The X-Wing was impractical for the Rebel Alliance

[@dolandarkxgrandayy6953]

Day 1 of asking Generation Tech to discuss which is the most comfortable and practical chair in the jedi Council chambers.

[@Blueee51]

He could do a whole furniture video lol

[@That0therG]

I'm down!

[@A._is_for]

Easy, it's the vacant one

[@simon2493]

@@dolandarkxgrandayy6953 the one master Yoda used when he was semi conscious after talking in death sticks.

[@ricflouvensteiner3958]

Im down for that

[@Alpha_Digamma]

I'll stick to what an expert on starfighter tactics said: "The Incom T-65 X-wing is the fighter that killed the Death Star. An almost perfect balance of speed, maneuverability, and defensive shielding make it the fighter of choice for Rogue Squadron."―General Carlist Rieekan

[@midnightplatypus1973]

Rieekan totally suppressed the debrief pointing out the T-65's targeting system was deactivated and the shot was taken purely based on the pilot's faith in voices in his head. Neverthless, word got round and it's why the only crew who'd willingly get assigned to fly with Luke on Hoth was an irrational optimist like Dak.

[@shaider1982]

Rogue Squadron (game)👍🏻

[@TheMhalpern]

The thing about the T-65 is that for the most part, the alliance couldn't afford to specialize too heavily, yes they had different fighters, but the T-65B is a true multi-role, and sometimes its better to have a few more expensive multi role fighters than a whole lot of more efficient specialized fighters, sure when they had the y-wings, b-wings and A-wings on hand they worked pretty well but an A-wing isn't going to do a bombing run and usually won't do much more than scratch the surface of a capital ship, while a Y-wing or B-wing often won't reach the target without escorts, the X wing was serviceable in both roles, and it was one of the more survivable fighters available,

[@TheMhalpern]

to add, The rebellion usually didn't have the luxury of having every fighter type available (of the main handful of models they employed) for any given situation, so whatever fighter that was going to be their main one and therefore the most likely to be available in any given situation had to be the most versatile and survivable

[@mattt233]

They were easy to repair too as they could use Incom parts.

[@TheMhalpern]

@@mattt233 that's an advantage of anything that's in production

[@Blackened30]

As good as the X-Wing really was, I think they would have been better off with the 80% solution that was the Z-95. They were built in the thousands and spare parts would be plentiful. As a multi-role fighter they outclass anything the Empire has up until the TIE Advanced (and Defenders), but the majority of the Empire's forces were always the basic TIEs. The last thing you want as a guerilla organization is to be mucking around with a bespoke fighter that isn't in full production. I've heard talk before about how a company's aircraft use common parts that are easy to source, and its more marketing buzz than actual truth.

[@TheMhalpern]

@@Blackened30 not really, the stock Z-95 is great as a planetary defense and carrier based fighter, but the hyperdrive was an add on, and it had about half the firepower, because it was an add on hyperdrive the calculations had to be input manually, and the sensor suit wasn't as good

[@andreykuzmin4317]

It's funny, that you mentioned TIE Fighters with hyperdrives... because in EU comics and novels Rebels fielded entire squadrons of captured TIEs, outfitted with jury-rigged shields and hyperdrives. New Republic used them to great success in Hunt for Zsinj and the whole Adumar kerfuffle. Not to forget, that a lot of TRAITORS, that deserted to Rebellion either become A-wing pilots, or simply stick to piloting TIE Fighters and Interceptors, because this was the types of craft they knew best.

[@willadeefriesland5107]

Wasn't this another source, besides pirate gangs, for the so-called 'TIE Uglies?...

[@vic5015]

​@willadeefriesland5107 the warlords who took over after the Emperor's death used them. Bevause they could no longer afforx to treat pilots as expendable.

[@willadeefriesland5107]

@@vic5015 thanks, it's been awhile since reading in the Extended Universe. I miss it...

[@yournumberonepal]

​​@@willadeefriesland5107 Yup, and if you may recall there were many different variations, Tie cockpits mated to Y-Wing engines, Tie and X-Wing variations like X -Wing fusalages with Tie Wings. Twileks had Tie cockpits with S foils from the X-Wings with shields and hyperdrives but no proton torpedoes.

[@JediSentinal]

​@@yournumberonepal death seed, char'daki 😏 God I need to go reread the X wing series. Haven't in years!

[@Ir0nAce1]

dont be dissing my t 65, i was gonna buy one as my sons first personal star ship

[@jtjames79]

Bad move. You need to buy him a broke down Z-95, and then fix it up together. It will provide both bonding, and respect for the vehicle. You just give a kid a T-65 and he's just going to wreck it in a trench run trying to show off for his friends.

[@isaackim7675]

⁠@@jtjames79Totally agree on the Z-95. I really find it satisfying in turning off the engines mid flight and then switching them back off

[@danieljohnson8827]

I had one as a kid. It was a little much. Get him a Y-Wing. They're a little more reliable, and they're tough as nails. The kids also love that stripped down look.

