pass at the thermal exhaust port before Imperial opposition wised up and concentrated on anyone down in that trench.

Tarkin and Vader may not have known about that small, vulnerable exhaust port (If I had been Tarkin/Vader, after Leia's escape, I'd have corralled the Death Star's Engineering Dept., handed them the Death Star plans, and instructed them to find a vulnerability), but they knew the Rebels had decided to stand and fight, with ~30 snubs.

This argues that the Rebels at least think that they have a chance; this argues that they looked over those plans, and found something, even if the Imperials didn't know quite what that was.

But the evolution of the battle tells us one thing for certain:

Jr. Imperial Tactcial Analyst: "Man, them Rebels sure are interested in that trench; I wonder what's down there?"

Sr. Imperial Tactical Analysts: "Don't mater none; if that's where the Rebel wants to go, then it's for sure certain that's where we don't want them to be! I'm kickin' this up to General Bast; he'll know what to do."

To me, this was very likely Vader's line of reasoning: the Rebels attack the equatorial regions with great energy, X-Wings shooting up surface emplacements like crazy; but wait! he thinks; what are those Y-Wings doing? Those are attack fighters, and they're flying away up "north," ignoring everything else. What are they up to? The Rebels aren't stupid; foolish traitors, yes; doomed to extinction, for certain. So why are they standing to fight against insurmountable odds?

The Plans! They must have found something! That's what they're up to! They must be stopped, and I'm the one to do it!

He rounds up a few spare T.I.E. pilots, tells them, "Several fighters have broken off from the main group; come with me!" and that's all she wrote for Gold Squadron.

The Y wings were some of the staple fighters we had in ANH.. And even then they were called old. That to me indicates clone war erra.

I don't recollect anything from ANH saying that the Y-Wing was an older craft; nor TESB, or even RotJ. Got any examplse?

[wolverine]

I don't recollect anything from ANH saying that the Y-Wing was an older craft; nor TESB, or even RotJ. Got any examplse?

Not the films exactly iirc its coming from the novelizations..

[coldskier0320]

Well, you picked one particular subset paragraph out of a larger argument to deconstruct the whole

Not so.

I pointed out the overall "bait & switch" of the post, which started as a "just for fun, what might the WW2 equivalent be in terms of role", and as soon as we had progressed beyond that it morphed quickly into "because this/these equivalent(s) have these traits, it proves that the SW lore must be wrong about itself".

I have one really big piece of canon evidence that trumps any number of games/novels (at least before the Disney buyout): Return of the Jedi.

On-screen, the Y-Wing scores more kills than any other Alliance craft we're shown, with the possible exception of the Millennium Falcon.

If that's your big evidence, I'm afraid of got some bad news: that's not evidence at all, or bad/possibly misleading evidence at best.

That fact (if it is, in fact, a fact) only proves one fact: that the movie shows what it shows.

By that rationale, the B-wing had zero kills, right? And the Imperial ground forces killed a total of 2-3 ewoks? Because that's all we see...

Even if it *is* true that the Y-Wing had more kills than any other craft type (an assertion that has no evidence), that *still* doesn't really prove anything at all, since it doesn't account for tactical considerations, relative amounts of craft present, K/D ratios, or the nature of the kills themselves. Perhaps faster and more maneuverable fighters were used to "herd" bandit TIEs into positions where they'd be easy pickings for Y-wings? Perhaps as a common older surplus fighter, there were simply more Y-wings available for the battle than the popular but expensive X-wings or prototype As and Bs? Perhaps the slower Y-wings were predominantly relegated to guarding the capships and as such, saw more bandits than other types overall?

Basically all that point says is "in order to capture the most important action of the space battle, that being the attack run on the DS2, the way the camera had to be pointed in order to tell that story happened to also include more YW kills than kills of any other type of ship in the minutes of footage that made it to the final reel".

This is a composition/division logical fallacy...essentially stating that since that's what we see on film, that translates directly into the greater battle...falsely assuming that the chosen film clips were chosen as such because together the present an accurate cross-section of the battle data in terms of kills. There's simply no evidence to back up an assumption like that.

IME, none of the RPG material up to and including WotC RCRB even describes the Y-Wing as an older craft; I'm guessing that came from games and novels.

