X-Wing vs ARC 170 Starfighter | Star Wars: Who Would Win

[@EckhartsLadder]

Hope you guys enjoy! Make sure to subscribe for daily videos :). Also, check out the rest of the playlist here: kzbin.info/aero/PLPcRSJDFb1lmsSo8aLkD7b7f7-c_AoDKu

[@Louthanjen]

EckhartsLadder x-wing vs headhunter ship as it was during the clone wars

[@wyattrossow7411]

Mc140 vs pellaeon-class star destroyer

[@olafsnake-in-the-eye4553]

EckhartsLadder you should do the Subjugater vs the Executor

[@pascalschmidt7683]

Milano spaceship vs Slave one

[@fireballlsr3483]

EckhartsLadder do the tie Defender vs the droid tri fighter

[@thalmoragent9344]

"Well, in my Book, experience outranks everything". - Captain Rex

[@Astrocat-od5cy]

He wasn't a captain, he was always a sergeant major at heart

[@SarhentoFurtim21311]

@@Astrocat-od5cy no you dont know anything about captain rex he is a captain

[@Astrocat-od5cy]

@@SarhentoFurtim21311 you don't understand my comment. Officers normally have a bad rep for being inexperienced in combat. Sergeants are enlisted and are normally more experienced in combat than said officers and because of that question the decisions of officers. Captain Rex is one of those officers that has experience and knows what they're doing. That's why I said he has the Heart of a sergeant major. Please do not comment if you don't know anything about the topic

[@Truck_person]

then luke in an X wing would wreck a whole ARC 170 squad

[@kennantjessavi7648]

@@Truck_person You make it sound like jedi vs regular trooper.

[@Eddace24]

It's fun to think that, if the rebellion had kept the ARC-170 they would have suffered much less casualties, because at the battle of Yavin the X-Wings are just getting blown one after another by Vader, so if they could have shoot behind them they would have destroyed the Death Star with the first attempt instead of losing all their pilots.

[@angus57720]

chris pearson fly sideways

[@Khromiux]

Eddace the rebellion didn't have the manpower for ARCs. Much better to fly 3 separate fighters as opposed to 1.

[@yeeter5694]

Geneus

[@fabianbinder3681]

You realize how few X-Wings there were at Yavin? Divide them by three and do the maths again.

[@CheemsofRegret]

I don't think the ARC 170 had a hyperdrive

[@DarthEarp]

One thing I think is important for this debate is how close it parallels the Light vs Heavy fighter concept of the late 30's and early 40's. the light fighters such as the spitfire and BF 109 had speed advantages, agility advantages, and were smaller like the X-wing. while the heavily armed/armored/ long range heavy fighters such as the mosquito and Bf 110 more closely resemble the ARC-170. as with the X vs ARC comparison most WWII heavy fighters had a rear gun as well. and the battle of Britain showed that the heavy fighter concept was flawed. smaller air superiority fighters could avoid the bigger guns of the slow heavy fighters, and as such were almost always able to choose a fight on their terms. Also the X-wing is almost 20 years more modern than the ARC-170, and was designed by the same design team that built the ARC, including the war experience leaned from the Clone Wars

[@seanrea550]

this is the reason i think in a head to head fight the x wing would come out on top. speed and maneuverability are important. how ever it would be a narrow edge. the arc has heaver weapons and stronger shields so if the arc can land a series of hits on the x wings than it would take the fight.

[@doofus02]

This is the most appropriate analogy for this matchup. Like a Bf-110 vs a hurricane with the four 20mm hispanos.

[@vanguard6498]

I know right, his arguement on the back gunner was fucking bullshit.

[@BascarooMuffins]

You forgot about one thing though: shields. The ARC-170 has much heavier shields than the X-Wing, allowing it to take more hits. Heavy WW2 fighters obviously didnt have shields so they went down much easier and couldnt really take advantage of their heavy weapons.

[@vanguard6498]

The X-Wing had Proton torps that could negate the whole shield advantage.

[@lunaticklotv9050]

Slave 1 vs Milenium Falcon!!!Pls...😭8th attempt.

[@picbefangirl8183]

LunaticKloß TV slave 1 wins by a landslide m8

[@capti7555]

yes plz

[@jaketimberlake9023]

gcix isme Slave one would win, have u seen it fight in AOTC and TCW the things weaponary is insane

[@kennethkates3140]

Though which version of Slave 1, Jango's or Boba's?

[@Von_Langstein]

Jango's with the seismic bombs. Original all the way

[@noahherbst7803]

do a vulture Droid vs tie fighter (second try)

[@Louthanjen]

Noah Herbst good luck!

[@noahherbst7803]

Mic Clank thanks

[@MrRobot-0]

realy depends only if the tie pilo is more skiled than a vulture droid

[@noahherbst7803]

Eduardo Souza well, the vulture droid is armed with energy, impact, or buzzdroid missles and 6 laser canons, creating a wall of fire that is hard to avoid. Plus the droid can perform turns and stunts that would kill any organic pilot due to the g-forces. And both were made with the intent of quantity over quality, so it seems fair to me.

[@noahherbst7803]

Eduardo Souza sorry, I meant concussion missiles.

[@maxjones503]

I think ARCs would be effective if it was a fleet battle, with several of each vehicle and a few larger ships like corvettes, as they can do a lot of damage to them. However the X-Wing is more focused on Air Superiority. If it's just one on one, I'd say it depends. If the X-wing starts trailing the ARC, it wins. The turrets will help a lot but X-Wing can still flank. However if the ARC-170 gets the chance to fire some accurate shots with it main laser cannons, it should take it out. I'd say the ARC-170 is more comparable to the B-Wing. Just in terms of it's role in a battle.

[@obi-wankenobi8406]

can you tell me how much did a average twilek slave cost?

[@dankbullet7891]

Depends on it's quality your negotiating skills and the market which is constantly shifting.P.S. None if you steal 1

[@Millss14]

Obi-Wan Kenobi your everywhere with your comment on twilek slaves at the moment

[@zakiducky]

Seagull Man He's gotta have something/one to replace Satine. It gets lonely out all on your own in the deserts of Tatooine after a while. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[@obi-wankenobi8406]

zakiducky finally someone understand me

[@theheartlessknight2426]

I got mine for a gold ring and the promise of half of everything I own. ... I may have been over charged a bit. You could always fly to Ryloth and capture one for free. Just avoid the Trandoshans.

[@gregoryclark8217]

I am a bit of an ARC-170 fan-boy. Also Y-wings are underrated.