[@Zadrias6386]

@@danieljohnson8827the Y wing can be a little much for a kid to handle as well though for other reasojs, they’re solid and reliable yes… and if you strip all the mispec hardware out they do have a decent cargo capacity and they have one of the highest safety ratings for single or 2 person ships. But they handle like a pig if you don’t tune the engines right… The Z-95, while it is a little more boy racer. Does score higher on manuverability and handling, may be a little easier for a learner pilot to handle while he’s still having lessons or has just passed. And like all incom designs it does share a unified control scheme, makes it easier to hop between his own ship and his instructors 2 seater.

[@yellomellow9481]

​@@jtjames79 Do you guys even know a struggle? I bought my kid a pack of death sticks and a gutted snowspeeder, he thought he was going through the kessel run in 0.01 parsecs. He's uh... Not with us anymore, he "collided with an entire asteroid belt"

[@daviddegeorge2667]

You're also just looking at the cost per fighter, in maintenance and readiness. The point you're missing is the ine yiu kind of glossed over talking about the fight around Yavin. They didn't have the pilots or crews to keep a larger fleet for most of the war. Spending more resources on more durable shielded ships kept more of their pilots alive, even if the resources required were higher. Later on, when industry was an option, i agree they probably should have switched their main fighter to something less complicated, but early on it seemed like manpower was a bigger constraint than budgeting.

[@spectrastar2749]

Don't forget about fuel. Those were quite inefficient wtih the fact they had 4 engines.

[@runakovacs4759]

@@spectrastar2749 On flipside though, engine failure was far less of an issue for safe recovery. If you look at real life interceptors - P-38 Lightning, Mosquito , Do 335, J1N1, Ki102, Ki108.... That is: Planes meant to engage bombers which will almost guaranteed return fire and hit you due to turrets (analogous to attacking a star destroyer or the like) - they all had two engines! Strike aircraft show the same deal with the Me 410, A26 Havoc, ki-96 and so forth. Strike craft expected return fire from AAA and thus used multiple engines for survivability. X-wings fit both roles and thus endurance is a must.

[@johnpatz8395]

Reminds me of videos I’ve seen about the development of Israel’s Merkava tank, as it’s obviously crew survival was their main concern

[@TheMhalpern]

@@daviddegeorge2667 the other main point besides survivability is that it is a multirole fighter, this is actually a pretty big advantage from a logistics standpoint, and why most Air Forces here on Earth standardize around multirole fighter platforms as their primary (and often only) fighter aircraft. the job of a multirole fighter is not to excel in any one aspect of arial combat, but to be good enough in a wide range of them. They generally are more complicated than all but the most advanced single role designs, but they make up for that by being easier to justify a larger number of them due to versatility, add to that you don't have to have as many different pilot training pipelines. Ultimately the X-Wing wasn't the best ship for every mission, but it was good enough for most missions, which is what you want for your main fighter, the alliance did field other, more specialized fighters to excel in those specific roles, but the key thing about the more specialized fighters is that they demand the luxury of being able to pick your battles, if your up against star destroyers, a bunch of A wings will be lucky to damage the shields before getting taken out or running out of fuel, and even the stripped down Y-wing is basically a sitting duck to most Tie variants.

[@sevenofzach]

Did it carry more fuel than other starfighters? In the video it was just mentioned that it's good for longer missions (as opposed to other fighters the rebels had available). Fuel inefficiency would then only make sense if it has more fuel storage to make it still good for longer missions @@spectrastar2749

[@Scudboy17]

I think the Rebellion's choice of starfighters reflected their overall outlook when it came to why they even rebelled: the valued human lives. The rebels had fewer ships and pilots, so the ships they chose allowed them to keep their pilots safer, and as a result, they had more pilots survive and go on to become better pilots. The Empire, meanwhile, only cared about projecting power. Lives meant nothing to them. The entire TIE series reflects this. Even when they had a chance to develop the TIE advances with shields and a hyperdrive early in the rebellion, they passed on it. Thematically, if not logistically, this makes sense in a storytelling perspective.

[@twomorningsbackfromyesterd1240]

💯

[@randybentley2633]

The Iranian F-14s are also the reason all of the retired and boneyarded Tomcats were shredded in 2007 to prevent the Iranians from obtaining any spare parts from them.

[@jeffreycarman2185]

7:49 I mean let’s be real on the reliability of the X-Wing. Luke’s X-Wing literally was sunken in a swamp for days or even weeks, and he was able to get it spaceworthy with just the tools he had with him on Dagobah. Then in (possibly the same X-wing) was submerged in water for years on Ahch-To and it was, again, made spaceworthy by the tools and parts they had on hand.

[@ss5gogetunks]

Very good point luke's xwing went through electronic hell and was easily and quickly got back up with minimal supplies well said

[@skyden24195]

It's what he was utilizing when he rescued Grogu and company.

[@MGower4465]

​@@skyden24195 Was it? Luke flew his X to Cloud City, where it was left behind when the injured Luke was evacuated aboard the Falcon. How was it recovered? Vader was still there, and he would not leave the locals alive for daring to fight back and capture his troops. So everubody either left or died. Leaving the facility, and Luke's abandoned X, in the Empire's control.