Not only games (which I disregard for having internal balance issues to attend to that trump lore within their scope) and novels (which are out best indicators of actual, in-setting capabilities)...but even just taking the WotC Saga edition text blurbs we have the following:

"The Y-wing is not as popular as other snubfighters, being neither as fast nor as maneuverable. However its impressive shields and weaponry more than make up for its performance flaws." -Saga Core Rulebook p178 (nearly identical, RCRB p 228)

"Built by Koensayr Manufacturing, the Y-wing was designed to be used in the Clone Wars, but wasn't in production until after that conflict ended."
"As the X-wing became increasingly available to the Rebellion, Y-wings became second-line starfighters used only because so many were available."
"Although not as swift as an X-wing or as powerful as a B-wing, the Y-wing was a sturdy, well-shielded craft with a powerful attack in the form of two ion cannons and proton torpedo tubes. Ungainly for a snubfighter, the Y-wing served as a joint fighter/bomber, able to both enter dogfights with TIE fighters and take out armored targets, such as enemy freighters and planetary bunkers. Few ships its size mounted ion cannons, and the success of the Y-wing isone reason that the B-wing was similarly armed." - Saga SotG, p158

"The Y-wing was adopted at the inception of the Rebel Alliance, and due to its versatility remains popular despite its old, almost outdated, design. The ships are appreciated because parts for them are much more readily available than limited run ships, such as the A- and B-wing starfighters." -WEG SWRPG 2nd ed. R&E

I think it's pretty clear that, on this subject, where there is information in the established lore to be found, there is also consensus, and that consensus opinion should not be casually tossed aside based on approximate analogy outside the lore, which is, so far as I can tell, quite consistent.

[Ash DuQuennes]

Not so.

I pointed out the overall "bait & switch" of the post, which started as a "just for fun, what might the WW2 equivalent be in terms of role", and as soon as we had progressed beyond that it morphed quickly into "because this/these equivalent(s) have these traits, it proves that the SW lore must be wrong about itself".

Well, no. "Not so."

I was directly responding to a question/post by Vanger, in which I related my reasoning for inclusion of the net.guide Y-Wing II in The Departed,, then expressed a personal opinion unrelated (or at most tangentially related) to the earlier conversation. I threw in a comparison/postulate with an all-capital "IF," and used a bit of hyperbole to express my disagreement with the verbally described performance of the Y-Wing in second-tier canon.

It was, however, quite specifically about the notional, non-canon Y-Wing Mk.II from the net.guide, in a game that admitted at the beginning, and had as its fundamental premise, departures from established canon.

Why you would have a problem with that, and want to pick a fight over it, and try to "disallow/disavow" it, is beyond me.

If that's your big evidence, I'm afraid of got some bad news: that's not evidence at all, or bad/possibly misleading evidence at best.

That fact (if it is, in fact, a fact) only proves one fact: that the movie shows what it shows.

By that rationale, the B-wing had zero kills, right? And the Imperial ground forces killed a total of 2-3 ewoks? Because that's all we see...

Lucas' hierarchy of canon always placed predominance of the movies and movie-related material (direct novelizations, production material, etc.) over anything else. Given production considerations, showing every single person, every shot fired, every death, etc., is simply not practical even in a CGI age (and probably inadvisable from a purely movie-making-technique standpoint).

The few Ewoks we see bite it on-screen was to show, as a narrative/story-telling device, that the Ewoks were not getting off scott-free; that we see only a few die shows how disproportionately light the Ewok's casualties were, and is supported by the written description of the battle in the RotJ novelization.

I also don't think that the Alliance went into the Biggest, Most Important Battle Of Their Existence with only 22 fighters (all we see in the mass-shot before and entering hyperspace). Most likely, every fighter seen in that shot represented multiple fighters, possibly a 12-ship squadron or thereabouts.

Production stills of deleted scenes shows that the B-Wing did good service at Endor; it's at least implied, as three B-Wings do a fly-by of an ImpStar going all 'splodey and stuff, with the clear implication being that they were directly responsible; whether it was only three B-Wings or three squadrons of B-Wings might be critical from an "analytical" point-of-view, but is ultimately irrelevant to me from a story-telling point-of-view.

Movie making technology at the time, likely coupled with production considerations (props/models, scope-of-shots, budget, editorial considerations, etc.) precluded seeing the entire Alliance fleet and fighter force attacking Endor.