[@nelspaulson3099]

I think it should be pointed out that the rear gunners is something done on Japanese fighters during WW2 and was largely ineffective in solo contests. (only really had an effect when in formation). When in a dog fight, the ships move around too much to have the rear gunner actually do much good. (Are all the guns the same on the ARC, the rear ones look much much smaller) Also in a dog fight, speed and maneuverability trumps firepower. Assuming each has the firepower to knock the other out, and each is equally trained, The X wing is better served to actually get into position to take the shot. I would put it the exact opposite of your conclusion

[@Phantom-ph6xg]

Remember that the japanese planes were also not good for much other than speed. They were often expendable. The ARC isn't expendable and no doubt has better targeting capabilities being a sci-fi fighter. ARC rear gunners did a hell of a job at dealing with Vultures trying to hit from behind. And Vultures are more maneuverable than X-wings if memory serves.

[@nelspaulson3099]

They were only expendable at the end of the war when pilots were much harder to come by for Japan. During the majority, the US fighter was a poor matchup to its Japanese counterpart. The US simply choose to train their pilots to avoid mostly avoid situations were the Zero had an advantage. (US couseir had better armor, better dive speed, higher altitude, but worse agility and top speed) It meant the US fighter would usually needed to quick strike an engaged or otherwise vulnerable Zero then return to the safety of altitude mostly avoiding prolonged dogfights to maintain the speed advantage gained from diving. As any fighter pilot, speed trumps all, but skill in a dogfight.

[@Dr.CaveCurinas]

Well, I imagine that the rear gunner of the ARC-170 would possess some form of computerized targeting aid that Japanese fighters did not, perhaps allowing its rear gun to be more effective in a dogfight-type environment.

[@danielkorladis7869]

Rear gunners were more useful on aircraft that couldn't really dogfight with fighters, such as bombers. And even then, the bomber was still at a disadvantage due to the fighter's speed and maneuverability.

[@Assassinus2]

And, don't forget the Boulton-Paul Defiant, which, to be fair, was intended to attack bombers, not to tangle with fighters. Also, Japanese single-engined fighters were single-seaters with no tail guns. Some heavy fighters, at least the British and German ones (the Beaufighter and the Bf 110, Me 210, and Me 410) did have tail guns, as did an awful lot of single-engined bombers.

[@ZAUN3694]

I have a hard time seeing the battle play out this way just due to how much time I've spent playing flight games. It's important to note that, most of the time, armament isn't the be all end all advantage in dogfights. Realistically, you only want weaponry sufficient to damage your opponents in a fight. This works both off of the honour principle in aviation combat where your fight is with the plane and country, not the man, and more importantly off of what a damaged aircraft can do. assuming you land a good hit on almost anything, it will be crippled enough to throw the fight easily one sided. armour and other defensive strategies are mostly to protect the pilot and keep the craft going to complete the objective (usually hitting hard targets). In your air superiority scenario here it's not that big of a deal to have more powerful forward guns than your opponent as the first person to land a good hit has probably decided the fight. This counts for both of these ships as we see that ARC 170s are still quite vulnerable to lighter and cheaper CIS starfighters as soon as they put rounds on target. It's because of this that the fight really does go sown between the Rear Gunner and the superior agility. This is where your other mistake comes into play, while we can assume equal skill of pilots, we need to establish their skill level. If you think of the real world dogfights between the Spitfire and the BF 109 we find that at equal skill, the Spitfire comes out on top with newer pilots due to its user friendliness while at greater skill levels due to its increased performance ability under the correctly trained hands. With this, we see a similar scenario here where the ARC 170 can rely on its rear gunner to easily deal with newer pilots but at higher skill levels for both fighters, this quickly swings to the other direction. A properly trained X wing pilot should come out on top in most fights as they wouldn't be stupid enough to sit behind in a vulnerable location for long enough. My best example to relate this fight is that of the fight between a Bf 110 and an early Spitfire which ended laughably in favour of the Spitfires. The reality was that pilots practicing good form can adequately best a heavily armed and armoured opponent even while under fire from a gunner through the use of proper dogfighting tactics and can do so at a rate in which the Germans were forced to stop the usage of the bf 110 in a day fighter role due to this.

[@AdamantLightLP]

Zaun3694 Planes are a bad comparison I think. Planes have to fly, ships work differently in many ways. One being shields, which let you take hits without any damage at all. You bring up valid points however.

[@KuraIthys]

Yeah, I'd be wary of Plane comparisons as well. Space dogfights (while generally an absurdly unrealistic concept) would be vastly different to aerial dogfights. For one, basic principles of energy management go right out the window. Most of the common ACM's are meaningless, since they involve trading momentum for altitude (which is impossible/meaningless in space) Further, damage to the wing or engine of an aircraft could be fatal, as could destroying the control surfaces, meaning even relatively minimal damage could be enough if you hit the right thing... But equivalent damage to a starfighter, while certainly rendering it less effective, is considerably less likely to take it out completely. Then there's energy shielding in scifi which can absorb amounts of damage that would make even a heavily armoured aircraft seem as though it's made of tissue paper by comparison. So in short: - Space physics (lack of gravity primarily) renders most aerial dogfighting techniques meaningless. - Scifi Shielding is much tougher than even the most heavily armoured aircraft - Damaged systems have far less immediate consequences (compared to aircraft where certain types of damage will cause it to fall out of the sky.) Overall this would have considerable functional impact on the assumptions involved.

[@Avalanche041]

In Legends, the X-wing uses guided Proton Torpedoes. That the X-wings were using targeting computers during their attack runs on the Death Star would also imply that the Proton Torpedoes in a New Hope were also guided.

[@DutchWolf114]

I think the torpedos making a 90 degree turn midflight was a pretty good indication as well...

[@ivanvelasco5333]

A U wing vs A republic gunship

[@TheMrPeteChannel]

random guy That Thrawn wannabe is a joke....."If not 4 meeeeeee, for I hate sannnnnnnnddd."

[@battlefieldcustoms873]

KronosGaming i would love this one.

[@737Garrus]

I would love to see a U-Wing VS. an LAAT.

[@Unheardhat]

Republic Gunship wins I don’t say that bc I’m a clone wars fan but bc the Republic Gunship is one of the greatest ships the Republic has created as it has 2 front laser cannons, 4 laser turrets (1 is attached to both sides and 1 are on both wings ) and these turrets shred through their targets, a back turret, and missiles (can’t remember their name) so this thing just blows the U wing out of proportion

[@empireofitalypsstimfromano5025]

@@Unheardhat Do You Know What A U-Wing Has?

[@valentinglanz8804]

What about the Open Circle Fleet vs. the death squadron. I know it isn't 1vs1 but it would be interesting

[@mrpresident3888]

Valentin Glanz I still Hope he choose these Comment

[@valentinglanz8804]

Mr President Thanks I hope it too

[@covenantoflegions6825]

... Open Circle Fleet has HUNDREDS of Venators, while Death Squadron has the Executor and about 6 Star Destroyers.

[@maxjones503]

Good idea with the fleet thing, although I think stats aren't specific enough for the OCF. However there are comfimed to be hundreds of star destroyers and heavy cruisers in it.