[@skyden24195]

@@MGower4465 my reply to the comment was included as an addition to what the initial comment stated which included the phrase, "possibly the same X-wing." Now, you do make a valid point about Luke's X-wing being left at Bespin, so unlikely that it was the same X-wing seen in "The Mandalorian." I would speculate that there is the possibility that it was the same X-wing seen in "Return of the Jedi," but unless there is some definitive information available amongst the vast amounts of Star Wars lore indicating the fact of the matter, it can't be said either way. All that said, I only agreed with the possibility put forth by the original comment(er), so I am somewhat baffled as to why your objection would be directed specifically at me and not the original source.

[@jeffreycarman2185]

@@MGower4465 great observation. It is likely that some evacuee of Cloud City appropriated Luke’s X-wing to escape The Empire… (if Star Wars canon has shown me anything it is this: there is no such thing as securing you spaceship).

[@Atalas5]

The A-wing had it even worse, at least in Legends. There weren't even any dedicated factories or assembly lines for them, they were basically made in some being's garage and thus each one had some interesting personal touches. Tycho Celchu noted that the A-wing he flew at the Battle of Endor had a certain type of wood paneling inside the cockpit (I am hoping as an aesthetic choice).

[@andrewshaughnessy5828]

That's interesting. The B-wing was also a mechanic's nightmare. Seems to have been a common failing.

[@TheGoddamnBacon]

Wood paneling from Dantooine, if I remember rightly.

[@Atalas5]

@@TheGoddamnBacon it was from some "-ooine". Maybe Cardooine. Has been almost a year since I last read The Bacta War

[@devo1977s]

What the Rebels really needed was a hyper drive capable Toyota Hilux

[@ashishchoudhary6982]

If they had space capable hilux They'd have won the war in a month instead of the long slog that happened.

[@skyden24195]

😆😆😆

[@knowplay3258]

In space, aerodynamics means nothing. In space, a brick is just as maneuverable as Ferrari. In space, resilience and durability is what matters.

[@johntrotter7372]

So, the Y-wing?

[@Wintermute909]

@ 8:55 i think "power management" would be a better term because "energy management" usually descibes managing kinetic and potential energy in fighter planes. (Well all airplanes really). Things like trading speed for height etc

[@aaronbosen6743]

One of the things a lot of people don't really think about with the X-wing is that it's essentially just a next evolutionary step of the Z-95 Headhunter's design. Z-95 Headhunters were an extremely common, but extremely capable budget starfighter that share many of the X-wing's strengths: being fast, tough, easily repaired and to train pilots on, having shields, having a control interface that was already familiar to a lot of people ect. It also had a massive and already existent secondary market for parts for repairs or modifications. If it had a disadvantage it was that it only had two ion engines by default (one distinct advantage over the Z-95 the X-wing had was multiple redundancy), and hyperdrive functionality was not available in many of the earlier ones already frequently found on the market. Ironically the rebel alliance could've easily built a far larger starfighter corps earlier, but not without some growing pains if they'd adopted the Z-95 instead.

[@tythecakelord445]

the Z-95 was also incredibly modifiable! they could have had variants that were made for specific tasks or pilots could customize their own ships more easily with all the aftermarket parts that were available by that point in the galaxy

[@TheMhalpern]

the real problem with the midrim offense, was the version of the B-Wing that went into production, without the experimental weapon featured on the prototype, the only major advantage it had over say the Y-wing was that it had active production lines, and stronger shields and laser cannons, but it wasn't that much better at killing capital ships, and was worse for close air support, though they did have heavily armed and armored air speeders for CAS so it was really the anti capital ship options they lacked,

[@kineuhansen8629]

z 95 look like something we could build irl cant tell how much i love the x wing series of fighters just perfect for early rebelion to do the hit and run attacks

[@stevehensonuk]

Great video! I can understand why you'd want a single platform to fulfil multiple roles - but one niggle I always had was that the shields on the X-wing didn't seem to do very much! It always seemed to me that the same number of shots from a Tie compared to an X-wing always seemed to have the same kill ratio.

[@earnestbrown6524]

I think it's said that that per gun the TIE guns are more powerful and faster firing.

[@EyeOfMagnus4E201]

Definitely. It seemed in the movies that shields might enable a fighter to survive (though with damage) one or two hits from an enemy fighter, but considering the rate of fire of TIE fighter cannons, this wasn’t particularly helpful except to block stray shots. A TIE fighter behind a shielded fighter getting off a good burst of fire would usually tear through the shields with the first couple bolts and the rest of the shots from the burst usually atomized the rebel fighter.

[@EyeOfMagnus4E201]

@@earnestbrown6524 In the Star Wars Squadrons game, the energy that usually was used by shields in other fighters could be used to overcharge either engines or lasers in TIE fighters, interceptors, and bombers, though not TIE Defenders (since they did have shields), so while rebel fighters could stay in the fight longer without having to go back and get repaired or getting destroyed, TIE craft were able to travel much faster and hit harder. Of course, that’s just the game, but the theory made sense.