Although with CGI, the lack of such a "scope" shot in the Special Editions is, IMO, a fan disservice; after all, we see hundreds, perhaps thousands of TIE fighters doing ceremonial fly-bys during Palpatine's arrival at the Death Star II.

A slow "zoom-out" shot showing dozens of Mon Cal Cruisers, dozens-of-dozens of Nebulon-B's and Corvettes, and hundreds of fighters would have been simply awesome, and would've also been good from a narrative/story-telling P.O.V. as well; it could show how the Alliance had grown significantly since the Battle of Yavin.

I'd have also loved to see an "Oh, crap!" reaction shot from Piett and Jerjerrod, maybe even Palpatine himself, because the Imperials had seriously underestimated the Alliance's Order of Battle.


However, having said all of that, "the movie shows what it shows" is used plenty in establishing canon.

After all, it was "canon" from RPGs (and possibly novels and video games; I haven't read them all/played them all) that an ImpStar could not even enter a planetary atmosphere (at least not in any kind of productive, controlled manner) until it was implied in The Force Awakens, with all the relatively intact crashed ImpStars on that desert planet, and then explicitly shown in Rogue One, that they indeed can.

Tons of lore, from RPG games, etc., just got tossed. Was it simply a "production consideration?" Did the director and creative cast simply say, "That would be a really cool shot; let's do it!" without any regard to all that other "canon?"

Or did someone say, "To hell with what's been written; we're the ultimate copyright holders and creative arbiters of what is and is not possible in the Star Wars Universe; so now, ImpStars can enter atmosphere, and simply hover, for however long they desire, (at least until the "fuel" runs out!) in any point in the sky they choose"? To paraphrase Douglas Adams:

"It hovered in the sky, in precisely the way that bricks don't."

I have maintained a fairly consistent point-of-view: what we see on-screen, and what the creative teams behind the scenes during filming/production conceived/thought/wrote, are first-and-foremost prime canon.

The material from RPGs, novels, and video games which do not directly contradict prime canon is canon, albeit second-tier, and only until and as such time as I elect, in my RPG, to toss it aside. I have the right to do that; you have the right to disagree.

I have the right to say, "Don't care: my game, take it or leave it."

You have the right to say "Bye."

Finally, the material that does directly contradict prime canon and/or second-tier canon is apocrypha.

Apocrypha can be fun and neat, but I am not bound to it.

Even if it *is* true that the Y-Wing had more kills than any other craft type (an assertion that has no evidence),...

Well, yes, there is...it's call Return of the Jedi. It's a movie, you see, available in multiple formats (VHS might be hard to come by nowadays).

You can simply pop it into any VCR/DVD/Blu-Ray player and watch it.

If you ignore/deny that, then you're doing the equivalent of screwing your eyes shut, putting your fingers in your ears, and going "La-la-la-I-can't-hear-you."

...putting that *still* doesn't really prove anything at all, since it doesn't account for tactical considerations, relative amounts of craft present, K/D ratios, or the nature of the kills themselves. Perhaps faster and more maneuverable fighters were used to "herd" bandit TIEs into positions where they'd be easy pickings for Y-wings? Perhaps as a common older surplus fighter, there were simply more Y-wings available for the battle than the popular but expensive X-wings or prototype As and Bs? Perhaps the slower Y-wings were predominantly relegated to guarding the capships and as such, saw more bandits than other types overall?

Now we get to the real debatable "meat" of the matter. It's saying, "Okay, there is evidence; so, what does that evidence then mean?"

Of the 22 Alliance starfighters we see on-screen, 5 are A-Wings, 4 are B-Wings, 5 are X-Wings, and 8 are Y-Wings. So yes, proportionately speaking, Y-Wings made up over 1/3 of the Alliance's Order of Battle in their starfighter force. Higher kill ratios can be attributed to numbers, but it is not an automatic given that it is so; I accept it as a credible, reasonable hypothesis, but it is a debatable point.

And I've often thought that the tightly packed ImpStar Fleet would work against the faster fighters (Alliance and Imperial alike), and that the tougher fighters would have an advantage in such close quarters.

Be that as it may, the two forces were so thoroughly interpenetrated ("Move in and engage those Star Destroyers at point-blank range!") that whether any given fighter was attacking Imperials (offense) or fighting Imperials attacking Alliance ships (defense) was probably moot. We see Wedge Antilles, Big Bad Snubjock Bossman himself, alternately flying/fighting offensively and defensively.