[@darthvader8164]

Plus, there are brave and bold Generals like Anakin Skywalker who would give them an advantage.

[@michaelkeha]

You mention the Arc-170 is slow yet it is able to keep up pretty well with the Delta 7 jedi starfighter so actually fairly nimble.

[@michaelscalese3142]

Maybe the delta 7s were going slower so their escort could keep up

[@dave212]

@@michaelscalese3142 fun fact, the ARC 170 is just as fast as the x wing and even had better acceleration, they are just not as agile

[@michaelscalese3142]

@@dave212 still not as fast as the Jedi starfighters

[@chimaurama3573]

@@michaelscalese3142 Its faster. Jedi fighters are a cheat because they utilize the force for excess speed... Come on bruv do your research!

[@michaelscalese3142]

@@chimaurama3573 i knew that then, know it now, jedi starfighters are faster if a jedi is in so am i not technically right?

[@fabianperez8663]

The only thing that really sucks about the ARC-170 is that for every one shot down, three clone pilots are killed. It’s still a very cool ship though. I’m glad it was brought into EA’s Battlefront 2. All we need now is the battle over Coruscant.

[@jameslewis2635]

To me the ARC 170 was more akin to the B-wing in general performance and role. They were both heavy fighter/bombers with low rates of maneuverability and speed with advantages in weaponry. The X-wing being a space superiority fighter will be faster and more maneuverable. One more advantage that the X-wing has over the ARC 170 that is missed in this video is that the X-wing has shields as standard while the ARC 170 does not. One thing that keeps getting stated in these videos which is incorrect is that a Tie fighter can one-shot an X-wing. It can't do that unless the X-wings shields are down. The same goes with the Y-wings, A-wings and B-wings. All of these rebel craft had shields that could tank hits. The shields were configurable on the fly in that the shield energy could be moved forward, backward or spread over the entire surface of the fighter in question. The reason you see Tie fighers one-shoot X-wings and Y-wings in A New Hope is that the rebel fighters have their shields switched to the forward firing arc while doing the trench run. This was anounced as an order by Gold Leader who on approach to the trench says 'Switch your deflectors on - double front' which means to shift all the shield energy to the fighters nose. Try playing one of the X-wing series of PC games (available at gog.com) if you want to get a proper understanding of fighter craft in the Star Wars universe.

[@xwingace1234]

James Lewis I agree with this point. I played X-Wing Alliance and I usually played with the Rebel ships (especially the X-Wing) due to the shielding capabilities. I also want to point out that the rear guns of the ARC 170 doesn't exactly negate the X-Wings maneuverability. In real aerial combat, it is very difficult to aim a rear gun and fighter tactics against bombers in WWII took advantage of that. I think that an X-Wing could maneuver around the laser fire and hold its own with its shields set to double front.

[@CushionRide]

amen guys amen

[@marc.rowley57]

The ARC 170 does have deflector shields according to the vehicle guide: s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/7c/a2/ec/7ca2ec5ed5155dde60d10f427405fc45.jpg (I have found 4 mentions about a shield on the linked image)

[@matthewbartkowski9317]

Something else touched on but completely missed is the ARC170 has 3 pilots. 3 pairs of eyes, 3 people thinking, all tasks split between 3 people, 3 x planning and ideas.2 heads are better than 1. 3 heads are even better.

[@KuraIthys]

I would advice extreme caution basing your opinions on the X-wing games. I can single-handedly take down a Star Destroyer with an X-wing in those games. Plus it undermines your argument to compare the ARC-170 to a B-wing since the B-wing in those games (at least the early ones) has more firepower than any other Rebel fighter, stronger shields and armor, and is as fast and maneuverable as an X-wing, meaning in a one-on-one fight based on ingame stats, the X-wing will get wrecked basically every time except against the most incompetent of B-wing pilots... B-Wings are lethal to basically anything imaginable in the X-wing games. X-wings, Y-Wings. Tie Fighters. Tie Defenders. Nebulon B Frigates, Star Destroyers... A Single B-wing can devastate pretty much all of those with relative ease in those games. About the only thing that was much of a threat was an A-wing, due solely to speed. (but an X-wing would struggle just as much in that matchup) And that really should give you pause for thought about applying the game logic to the actual setting... Because no one starfighter, no matter how amazing, is THAT good...

[@walterrequiem6467]

Even tho the Arc-170 is probably my favorite star wars starfighter, I have to admit that I was a bit surprised to see it win here, even tho I think you make a good case for why it did. I guess to me it just seems that the X-wing would be an all-around more advanced ship, and the better maneuverability of it would make more of a difference in my eyes. Still, good arguement and great video!

[@youcanthandlemyname7393]

the thing about the arc 170 is its actually an amazing fighter. its failure was due to its cost both in crew and credits rather than capabilities.

[@trekwars5400]

Munificent-class star frigate vs Recusant-class light destroyer please please please! !!!!! $$$$$$$

[@TheLordofDarkness1995]

(Fifth Attempt) MC90 vs. Jacen Solo's Flagship, the Anakin Solo?

[@the_prinzy1636]

Executor Super Star Destroyer VS Apacolypta

[@the_prinzy1636]

***** lol yep! One of us will get it one day!

[@the_prinzy1636]

***** lol I've forgotten how many times we've gone for this.

[@the_prinzy1636]

***** yeah sounds about right. I imagine when we finally get this one enough likes and it done we'll have like no ideas on what to do next.

[@the_prinzy1636]

***** that'd be great

[@xel_los]

nebulon B2 frigate vs victory class star destroyer

[@Louthanjen]

Professor Quirrell good luck!

[@zakiducky]

That would be interesting to see, but the Victory SD is a much larger, more well armed ship. It and the Nebulon are in complete separate classes, so I doubt the Nebulon would win. It would put up a good fight, in my opinion, especially if you assume it has really good shields as some Star Wars media ascribes to it. But in a prolonged engagement I don't think it would take the Victory long to punch through the shields and pummel it to death. Just my 2 cents. Still, I'd want this video.

[@maxjones503]

Victory wins 9.85/10 I'd say the victory could take on 2 or even 3 Nebulons.. the B2 is only an escort frigate, not a main battleship. And the victory is still heavily packed as it is in terms of guns.