[@jeffreycarman2185]

Agreed, in ANH during the trench run, R2-D2 was blasted in the first salvo…

[@philipthomas3503]

Awesome vid! Some random thoughts: USAF faces a similar availability problem today with decline in maintenance staff and lack of promise infrastructure for the F-35 resulting in a 50% availability rate (not really a flaw with the aircraft itself). Even though Z-95s would be more available, Rebels had to operate under the assumption they'd be out-gunned 3-4 to 1 at any given time (in the X-Wing video game they mention this in the training mission briefing) so they'd need the force-multiplier / qualitative difference of an individual X-Wing. Plus the other resource the Rebels were short on: trained, experienced pilots they could ill-afford to lose, and with Z-95s they'd be losing alot more of these

[@Sidekick_Snowman]

What are the readiness ratings of other aircraft? What about other 5th gen fighters?

[@philipthomas3503]

@@Sidekick_Snowman F-16C is 69%, A-10 is 67%, F15C 32%, F22 52% also the F-35 is already one of the safest aircraft in USAF service with an a crash rate of 1.6 per 100,000 flight hours vs 3.55 for the F-16

[@ascensionindustries9631]

​@@philipthomas3503 Just saw those same stats on Airpower by Alex Hollings.

[@philipthomas3503]

@@ascensionindustries9631 that’s where I got them 👍

[@c1ph3rpunk]

Look no further than the Japanese in WW2, having available aircraft doesn’t matter, often superior ones, if there’s no experienced pilots to fly them. Contrast that with what the US did, experienced pilots rotated back to train the next round of pilots and pass that experience on.

[@drakevimes2033]

One important advantage of more complicated and advanced platform (as X-wing) is pilot survivability. Rebels were short on materials, but they were lacking even more skilled pilots. If they tried to go for quantity over quality, they would have half of the fighters grounded without pilots. Less advanced warbird would also mean, less pilots coming back from combat mission, therefore making rebels even more short-staffed. This quantity/quality choice also goes well with story narrative, Empire not caring about their pilots and Rebels thinking about human life even in fight. But overall, great video as always!

[@NHDude]

Despite the pro-Imperial propaganda of this video; my experience of years of Rebellion service in X-Wing, X-Wing vs Tie Fighter, and Alliance will never change my opinion of the T-65. Durability, firepower, and survivability over a seat with toilet paper for armor any day.

[@chaotixthefox]

Using something like the TIE fighter, or anything woth less flexibility and survivability, woukd have been simply tossing away valuable manpower that the Rebellion could not recover. The X-Wing perfectly conformed to the tactics you credit the success of the Galactic Civil War. Despite the maintenance burden, it was the right ship for the job.

[@crsrdash-840b5]

There is one fan-base thing that needs to be address with the X-Wing. The four laser guns are NOT POINTING STRAIGHT! There pointing ahead and inward to meet at a point ahead of the fighter to match the targeting scanner. The meet centered to hit their targets. If the guns fired straight, it would hit nothing ahead of it. A lot of box art and movies with games gets this concept wrong.

[@Shrapnel82]

When it comes to design, I've noticed that ships like the X-Wing and A-Wing have cockpits more like WWII fighters, such as the P51 Mustang. Modern jet fighters have cockpits near the front, with most of the plane behind it, and only a bit of nosecone in front. WWII fighters had cockpits typically closer to the middle, with the engine in front. Not all Star Wars ships, or even Alliance ships, have the WWII cockpit position, but the X-Wing and A-Wing, some of the most popular ones, did.

[@nerdytom6881]

I disagree with the basic premise. If you have limited numbers and a volunteer cadre you need to focus on quality. Maintenance is important mostly when you have pressure to perform operations. The guerilla nature of the rebel alliance meant most of the time it would pick and choose its own battles, thus can afford to pace logistics accordingly.

[@DavidRichardson153]

I don't know about pacing logistics, but prioritizing certain aspects, particularly that which goes towards flight, would likely be at the top. After all, picking your battles would involve being able to run. I would imagine that the priority list would go something along the lines of: 1) thrusters, controls, and hyperdrive, 2) shields and life support, and 3) weapons. This wouldn't necessarily guarantee logistics, but it would probably increase survivability, especially when avoiding battle.

[@bostonrailfan2427]

@@DavidRichardson153with all due respect, logistics is a solid #4 priority as you need to maintain, arm, and fuel them both cheaply and efficiently it’s why the Y-wings lost their engine cowls

[@bostonrailfan2427]

maintaining your vehicle is extremely important, to the point that they bought easier to maintain vehicles and got rid of labor intensive things like Y-wing cowls

[@DavidRichardson153]

@@bostonrailfan2427 Uh, I just gave a list of what would be prioritized in the logistics. Including "logistics" in the list of logistics is rather redundant, isn't it? As for the Y-wing engine cowls, they were armor at best and just aesthetics at worst. When you need to run away, aesthetics should be at the bottom of your list of priorities - and that is if you have it on the list at all - and armor, while helpful in a fight, only slows you down when you run. Couple that with how most of the early Y-wings were stolen from scrapyards, when the cowls were likely already removed, and they were gonna go at one point or another.