We see that his wingman, Red Two, is a Y-Wing. Why would a faster X-Wing, flown by arguably the Alliance's premier fighter pilot/hero, handicap himself with a slower, less maneuverable craft? From novelization's and video game's "canon" wrt a Y-Wing, that's Chuck Yeager in an X-Wing/ P-51D taking someone in a Y-Wing/F2A Buffalo Brewster on as a wing man!

Could it be that the performance disparity of your "canon" novels and games isn't quite as great as believed?

I'm not saying there's no performance disparity between the various craft in Star Wars; I'm arguing, based upon prime canon material, and supported by some second-tier canon material, that the disparity is not quite as great as some tend to want to think that it is.

Basically all that point says is "in order to capture the most important action of the space battle, that being the attack run on the DS2, the way the camera had to be pointed in order to tell that story happened to also include more YW kills than kills of any other type of ship in the minutes of footage that made it to the final reel."

This is a composition/division logical fallacy...essentially stating that since that's what we see on film, that translates directly into the greater battle...falsely assuming that the chosen film clips were chosen as such because together the present an accurate cross-section of the battle data in terms of kills. There's simply no evidence to back up an assumption like that.

Well...do the movies count at all, or don't they? I maintain (and have maintained fairly consistently) that they do. Are you just going to pick-and-choose the bits that support your prejudices, and disregard the ones that don't?

I plead guilty to the above, with the position of taking "prime canon" prima facie, and "second tier canon" as, at best, "under advisement." I do this consistently, though.

Your "canon mosaic" is quite well suited to catering to "personal interpretations." Which is fine; the points of contention are actually matters of degree, not kind, and occasionally enjoyable to debate...to a certain extent.

Not only games (which I disregard for having internal balance issues to attend to that trump lore within their scope) and novels (which are out best indicators of actual, in-setting capabilities)...but even just taking the WotC Saga edition text blurbs we have the following:

"The Y-wing is not as popular as other snubfighters, being neither as fast nor as maneuverable. However its impressive shields and weaponry more than make up for its performance flaws." -Saga Core Rulebook p178 (nearly identical, RCRB p 228)

"Built by Koensayr Manufacturing, the Y-wing was designed to be used in the Clone Wars, but wasn't in production until after that conflict ended."
"As the X-wing became increasingly available to the Rebellion, Y-wings became second-line starfighters used only because so many were available."
"Although not as swift as an X-wing or as powerful as a B-wing, the Y-wing was a sturdy, well-shielded craft with a powerful attack in the form of two ion cannons and proton torpedo tubes. Ungainly for a snubfighter, the Y-wing served as a joint fighter/bomber, able to both enter dogfights with TIE fighters and take out armored targets, such as enemy freighters and planetary bunkers. Few ships its size mounted ion cannons, and the success of the Y-wing is one reason that the B-wing was similarly armed." - Saga SotG, p158

"The Y-wing was adopted at the inception of the Rebel Alliance, and due to its versatility remains popular despite its old, almost outdated, design. The ships are appreciated because parts for them are much more readily available than limited run ships, such as the A- and B-wing starfighters." -WEG SWRPG 2nd ed. R&E

I think it's pretty clear that, on this subject, where there is information in the established lore to be found, there is also consensus, and that consensus opinion should not be casually tossed aside based on approximate analogy outside the lore, which is, so far as I can tell, quite consistent.

And all that second-tier canon is talking about the original BTL-S4 Y-Wing, the only real Y-Wing that exists in prime canon; unless I really missed something (and I'm really hoping I haven't), there's no prime canon evidence of a two-seater Y-Wing.

So all second-tier canon wrt the BTL-S3 is, to my way of thinking, just that: second-tier; technically, it could be apocrypha. Not that I think it is entirely, though; it is imminently plausible that variant models of the Y-Wing exist in the greater SW EU; as such I have no problem with them.

Just as I have no problem admitting/allowing, when necessary to my particular RPG scenario, that such upgraded variants do exist, with improved performance that perhaps diminishes (but not closes/eliminates) the gap between second-tier canon performance disparities.

Just as I have no problem looking at prime canon material, and saying, "evidence exists that second-tier canon material is incorrect."