[@umad42]

If anyone has Star Wars Eampire At War Forces of Corruption, there is a mod that gives both of these vessels their canonical armaments. I can put forward that yes, the Victory will rip one Nebulon B apart. Rebel Assault frigates are problematic but the Nebulon is just too small and undergunned to to win

[@umad42]

If you go against 3 then it's less than even odds in Nebulon's favor. They drive for the engines, outmanuever then destroy the Victory. Say Victory wins 3/10 times or so against 3, 9.5/10 against one. That .5 is for the time they got off their fighter squad before losing their hangar. Managed to take down too many systems and ultimately destroyed the Victory. Was really close then tho

[@darrenong9064]

Before watching: I think the ARC-170 may win on the sheer virtue of having better armor and weaponry, as well as a rear mounted cannon. The X-wing seems to have better firing arcs with the X shaped configuration, and better speed, but I dunno if that'll be enough to overwhelm the 170's shielding and armor fast enough. After watching: Whadduya know! I forgot that the rear mounted cannon was supposed to be cannon(s), but oh well. My thought process was that should a dog fight break out, those two cannons would discourage/bring down the shields of a determined X-wing pursuer, which would be enough of an opportunity for the 170 to swing back around to hammer it with the main guns.

[@ilmevavi1112]

Darren Ong the x shape comes with a disadvantage. the guns can not turn even slightly because they are fixed on the wing tips so it would be basicly impossible to hit a target the size and shape of an arc-170 from behind with more than 1-2 shots at once

[@BungieStudios]

Armor is a safety blanket for pilots. It doesn't mean much in terms of survivability. The weapons on starfighters are meant to defeat the defenses of other starfighters. Like how the US wants to phase the 7.62 round back in to help defeat the body armors and synthetic fibers of rival nations. Both the TIE Fighters and Y-Wings proved that armor means crap in dogfights. It merely protects you from glancing blows like Luke and Wedge experienced. All that armor means crap, too, when the top of ARC-170 is nothing but thin skinned viewports. The top down profile of the ARC-170 is huge! Its crew is spread across the length of the craft! All that weight probably means it can't turn for shit either. Get it in a spiral or at a high gun pass, and the thing is dead. It's a sitting duck. The shields of the X-Wing have proven to be able to survive multiple blows from TIE Fighters and TIEs have powerful cannons! The rear turrets of the ARC-170 are the same as its armor. Safety blankets. As WW2 showed us, turrets do shit to defend craft from enemy fighters. The turrets are weak too. They're blaster grade. If the X-Wing can shrug off TIE cannons, it can sure as hell deal with blasts from the rear cannons. Also, the rear cannons can't defend from the side, top, or bottom making it useless in a real dogfight. It is not the ARC-170 dictating the battle. It is the X-Wing.

[@MrDyl55]

Arquitens Light Cruiser (Republic version) vs Arquitens Light Cruiser (Imperial version).

[@maxjones503]

So Arquitens Light Cruiser vs Arquitens Command Cruiser? That's interesting. Command cruisers carries more vehicles, and is longer in length. Light cruiser has more guns (although still few for its size, like the ACC)

[@anthonycoffey1992]

I think you covered this fight pretty well I know you mentioned the turrets on the back of the arc in weaponry category but you should have mentioned them in the defence one too as they're primary goal is to protect the rear of the ship

[@alexvogel610]

I strongly disagree with your assessment; the added weight of two extra crewmembers, plus all of the support and structural gear required to house them in the ARC170, are going to absolutely kill the craft in a fight with a smaller and lighter X-Wing. Look up the "Defiant"; it was a British WWII fighter similarly designed with a heavy turret to help intercept enemy aircraft. While it was extremely effective against bombers and other slow moving aircraft, it was torn to pieces by single seat fighters like the Bf109, and was quickly withdrawn from front line service and relegated to bomber intercept and training duties. The ARC170's forward firing cannons would be lethal to an X-Wing, IF it could catch it in it's sights, but that would prove very difficult. Additionally, the rear facing light cannon might be able to ward off a Vulture droid or TIE fighter, but would have a hard time dealing with an X-Wing's shields. Yes, given enough hits it could defeat them, but a maneuvering X-Wing is going to get more hits on the back of an ARC170 than the 170's tail gunner is going to be able to score, and each of the hits will count for more. The tail-gun's cone of fire would be rather limited, as well. A three-seated heavy fighter is just too big and cumbersome to be effective head to head with a lighter, more nimble X-Wing. If an X-Wing is comparable to a Spitfire or Mustang, the ARC170 is more akin to a Defiant or an Me210; more capability and firepower, but at the cost of maneuverability and agility. X-Wing, 8 out of 10 engagements

[@Phantom-ph6xg]

The x-wing's effectiveness is far more determined by the pilot than the ARC. The only reason the X-wing was effective at all was the general skill level of the pilots being so much greater than the imperial pilots. Remember that when they came up against a good pilot (Vader), they went down fast. And the general skill level of the clone pilots and gunners were greater than most imperial pilots due to the Republic's focus on fighters. This would greatly hurt the X-wings primary advantage.

[@TheCsel]

maneuverability is most effective in one on one contests. if you have a wingman its more about strategy and in star wars's case shielding. I think 1 v 1 a TIE has an okay chance at taking on an X-Wing if the pilots are equal skill. but 2v2 the X-Wings will almost always win.

[@jackreacher6488]

You’re forgetting this is in space... weight is relative to what’s around them. The physics are entirely different.

[@justinespirit2]

Coming over here in 2021! Holy crap your voice has changed so much since this video came out!

[@TheOtherSteel]

It's probably an upgrade in audio equipment.

[@jacobbloomstrand4478]

Centurion-class battlecruiser vs a Recusant-class light destroyer, a Providence-class dreadnough vs a Harrower-class dreadnought

[@BungieStudios]

The top down profile is huge on the ARC-170. With all that weight, it probably can't turn for shit either. In a spiral or high gun pass, that thing is dead. Doesn't help that the important crewmembers are scattered across the length of the ship with thin skinned viewports.

[@憂苦と悲惨]

Exactly. But, eh, he's a prequel fan, and lots of people here are too blinded by how cool the ARC-170 looks that they fail to see a simple logic like this (I really like how the ARC-170 looks, haha).

[@daduronronron3955]

As far as the ARC-170 rear gun goes, it's effectiveness would have a lot to do with the targeting and tracking system. When I think of that weapon I think of the old early WW II Dauntless and Devastator bombers. They had rear facing 50 cals that weren't all that effective at deterring Japanese Zeroes even though they got their speed and nimbleness at the expense of armor, and 50 cal round were basically designed to wreck cars.

[@psjesse117]

Tbf I think targeting systems would be much better than the SBD's. Star Wars standard seems to be the beeping thingy with the square in which it'll tell you when your shots will hit

[@Tirreger]

I agree with this one. The advantage of the rear turrets is the fist thing that came to my mind when you talked about the speed adavantage of the X-Wing. It would be really difficult for the X-Wing to land a good hit on the ARC-170

[@antoinehall3390]

Secutor-class Star Destroyer vs Lucrehulk

[@Jay-629]

L U C R E H U L K

[@LoreReloaded]

What I think is interesting is that - when you think of it - we had a break down of technology. A 'De-Evolution' once the Republic fell. I imagine this was somewhat by design - but the Republic ships were generally hardier and superior than Confederacy tech - but the Empire took alot of its lessons from the confederacy. Even when you had ships that were created to be 'top of the line' - they weren't what we saw with the republic.