[@bostonrailfan2427]

@@DavidRichardson153 you put logistics well below that other stuff but it needed to be higher

[@jameslewis2635]

From playing the X-Wing and Tie Fighter games I would say that the T-65B X-Wing is a very balanced generalist design. It was not as strong in certain areas as other fighters. The Y-Wings could carry more torpedo's and had the flexibility of a pair of ion cannon, the A-Wing was faster and more nimble but in a pinch the T-65B could both dog-fight and pose a threat to heavier vessels with their proton torpedo's.

[@nateharder2286]

Personally, I'd go for a ARC-170. I'd keep the pilot seat and astromech slot, strip out the rest of the hull and single rear gun for a quad turret like the one's on the Millennium Falcon controlled by a small specialized droid brain / targeting computer, but mount it low so it can swing and fire forward from beneath the ship. Boost the shields, hyperdrive and sublight engines but make it so a C-1 series astromech can be completely enclosed inside and have access to all the major systems from the inside. And last but not least, a 4 nozzle thrust pack on the tip of the nose fro greater maneuverability.

[@DonaldWWitt]

I'd go with the TIE Hunter, sure it's S-foils bring all the same headaches as the X-wing, but it packed everything the X-wing could do into a TIE based platform.

[@MrSheckstr]

I sketched out a expanded X wing for longer duration 2 person crewed missions …. The ship is scaled up in size along all three axis. This allows for a larger and wider cockpit with a copilot station slightly offset to starboard behind the centered pilot station forward. Behind the copilot station and to port is a passageway aft along the open space to the port side of the copilot station. On the starboard side of passageway is a single person sleeping alcove . Aft of this is a vertical tunnel running from top to bottom that end in an airlock hatch on both the dorsal and ventral. These airlock hatches allow Ex wings to dock to a mothership, stacked storage in a hanger bay with the combined tunnel used by the pilots to access their chosen vehicle, or allow a pilot to do EV work in space. Exwings can also dock this way while in flight in order to have one pilot “fly” two ships, or simply tow a disabled ship. In an emergency the crew of one ship can take shelter in the other one ….. Overtop of both hatches is a double blaster ring turret to give the ship further firepower in multiple directions … they slide forward when the hatches are opened… after of the vertical tunnel is the astromech slot. But there are actually two astromechs slots … though one of them can be filled with a stack of “pit droids” that can service the ship under the instruction of the Astromech unit … Auxiliary storage in the underside of the ship can turn it into a well stocked base camp for longer termed missions including a pair of speeder bikes for the pilots and a third one broken down into a kit that can be assembled and operated by the droids

[@nateharder2286]

@@MrSheckstr Cool, but the problem with an expanded X-wing is you'd have to build that thing brand new. It'd be expensive. The arc-170 is something that would have been available to the rebellion early on and with a few relatively simple, and more importantly cheap upgrades it could be on par or better than a standard X-wing.

[@MTNwanderings]

The S-Foils where to help with cooling (one for each engine. They also help the section for the kill box made by the lasers, so the enemy fight has to repel more than 1 laser at a time. Without them the lasers would have been less. The tie used its panels for cooling too, there is a reason the tie-defender had so many panels.

[@simon2493]

Dude is turning the generation tech into ASMR for sleep.

[@ChrunicDubs]

I’ve unironically used these vids to fall asleep to before 😅

[@manhunter433]

The t-65 x wing in my view is similar to the US F4U Corsair, a jack of all trades fighter that's both a great strength and weakness. The Tie fighter as you mentioned is probably akin to the Japanese Zero, fast, light and packs a heavy punch.

[@kenbrown2808]

as other people said - if they switched to something like the TIE, they'd also be facing a higher attrition rate. and they didn't have the manpower to sustain that kind of losses. the the edge the X-wings had was a higher ability to get shot up and still get the pilot back home.

[@DarthSpock1]

"The Rebel Alliance had a much bigger shortage when it came to pilots rather than fighters." I think that actually IS one of the big advantages for the EARLY rebellion though. If these ships offered even SLIGHTLY better pilot survivability then that alone would have been huge when it came to getting pilots home alive even if they had to cannibalize the battered husk when it got there. Later on yes, it would likely begin greatly losing value in the fleet, but by RotJ we indeed see a much wider variety of ships too. Excellent analysis overall though!

[@willadeefriesland5107]

A bold choice of subject for a video, and well executed. The extreme fan boys are left without an argument to stand on. Thank you Alan. We can still love something, flaws and all. The T65 B flies true...

[@thecheezybleezy7036]

One of my favorite channels uploaded

[@mrnorthernspitfire3067]

I’ve played X Wing Alliance, Rogue Squadron and fight sims such as DCS and IL-2 Bos and I never really cared for the X-Wing (or the F/A-18 in DCS). Both are competent enough but I prefer to have a craft that is excellent in one particular area instead of a “jack of all trades”, I would rather take an A-wing (or F-16 or Mirage) for air superiority or interception, and a Y-wing (or A-10 or Harrier) for strike missions.