Floating Star Destroyers, anyone?

Y-Wing as wingman to General Antilles, anyone?

Y-Wings holding their own against TIE Interceptors, anyone?

Y-Wings joining the fighter group making the main assault on the DSII's reactor, down a twisty/turny shaft with TIE fighters right on your six, anyone? Is that really the doctrinal role of your "second rate/secondary role" starfighter?


I'm not trying to change your mind wrt the Y-Wing overall. The second-tier canon wrt the Y-Wing is generally fine with me, though I obviously have some points of disagreement with it. The latter novels and games have turned it into a "lead sled" that is immediately dead meat the moment any other fighter shows up to fight it, and the 'Bone pilots all go, "Oh noes! We're doomed! Will someone please come save us poor helpless sheep?"

This is not supported by prime canon, and is actually partially debunked by RPGs as second-tier canon; what I (and others) can do (and have done) in one with a properly constructed character gives lie to the EU novel's and game's contentions.

Actually, I did quite well in a Y-Wing in the original X-Wing computer game; on certain missions, yes, it was a lethal liability. But on most, I did quite well with it.

I'm saying: in my game(s), that I run, I take it as a fundamental premise that the Y-Wing is not quite the outdated/obsolete under performer some second-tier canon supposes it is.

In my game(s), that I run, I take it as a fundamental premise that upgraded variants to the Y-Wing can and do exist, closing any notional performance gap with newer models of X-Wings and other contemporary fighters; it may still be slower/less maneuverable, but not (necessarily) to the extent that it's a liability, or an "automatic loser" against its contemporaries.

I think I made that clear, up-front, in The Departed. I think from a good RPG P.O. V., consistency throughout the game should be established, and as early as possible at that, to avoid confusion, inasmuch as such things can be anticipated; players and GMs alike can and routinely do throw barrels of monkeys into the wrench at latter points of games to confound/confuse/consternate everyone, and that said consistency should not be discarded, lightly or simply, just because it conflicts with someone's, GM's or player's, notion of "the way I think things should be."

Catering to the notion(s) of "the way I think things should be" up front in an RPG is fine; doing that later 'cause someone's feelings are bent out of shape over it, is bad.



Which is why I agreed, up front, to taking a stock BTL-S3 for your game (under WEG d6, WotC d20, or FFG rules systems); I have no problem with the statted performance profile, and can "make it work."

I don't have Saga, nor other editions of FFG's rule books, and have no particular desired to purchase them. I do still have TPTCBN, version I and II, and can use it (perhaps with some assistance from someone more familiar with the system) in crafting a younger Ash, that stays true to the core character principles: an aggressive attack driver, more focused on delivering accurate firepower to real targets (CapShips and such) than mixing it up with other fighters in a furball.

Because my intention in your proposed game isn't to rack up "kills;" it's to show/tell the story of the younger, wilder "Ash" hinted at in The Departed, and how a deep and abiding friendship sprang up between a brash, cocky younger Ash and the occasionally bellicose, stiff-necked Horton Salm.

But! Starfighter combat is going to occur (unless I've completely misread your intentions), and whatever system you choose to employ, I can and will show what the Y-Wing (whatever iteration you allow me) can do, and do very, very well, when properly handled by a 'driver who knows what he's doing (which is a position I also consistently maintained in The Departed).

It's something I've done over-and-over again in multiple game groups, in multiple RPG versions, under multiple GMs (often to their consternation and surprise), since 1987.

What I don't want to see is my work, based firmly and soundly in the framework of whatever system we wind up using, simply "tossed" because it doesn't fit your...well, "prejudices" is too strong a word, with some seriously negative connotations, but it's the gist of my point.

[coldskier0320]

TL;DR: "I reserve the right to ignore anything that disagrees with my unsupported point. To prove it, I will place logical fallacy as my prime point of evidence, and literally just pretend that anything that disputes my point simply doesn't exist."

[Sarge]

Sorry I'm late to the party, guys. I don't think anyone has pointed out the Soviet Il-2 Sturmovik yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-2

Another possibility is the victor at Midway, Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bomber, which was a surprisingly decent dogfighter for a bomber.

[Ash DuQuennes]

Good picks, Sarge. I had considered the Dauntless earlier, when I was more hung up on a twin-engine configuration, but rejected it at the time.

I'm liking the Il-2 a lot.