[@sundoga4961]

On this one, I have to say I COMPLETELY disagree. I think you're underestimating the fire rate of the X-Wing badly. A firing run by an X-Wing isn't one pulse of the cannons, as it largely IS from the big, heavy guns of the ARC-170 - I'd say it has a better than even chance of knocking out the ARC-170 in a single pass, either an outright kill or a "mission kill" - doing enough damage to require the ARC-170 to withdraw. I also think you're underestimating the maneuvering capability advantage of the X-Wing. An X-Wing can keep up with and effectively dogfight both TIE/ln and TIE Interceptor starfighters, both of which are acknowledged as being among the most maneuverable ships in existence. It has four, not two, engines, enabling tighter turns by varying individual engine power. The ARC-170 can do that in two dimensions, but the X-Wing can do it in all three without rolling. And the X-Wing's speed advantage is MASSIVE. It basically means it can engage or refuse to engage at will. If the ARC-170 is approaching head on, turn away. If you have to, circle around until you get your chance. The first battle pass is always to the advantage of the X-Wing. The X-Wing isn't an "average" design at all, it's an EXCEPTIONAL design. And it's fundamental purpose is to kill starfighters. No half-bomber is going to win that matchup. Finally, Lucas has said that he designed Star Wars fighter combat after WWII fighter combat. The name that fighter pilots gave to big, turret-laden fighters with lots of forward firepower? Targets.

[@thunderboltcougar5626]

Nice analysis, couldn't agree more. Hard choice, but if i could find an excellent gunner, i would drive Arc170. But if my gunner were suck, i would go for xwing.

[@Plasma_Pistolier]

Two words: Tail Gunner (*watches video*) Yup

[@nexus1138]

Why do people keep saying the arc 170 is slow it has the same top speed of the x wing, 1,050 kph for both.

[@KyleKatarnBanthaHerder]

Yeah, as a few other people have mentioned, I think you're overstating the benefits of the rear-gunner. Our own history have shown that heavier fighters with rear gunners tended to be less effective than smaller, more maneuverable planes. The gunners could harass fighters, and cause them to hesitate in attacking, but weren't very effective in actually bringing down enemy planes. Especially if the enemy fighter was coming at an unusual angle, and carried out a more sort of boom and zoom style attack rather than just hanging out behind an enemy and taking their time.

[@sithacolol5337]

The ARC's have computerized targeting, and these are lasers, not ballistics. You ww2 people need to stop and consider the fact that you're comparing 80 year old planes to sci-fi starfighters with laser cannons and astromech guidance.

[@fablocko4374]

remeber that the tie figther was faster and more maneuverable than the x wing and even so has almost always loses against the x wing because the rebel starfighter had better weaponry, targeting system and shield

[@spencerjensen1993]

Hey Eck! Proton torpedoes are guided (X-wing series) concussion missiles were unguided. (Han in the melenium falcon)

[@rafaelnishizumi6330]

New republic Nebula class star destroyers vs Sith Harrower dreadnought

[@daltonyoung8694]

Rafael Nishizumi the harrower was so old it would probably be destroyed after a few volleys of tuebolaser shots

[@philipchurch8772]

You're doing a good job coming up with interesting match ups! 😎

[@Funkography]

Recusant Class Light Destroyer vs Interdictor Class Star Destroyer

[@RevanTheFireMage]

Providence versus a Secutor Carrier And I got so hyped for a second because I requested this but he showed someone else

[@joshschreiber1524]

5 AT-TE vs 10 AT-ST

[@lordzhendax2580]

YES

[@patbaysa]

Josh Schreiber 1 atte beat 3 atats

[@joshschreiber1524]

djPatman with the help of Jedi.

[@patbaysa]

Josh Schreiber i think its more of te dragon on the side

[@sithacolol5337]

@@patbaysa nipe

[@SamCoulson]

The old X-Wing flight simulator game had a training mission where the X-Wing showed off its superiority role by facing off against waves of A-Wings and Y-Wings. It was intentionally pitting each ship's strengths against each other -- A-Wings are fast and maneuverable, and Y-Wings are slow and durable. The X-Wing is middle of the road-- sufficiently fast and shielded, but more highly armed, which tended to succeed in an actual standoff. As stated, the ARC-170 is somewhere between an X-Wing and a Y-Wing in capability in speed, shielding, maneuverability, and has the rear gunner. In the game's training mission, the Y-Wing's only hope was to overwhelm a single X-Wing with numbers, or repeated stubborn one-on-one faceoffs, which its shields could absorb. Linking it's ion cannons made it equally armed as the X-Wing, but if the X-Wing peeled off and maneuvered, it could always get behind the Y-Wing and make it toast. The 2-seater Y-Wing variant with a turret would make this a tougher fight, as the rear would be covered and mitigate the X-Wing's maneuverability. I agree with the video that the ARC-170 would likely win in a one-on-one fight due to the rear turret. All of these ship face-offs are great to do in the X-Wing: Alliance mission builder. It's the most recent and robust *true* Star Wars space flight simulator, and there's a great online community that has been making hi-res ships at the X-Wing Alliance Upgrade project (xwaupgrade.com/). You can also get an Episode III Coruscant level at Vince T's X-Wing station (www.vince-t.de/xwa/rots.html). There are other sites with custom ships, such as an Episode I set (darksaber.xwaupgrade.com/craftdsprequel.html or njoproject.swcity.net/episodeishipset/main.html). Of course, the ships, and importantly their stats, are custom and not published by LucasArts and cannot be relied on any more than our own analysis. Everyone here who is a gamer should buy X-Wing Alliance either off Steam, GOG, or eBay/Amazon, plug in your joystick, and do your own ship battles!

[@K.Clawbender]

Harrower sith dreadnought vs victory 2 class

[@artymixon5316]

its been a long time since I've read the rogue squadron series which went into deep details about the x-wings,various other starfighters and dogfighting in general but from what I remember I honestly think your underestimating how deadly the x-wing could be,I think it would even out to be a much closer fight,btw I love your videos and your channel,keep up the great work!

[@stuffandthings834]

USS Voyager (Star Trek: Voyager) vs Imperial Star Destroyer I (Second attempt)

[@masonbates9546]

I know this is kinda nitpicking, so I apologize, in advanced as admittedly I ultimately agree with you on the battles outcome. You mentioned the X-wing being 1.5x maneuverable due to the ship accelerating 1.5x as quickly, however, maneuverability is primarily defined by angular acceleration. Thus (admittedly skipping over the physics, sorry) it would be 1.5^2 or 2.25x as maneuverable. Thank you so much for making these awesome videos! I enjoy them every day and they bring a little bit of light into my world!!