[@timonsolus]

I played the original X-Wing and the following TIE Fighter games. I liked having a "jack of all trades". The advantage of the X-Wing for me was that it could very quickly take out an Imperial corvette with its 6 proton torpedoes (or the shield domes of a Star Destroyer). The A-Wing couldn't do the same - 10 concussion missiles only did the same damage as 3 torpedoes - half the damage required. Proton torps were also more effective against armed shuttles and transports. I also liked flying the Assault Gunboat on the Imperial side.

[@noelblanche]

Very interesting. This reminds me about the two main aircraft the RAF used in the Battle of Britain. The Spitfire and Hurricane. The Spitfire was sleek and fast, a hero fighter. The hurricane was the work horse, cheap to make and easy to maintain. It also accounted for over half the all the enemy aircraft shot down. The Hurricane was versatile and operated in the European and African theatres. However, the Spitfire was more the technologically advanced fighter.

[@Silverfoxwolfen]

I'd go along with the idea of things being a compromise. The Empire could churn out far more of the TIE's than any rebel ability. They had no shields, so tended to be easier to destroy also lacking a hyperdrive to escape. But with such superior numbers... it's harder to make that work out in large engagements. They also lacked enough capital carrier ships to deploy the TIE as intended.

[@dreadwing01]

The reason I enjoy your channel is because you get to the nitty gritty of lore and facts. Another amazing video.

[@Yacovo]

Thanks for the video.

[@runakovacs4759]

Regarding the multiple engines and fuel usage of the X-wing... Multiple engines meant engine failure was far less of an issue for safe recovery. If you look at real life interceptors - P-38 Lightning, Mosquito , Do 335, J1N1, Ki102, Ki108.... That is: Planes meant to engage bombers which will almost guaranteed return fire and hit you due to turrets (analogous to attacking a star destroyer or the like) - they all had two engines! Strike aircraft show the same deal with the Me 410, A26 Havoc, ki-96 and so forth. Strike craft expected return fire from AAA and thus used multiple engines for survivability. X-wings fit both roles and thus endurance is a must.

[@TheSuperhomosapien]

2:12 I thought the S-91 looked more like something out of Wing Commander than anything else.

[@jamesjellis]

Which one was that? I don't think he actually mentioned that one at all.

[@teamdoghouse82880]

You nailed it Alan. A large part of it for me is being able to relate Incom starfighter designs to real world aerodynamic principles and aesthetics. That said, I actually do love some of the TIE line that appear more aerodynamic in the real world physics sense, such as the TIE Reaper from Rogue One at Scariff.

[@argotheslicer1654]

pink sock might be the best mic thingy yet bros sounding extra crispy

[@jasonmcintosh3661]

Always felt that the X-wing was so effective because of the pilots more than the platform itself. It makes a good long range tool for the alliance doctrine of fighting, but its cost makes it a greater loss when destroyed in combat.

[@carlost856]

The loss of the pilot is always the biggest loss in this kind of situation where you don't have many pilots.

[@classifiedad1]

I do have to agree on some points, but of course counter-points can be made. Using the Iranian F-14 analogy, the Tomcat was the most potent aircraft in the IRIAF during the Iran-Iraq War. While they never operated at full capability as the Sidewinder and Sparrow missiles weren't set up on the aircraft yet, the Phoenix missile was. And against the better resourced and more numerous Iraqi Air Force, the Tomcat with its AWG-9 radar and Phoenix missile was an extremely lethal combination. Not only was it an effective interceptor, it also served as an AWACS to direct less capable fighters to the target. Despite the challenges they faced, the F-14 with its Iranian pilots were a potent threat until the very end. Such was the impression left by the Tomcat on Iraqi pilots that US Navy Tomcats in 1991 struggled to get kills because the MOMENT they'd light up an Iraqi jet with its AWG-9 radar, Iraqi aircraft made no attempt to fight them and fled. The X-Wing I suppose is quite the same. It had several capabilities (the proton torpedoes and hyperdrive) which allowed it to be much more capable. It may have been a suboptimal choice in terms of maintainability and the amount of resources it consumed over other craft, but it makes sense to emphasize force and equipment quality over quantity given that the Rebels until the very end weren't going to out-mass the Empire, so you need to make the most out of your resources. Four X-Wings can't beat sixteen TIEs in a straight fight, but four X-wings can appear out of nowhere and dropkick a Star Destroyer with proton torpedoes, and no amount of TIEs can do that.

[@cheekybugger796]

Great job on the video Adam!🤫

[@DavidRichardson153]

11:11 Funnily enough, it was a half-joke among F-14 pilots that if you never flew an F-14 with a blown engine or a malfunctioning wing, then you never actually spent _any_ time in an F-14, because the engines and wings had quite the (arguably well-deserved) notoriety for breaking down mid-flight.