[@aceofmangos3509]

millenium falcon vs slave 1

[@d1arkblue]

How about a battle of the Jedi starfighters? The Eta-2 Actis Interceptor vs the Delta-7 Aetherspirte interceptor?

[@Datch99]

The Death Star vs Star Killer Base or Both Death Stars vs Star Killer Base

[@danielkorladis7869]

draw due to mutual destruction

[@jesperaskepott]

I Would love to see a CIS Droid tri-fighter going up against a TIE defender love the vids man keep it up!

[@cmdrsalsa]

imperial raider class Corvette vs. cr-90 Corvette

[@mpmbrickstudios6568]

I’m pretty sure that the arc is the same speed as the x wing. But the arc 170 has an insanely fast speed of over 2000 miles per hour if it does something I don’t remember what it was. Meta nerds lore talks about it in his arc 170 video.

[@thatboyj3483]

Arc 170 vs droid tri fighter

[@AxelotlYT]

Captain Fordo lol

[@Lauchkopf97]

Nice video as always thank you for all that work you put into this videos, I have to say the ARC 170 Fighter is probably one of my favourite fighters I mean you could fly that thing with your two best buddys and it has a hyperdrive so you fly roam through the entire galaxy would be nice

[@EckhartsLadder]

+jean toni thanks for the complement Jean! And yeah, I like the room for three operators.

[@Ehrathorn]

You forgot, that in the battle of Yavin they had their deflector shields double front, meaning all power to the front screens and nothing in the rear. So the TIEs were hitting unarmored engines and such on the rear of the X-wing.

[@arkhamasylum8972]

This fight would likely be a draw at best for ARC-170 but the X-Wing would likely win more often then not because it's better designed for a dogfight. They are equally good for their respective roles. One is designed to be good in all categories while the other is a bit better at some things and a bit worse in others. The ARC-170 is kinda like an inbetween of an X-Wing and a Y-Wing. In a dogfight, speed and agility matters the most while for bombing, durability and firepower matters the most. If we were to rate both of them, the X-Wing would have a 7 in speed, 7 in agility, 7 in firepower, and 7 in durability. The ARC-170 would have a 6 in speed, 6 in agility, 8 in firepower and 8 in durability. The ARC-170 would be a bit better at bombing but a bit worse in dogfighting. It would take some wins but the X-Wing would a little more.

[@theghoul2303]

X-83 Twintail vs Tie defender

[@Jay-629]

I’d say the X-83 is going to win, if only because it’s 100 years newer.

[@tsmspace]

Manueverability can be the whole game. If both pilots are really good, and there are no guided weapons, it might be virtually impossible for the heavy slow ship to score even one hit. A heavier ship with rear facing guns is a ship of the line, and needs to be used appropriately, within a formation that keeps it safe from highly manueverable opponents. The X-wing evolved from the need for fewer ships to be able to enter a zone and survive it, leaving the heavy hitting to another weapon. A heavy hitter for heavy armor penetration is always ignoring threats to direct fire as a group at large targets. (Thus requiring rear facing weapons to improve survivability.)

[@tombarnes6923]

Weren't the X-wings supposed to replace the ARC 170s *had* the Clone Wars not ended?

[@Red-S-267]

More like X-wings would replace the Z-95's ARC's would probably be more threatened by V-wings

[@kenobi6257]

Tucker Cooper Nah, the V Wings were simultaneous to the ARC, and they were light fighters (the precedent of the TIE, along with the Actis). The ARC didn't really had a successor, Incom basically melted its wings with a Z-95 amd created the X-Wing

[@Red-S-267]

Yeah I guess you're right. The V-Wings and Arcs replaced the Torrent. The Z-95, ARC-170, and X-wing all came from one planet right?

[@kenobi6257]

Tucker Cooper One company, actually: Incom. At least the ARC and the X wing.

[@Red-S-267]

ok. The most I have to go off of is Empire at War.

[@BeardedBaron]

Im a new subscriber and I love your channel. The X-Wing (and probably the ARC though I dont know for sure) did have guided proton torpedoes. This was the whole point of the targeting computers in the Battle of Yavin, and this is further expanded upon in the X-Wing series of books where rogue squadron commonly uses proton torpedoes to try and take out ties at extreme range before they can close to dogfight.

[@pseudonym9599]

The X-wing will take down an ARC nearly every time. This was a debate topic back in WWII with the turret fighter concept in England (Boulton Paul Defiant) and the Zerstorers (Bf 110) in Germany. Both types suffered bad defeats at the hands of single-engine fighters (the WWII x-wing equivilents). Turrets are annoying for a pilot to deal with, but are easily overcome with careful manuvering. I do not see how this match goes to the ARC 170.

[@AdamantLightLP]

Jedidiah Thurgood Technology changes. with airplanes, you have to build to a certain weight and design in order to fly, with space you don't. There are different limitations for each including the use of shields which can make heavier craft worth it. You have a valid point though.

[@Phantom-ph6xg]

the X-wing's primary strategy is to hit from behind at relatively close range. Unless the specific pilot has experience at dealing with rear gunners, he's going to most likely move in like usual and get shredded in a heartbeat. Experience is key just like any dogfight.

[@richardgreen3855]

Considering Star Wars is based off of WWII air battles, it is entirely fair.

[@jasonbarber5885]

Phantom38242 the droid trifighters get behind the ARC170 and shred them and they are much more lightly shielded and armored than an X-wing.

[@Garnichgutt]

​@@jasonbarber5885 Tri droids would also murder X-wings with low difficulty... Those things are monsters with speed of light reflexes...

[@danielhaire6677]

ARC-170 despite its name was a heavy strike fighter often supplementing Y-Wings, and escorted by intercept or space superiority fighters. X-Wings were designed for Space Superiority and strike support (The guys who escort and protect Y-WIngs). The only three stats where the two overlap is torpedo quantity (6), top speed and shield strength. So "factually" The ARC-170 with its heavier guns and armor could win in a head-on shoot up but the X-Wing could out accelerate and maneuver it in a close in fighter knifefight (AKA dogfight).

[@sran438]

Arc-170 ftw! Probably my favourite star fighter

[@benjaminschroder4074]

Hey! Congrats on 20k subs, i was here since 350 subs. It incredible how much your channel has grown in the past couple of months. Keep up the good work!

[@TopHatCat1989]

In my opinion the X-Wing would win more often than the the ARC-170. I believe you have underestimated the X-Wings maneuverability, it can turn far tighter than the ARC-170, plus the X-Wings cannons, while weaker than the ARC-170s main guns, they still fire far faster and with four firing sequentially should make short work of the heavier fighter's shields. Those tailguns are blaster cannons, not full on laser cannons, so the X-Wings shields should be able to tank a few shots and deliver a good volley into its rear.

[@JB-ym4up]

Tomcat1701 if the arc is a better fighter and also better at fire support why was it replaced by the xwing. no one asks this question. you are correct, in fighter battles in ww2, which is basically what starwars is, speed and maneuverability is king. also take note in ww2 heavy fighters with rear guns didn't last long as they proved to be ineffective vs light fighters with all guns forward.

[@maway5]

Not really The X wing never replaced the Arc, they have different role, it was made to replace the Z-95. In Star wars logic shield, fire power and a resonable maneuverability is what made the X wing better than the Tie in the first place. This is almost the same thing but this time the X wing is the Tie Fighter.

[@readermike8355]

maway5 And I don't like how he said X wings got one shotted by Ties, usually it's two to three for an X, Biggs got taken out with two double shots from an Interceptor while his shields were double front leaving his rear unprotected. Wedge took a hit to an engine and was still able to pull out, Luke was hit at least three times.

[@maxjones503]

Mate, have you seen the guns on an ARC? They are essentially light tubolasers. One or two shots could do enough damage to win the battle. even if not destroying it completely at once, I don't think the T-65 would pick itself up from that.

[@dakithepillowmakura7066]

GeneralZ Yes the forward cannons are really strong, BUT the back cannons are basically blasters that goes pew pew a little louder if compared to the X-wing's defenses. And the X's maneuverability will get it mostly out of the frontal cannon's lune of sight

[@nerdyaviator732]

The two ground assault ships seen in the Star Wars films; the Republic Acclamator and the TF C-9979. It would be really interesting!!!

[@DeadlyAssets]

About the only thing and probably the biggest thing you forgot is the difference in technology between the 2 ships, the x-wing uses state of the art for its time, as does the ARC but remember its 30 years later, technology has improved as it does steadily over the time, so the smaller weapons now probably pack as much if not more punch than the arc, plus the shielding and deflectors are probably superior on the x-wing. remember how much earth weapons improve in 30 years. the best tank in ww2 (King Tiger?) against an A1M2 Abrams.. I know where my money is! buy buy ARC170 BOOM!

[@DeadlyAssets]

Plus 30 years of advancements in Shielding, fire control, etc. etc. Really the ARC 170 doesn't stand a chance in a dogfight. If ARC 170's were superior why upgrade them to other fighters? for that matter why upgrade any fighter at all? don't you do it because your new ship is better than the old one? Take a look at the improvements of the T70 over the T65, that is a similar advancement over a similar time period, Again the X-Wing wins in the Fight. Your breakdown of the ARC 170 vs the T65 X-Wing is flawed.

[@AdamantLightLP]

David Pemberton I read somewhere that technology improves pretty slowly in the Star Wars universe. Though you make a valid point.

[@fardfox]

Well When they changed from ARC 170's to Tie Fighters it wasn't because Tie fighters were better. But because it was cheaper. They no longer believed that their strength came from their pilots in the navy but rather the Capital ships so they bought more cheaper and easier to build fighters rather than elite ones.

[@Phantom-ph6xg]

The ARC wasn't directly replaced by Tie fighter either. They were still kept in limited service until their specific role was phased out.

[@swordofsanghelios9776]

The star wars universe has operated at a fairly constant tech level for several thousands of years, and has stagnated in many respects. Adding 30 years to millenia old tech isn't gonna make a difference.

[@LoneWolf20213]

if I designed the ARC 170, I would swap out those non-weaponized wing's on the ARC 170 with the X-wing's laser cannon wing's that will massively upgrade the Arc 170 and make it single pilot while keeping the astromech, increasing the shield's to be 2-3 time's stronger than the X-wing's, and increase the hull strength, speed, turn-rate and maneuverability rate of 85, then it would be perfect for me

[@MrFoFuVideos]

This is literally the perfect Star Wars yt channel

[@DampfGecko]

This is a well put-together video, but I think I have to object- rear-facing armament does not at all equal a KO-advantage. Given that dogfighting in Star Wars closely resembles WW2 dogfighting, take a look for example how the Ju 87 "Stuka" fared against air superiority fighters like the Hurricane: no matter the variant of the StuKa you look at, it is not a flying brick, but it could not sustain itself against proper fighters. Also, the advantage of having more modern (=later) tech alone should be a drastic advantage. I do not wish to discount your valid arguments in any way, but I think they weigh far more favourably towards the X Wing- it is the Superiority Fighter of the two after all.

[@nflippo6201]

Picturing all kinds of small load outs for a Star Wars RPG I'm GMing and can't help but picture a Consular with an Arc-170 attached to either side like a CR-90 with x-wings.

[@doofus02]

The problem with the rear-facing guns is that they aren't powerful enough a deterrent to a shielded fighter coming in from the aft quadrant. With the X-wing gaining a position advantage it can bring its forward shields and quad laser cannons to bear vs the rear shields and two considerably less powerful blaster or ion cannons that form the aft-facing armament of the 170. If the x-wing attacks from above or below then the 170 can only bring either its dorsal or ventral rear facing weapon to bear, with predictable results.

[@rhircyn]

This is great, I somehow stumbled upon your channel and love it. I know from a GM point of view that there are quantifiable differences between the two ships. If I had a choice I would take the ARC over the X-Wing and part of that reason is because of how typical and quintessential the iconic ship is to the franchise. In terms of quantifiable measurements for most ships, I can suggest to look at and perhaps to use the following books: Starships of the Galaxy (Star Wars Saga Edition), Scum and Villainy, Clone Wars Campaign Handbook (for the Azure Angel, page 138 if you decide to compare that...), and The Force Unleashed. I would love to see a comparison between father and son flying in the Azure Angel and the X-Wing. Also, can you look at the HWK-290 (TFU pg 118) and compare that to the Falcon?

[@joshschreiber1524]

the Praetor Mark 2 Class-Battlecruiser vs Resurgent Class-Star Destroyer (10th time trying)

[@michaelhanson8296]

In WW2 tail gunners were found to be more or less a psychological deterrent than a real deterrant. If you play some games that allow you to be a gunner you might find it is more difficult to hit a target if it is doing even the basic Han Solo "drift to the left" maneuver. I think it would probably be a tie actually. If fast an manuevering enough a X-wing can probably put a volley into the ARC before the gunner has time to trace a shot to the fighter or the computer can form a firing solution

[@johnsmithfakename8422]

I think the X-wing would be the victor for a few reasons. 1 - If the x wing pilot can get behind the ARC 170 he can divert power to the forward shields and tank a few shots from the rear gunners while the X wing pelts the ARC 170 with its cannons. Personally I think the overall forward firepower of both craft is comparable. I will admit that the ability of the ARC 170 to have a crew of 3 is a great advantage as it reduces the load on the pilot but in a dogfight maneuverability is hard to compensate against. I also think that with the advancement of technology and the loss of space to support a crew of 3 organics the X wing would be a superior craft in a fight. I personally think the X wing as a 20%-30% combat edge against the ARC 170

[@talos86]

I think the X-Wings have a guided proton torpedos like the Y-Wings or the V-19. Just watch the New Hope. Expect Luke, Red Leader and Gold leader used the targeting computer to lock on the exhaust shaft. The torpedos needed to fly in a curved path(like bombs). Without assistance, the warheads flying in straight line as we seen in the CIS droid control ship or in the 2nd Death Stars reactor chamber.