[@darwinskeeper421]

While I agree that the TIE/LN fighter had a lot advantages over the X-Wing, particularly when it came to dogfighting, I can't imagine calling it a multi-purpose starfighter. The TIE/LN may have been fast, maneuverable and were fitted with laser cannons that were capable of making short work of a snubfighter's shields but they lacked the heavier weapons needed to attack larger ships. The TIE/LN was a good space superiority fighter, the TIE Interceptor was a great space superiority fighter. Neither was a multi-purpose anything. The X-Wing, by contrast carried proton torpedoes allowing them to be used as a fighter bomber. Heck, even the A-Wing had concussion missiles, making them a better multi-role fighter than anything in the TIE lineup, with the exception of the TIE Defender.

[@viperson9818]

I look at the rebel alliance and see their X-wing and thought that vehicle sounds like a pain in maintenance with its moving S-foils

[@timonsolus]

Not as much of a pain as the B-Wing, but yes

[@DonaldWWitt]

Yeah, but it doesn't need a two story ladder to enter its cockpit because it has two panels literally the size of barn doors!

[@violetlight1548]

Luke Skywalker, landing on an allied Empire of the Hand star destroyer during the Yuuzhan Vong War, finds the TIE maintenance crew has left him a little gift -- a small, plastic tool caddy labelled "X-Wing Repair Kit", containing (space) duct tape, WD-40, and bubble gum. Luke, taking the joke in stride: Hey, double chew! This is the good stuff! I *wish* we had this back on Hoth!

[@amarured]

00:01 We got "GenerationASMR" before GTA6

[@mccpcorn2000]

Paraphrasing Mara Jade about the TIE fighter: "They were plentiful, and Palpatine didn't mind spending pilots". Pilots were more important than planes for the Alliance. You can't really compare X-Wings and TIEs because they had completely different mission parameters and were backed by different tactical and strategic doctrines. The Empire relied on sheer numbers and firepower to overwhelm defences; the Alliance had to be more surgical and concentrate it's limited power. Z-95s are good ships, and will probably work at a pinch against low priority targets. But if you're going into a head to head match up, then you want your pilots in a ship that you know has a good chance of bringing them home, because the Rebels had no chance of winning an attrition war.

[@sumukhvmrsat6347]

Comparing X wings to Tie Fighters is like comparing a Clone trooper to a storm trooper

[@russellharrell2747]

Yeah, the T-65 could take a beating, except for a direct hit on the aft module between the engines. The engines themselves were pretty vulnerable too. The X-wing doesn’t strike me as a space superiority fighter like the TIE Fighter and Interceptor. It’s more of a multi role ship, with its oversized wingtip cannons and proton torpedo launchers suggesting an assault fighter more suited to attacking larger targets, as well as the native hyperdrive instead of an add on module like a hyperdrive ring suggesting medium to long range reconnaissance or strike missions. The fighter that should have filled the role of space superiority for the rebels is the A-wing.

[@arthurfrayn7619]

Yea I've always thought of it like the WW2 Mosquito: a decent fighter that did many roles well meaning it did not need a fighter escort. If you only had one ship to pick it's good, but A-Wings for TIEs and X-Wings for big stuff works much better. The computer games show this well.

[@shoresean1237]

"Saw Gerrera's Partisans were chaotic." Clone Trooper Tech would surely agree - if he only could.

[@kaseyboles30]

S foils are for thermal control. Splitting them in an x-wing (s foils to attack position) increases radiative surface area to compensate for the heat load combat operations generate.

[@jeffreycarman2185]

2:23 I agree about the Pegasus (that it’s not very Star Wars in its aesthetic). EC Henry made some tweaks to the design and that make it a true Star Wars ship.

[@Starwarslegorob]

Hello Generation Alan my name is Tech and I love your channel!

[@GrummanCatenjoyer]

8:22 What confused me today Is that there still using those same airframes If they wanted to keep it they have China right there who can mass produce airframes and probably overhaul it to help improve ease of maintenance and effectiveness Imagine the resistance still using the same T-65Bs earlier production runs while there backbone is older Z-95s and V-Wings (F-4E and F-5Es respectively) with a small captured amount of tie interceptors ( mirage F1s from Iraq)

[@Carstuff111]

As a HUGE fan of the F-14 Tomcat here, it also makes me love the Incom fighters of the Rebellion over the T.I.E. Fighters of the Empire. As a kid, it was awesome to see fighter jets/star fighters that were hugely capable for their size and how they both adapted on-the-fly to their use case. The F-14 with its folding wings to exceed Mach 1+ and the T-65 wings opening to allow for better cooling while in combat. Now, I get it that both of these things were very maintenance intensive, and why a giant Empire would put its money into a simple, low maintenance and surprisingly adaptable platform. These days, I would take a T.I.E. Interceptor over a T-65B. If the shields in the T-65B are basically useless after a few hits anyway, you really are not going to live that much longer than the average T.I.E. pilot, and I get the T.I.E. pilot mentality now. As someone that has driven a variety of cars over the decades, I can say I prefer old school machines that are simple over modern machines. I own two 1990s Honda Civics, one is a 1992 DX sedan and the other is a 1999 SI. Neither have traction control, ABS, cruise control, both are manual transmissions and I even pulled the power steering pump along with its rack, and swapped in a manual steering rack on my DX sedan. Call me a Boomer I guess, even though I am way too young for that lol.