[@ChristianMcAngus]

Star Wars fighter combat seems to be based on WW2 fighter combat. In WW2, lighter fighters with only fixed armament overwhelmed heavier fighters with fixed+turreted weapons. So I give this to the X-Wing.

[@TedTheHobbyist]

I would like to suggest a versus between a Warhammer 40k Space Marine Battle barge or An Imperium Navy's Battleship vs An Imperial Stardestroyer

[@edwardwei3973]

good about the same skills The first pilot we come across is oddball, battle of Courucant. He went down one hit in the first minute.

[@Shortbrain]

If I was playing X-wing miniatures, for a 1v1 dogfight, I'd take an x-wing every time.

[@TheSuperhomosapien]

The rear gunner isn't going to be as much as an advantage as some may think. In a dogfight both ships are going to be banking and moving. That rear gunner is trying to hit a moving target while in a moving target. It's hard enough to hit a fast moving target in a turret when your vehicle is flying straight and level. Also the ARC-170 is vulnerable from the top and the bottom as well as the sides, and the top and bottom profiles present a huge easy to hit profile from the X-Wing.

[@conroypaw]

By your logic, all modern fighters should all have gunners and be heavy fighters. Bigger means more mass. More mass generally means less maneuverability and more inertia. There is a reason why bombers and attack craft had gunners in World War II and fighters eventually ditched the gunners. There is a maxim in air combat: "Speed is life." If your plane didn't have speed, you tried to make up for it with a gunner.

[@DVCJoe]

This is equivalent of the P51 Mustang vs the Grumman Avenger. The similarities in comparison are virtually parallel. The Avengers were outclassed by the Zero in dogfighting and had to be replaced to save the crews. As a superiority fighter in think the edge will go to the X-wing. These fights are usually won in the turns to get position. Lacking equivalent maneuverability and lacking acceleration the ARC will be too disadvantaged.

[@DecidedlyNinja]

Space dogfights in star wars are based on WWII dogfights, which means the question of speed vs. firepower has already been settled historically. As well as the famed nimble single-engine fighters such as the Bf-109 and Spitfire, WWII had a number of twin-engine heavy fighters, which typically had much greater armament and tail gunners in addition to sometimes far superior armor at the cost of speed and agility. With a few exceptions when the heavy fighters could keep up with their opponents, single-engine fighters always performed better in air-to-air combat. So my opinion of the ARC is that it's more of an attack aircraft than a true strike fighter; it's not really meant to engage other fighters beyond self defense, and the forward guns are mainly for strafing surface targets and capital ships. Like a space A-10, which is also pretty cool, but no match for an X-Wing.

[@Draekmus]

If the X-wing can get a head-on angle from the top or bottom of the ARC-170, it may stand a chance. After all, those are the two major blind spots in the ship's design: The immediate front has the two heavy laser cannons, and the back is protected by the rear laser cannons. However, it would mean having to play chicken with the pilot, who could likely alter his ship's angle faster than the X-wing to fire back. This is assuming, of course, that the ARC can't alter the angle of its front cannons such as using a targeting computer like some ships do. There might be another blind spot in between the two rear turrets, but you'd have to be pretty close to not get clipped, and the area has a pretty narrow band. You'd have to basically be kissing the rear gunner to hit them without taking too many shots.

[@tyronealfonso]

No way. The ARC can shoot in two directions but can be attacked from a total of six ( top, bottom, left, right, front, back). Maneuverability should be the priority in these matchups.

[@RedFox102]

A good way to compare manuverability is to find a scene containing an ARC 170 and a Z-95 Headhunter (being the predecessor to the X-wing) if there is one in the animated Clone Wars.

[@erynncollier8672]

Yeah, no. Fighter combat comes down to who can outmaneuver the other, and as you've clearly stated, the X-wing has the advantage in that area. The X-wing can dictate the tempo of the engagement, and if something goes wrong it has the ability to just disengage, extend, and re-engage. While the arc-170 does have rear guns, defensive guns are notoriously bad in a dogfight due to the constantly changing directions of the craft involved, and exist more for defending the craft when it can't maneuver for whatever reason. Further, even if the arc-170 does score hits on the X-wing, the X-wing most likely has its shields set to double front to soak those hits. Once an X-wing slots in on an arc-170, the republic starfighter isn't getting away. That's game over. Conversely, the more maneuverable X-wing can, as I previously stated, make use of its superior maneuverability to shake a pursuing arc-170 and just plain reset the engagement. Additionally, if a squadron level engagement is considered, X-wing pilots will be able to respond to their squadron mates' calls for help more quickly, and more effectively mutually support each other. The only things the ARC-170 has going for it in this matchup are its firepower and its staying power. Great traits in an assault craft going after capital ships, but pretty shite for a dogfight if you can't get behind the other pilot.

[@richh5572]

Special Forces TIE vs. B-Wing would be an interesting one

[@bradhedgehog12]

I knew the 170 can be a better choice. At least My fighter of choice. And Choice for My own two elite Squads. Archer Squad and Star Hedgehog Squad.

[@serballista]

I give the ARC the win too not only for the reasons you give, but because the ARC requires 3 people to fully operate the ship. Of course you did mention this but they as a team of three would have much more coordination than the one X-Wing pilot. The gunners and pilot can make call-outs and just make the overall effectiveness of the ARC that much better. That's not saying the X-Wing has no chance but it definitely pushes the odds more into the republic ship's favor. Just what I think really, great video. For the next one I would love to see is the Malevolence from the Clone Wars versus the Death Star. Not sure if it is really the fairest match up but the Malevolence can EMP the tech on the space station so I thought it was cool and fun to put in the ring. Keep up the awesome videos, may the Force be with you.

[@Electric_Bagpipes]

HOW DID I NOT READ ABOUT THAT BEFORE?! ARC stands for agressive recon? oh come on... my favorite fighter in SW and I didnt even know that!

[@NastyCanasta561]

I think that another area that the x-wing could try to hit the ARC is from below. It looks like the firing arc of the rear cannon can't point down very far. The x-wing could try to keep in that blind spot; I think it would have made sense for the ARC to position its rear turret more like the laser ball on the republic gunship.

[@pokeballsithgamersbros4065]

Dogfights are not judged by weight and defense and armaments but judged by speed and maneuverability.

[@JebHoge]

The ARC-170 isn't really that much of a predecessor. The Headhunter was much more of a direct ancestor. The X-Wing basically took the Headhunter , doubled the cannon and engine count, split the wings, and added an astromech.