[@JediLordWong]

Hi I liked your video and overall I think your points are valid. I particularly agree with your analysis that the X Wing's being maintenance heavy would have been detrimental before the Battle of Scarif/Yavin or at the more earlier stages of the Rebelion when they didn't have a strong industrial base yet to support such a seemingly stronger fighter at least compared to the TIE fighter individually. Then again, George Lucas and Disney are hardly good world builders able to think of what makes sense even in a fantasy war setting, I doubt they actually try to apply real world war lessons beyond the rule of cool. One thing you failed to mention throughout the whole video though, is the X-Wing's shield generator. Granted, in most movies and depictions, X-Wings seem to die just as easily to a few laser shots from TIEs, but I believe that the shield system was ultimately what enabled the rebels to have overall better pilots, as pilot survivability increased greatly which when combined with the hit and run tactics of rebels who mostly avoid pitch battles unless backed into a corner, enabled a more experienced pool of pilots able to work together. If you did mention shields, I apologise but I don't think you did. But as you say, the success of the X-Wing may be more skewed towards Rebel Tactics an doctrine as opposed to the machine itself. I still think the shields are a game changer though, at least in the old Expanded Universe. There are some other notes which I believe relevant, apparently the X-Wing's 4 laser cannons are considered powerful to even threaten capital ships, plus they normally have Proton Torpedoes which are even greater threats to ISDs. Great video. I've also seen the video on why ISD commanders are incompetent, and wholly agree. Ah Thrawn, as much as he was a bad guy, I wish the Imperial Navy had more of them instead of the idiot ISD commanders we normally see on screen. I mean why make TIE fighter to be swarm tactics if you aren't going to use them and allow hyperspace capable fighters to jump in, wreck havoc and scram before a TIE fighter even leaves the hangar? Disgraceful when even Z-95 headhunters can annoy them.

[@maxsmodels]

WW2 era comparisons X-Wing = Spitfire Mk 9 Y-Wing = Hurricane Mk IIc TIE fighter = Bf-109E (do NOT get me started on the entire Bf vs Me debate). TIE interceptor = FW-190 TIE Bomber = Bf-110 B Wing = B-25H U Wing = C-47 Jet era comparisons X-Wing = F-15 Y-Wing = F-16 TIE fighter = MiG-29 TIE interceptor = Su-27 TIE Bomber = Su-24 B Wing = A-10 U Wing = V-22 Osprey

[@chris_c1701]

I have always liked WW2 era comparisons for the starfighters in Star Wars. I know that was a big influence on Lucas. I personally tended towards more Pacific analogs. The X-Wing is the Corsair or Hellcat to the nimble but unarmored TIE / Zero, with the Y-Wing being the reliable, but slow Dauntless. And the TIE Interceptor being the A7M (too little, too late). Still, Pacific or Europe, WW2 just seems appropriate.

[@mikehawkins6272]

Disagree. Y-Wing = SBD Dauntless. Think about it…

[@cheapwine3365]

ASMR Allen was a pleasant surprise on this wonderful weekend afternoon

[@petersvancarek]

T65 was better than TIE fighter because of survivability. Rebel alliance didn't have resources? They had resources! They didn't have manpower! They needed to equip the little they had with the best possible to beat numbers on imperium side.

[@bostonrailfan2427]

he doesn’t understand that, he’s trying for hits not actually meaning anything

[@knightingale9833]

Fuel should have been a major issue for the X-Wing too. They were fast, had hyperdrives, had shields. All the nice systems they had onboard should have been massive fuel drains. With the massive amount of TIE fighters the Empire had it’s a wonder the Rebellion didn’t also get their hands on a ton of them. Even if they lacked a hyperdrive, the Rebellion still had some carrier-capable ships in the early war and a lot more of them in the late war.

[@timonsolus]

According to the X-Wing novels, the sublight engines used much more fuel than the hyperdrive did.

[@bostonrailfan2427]

they couldn’t get their hands on many TIEs because of being kept under strict control to prevent such ideas from happening…it’s why in the real world F-14s were all turned to scrap except a select few and why all US nuclear submarines and other nuclear ships are scrapped under heavy security

[@clintcarpentier2424]

Love your mic sock.

[@charlesparr1611]

Thats not a sock, it's a foreskin

[@enoughothis]

The main problem with the design was keeping all those guns fixed on a target, parallax error. The gimbels needed to keep four separate cannons that are distinct from each other in a three dimension space all shooting at the same target are complex and prone to breaking down.

[@eric3347]

I thought they all shot in parallel giving me a greater chance of hitting with at least one. So they not?

[@enoughothis]

@@eric3347, they can do that, sure, but for precise targeting you need some way to attenuate the guns, that is to say, focus them all on a single point. Otherwise you will miss anything that is too far away. We see something like this in the Trench Run scene when Darth Vader is firing at Luke, his cannon fire sweeps horizontally to track Luke's X-wing even though the course he is flying remains constant.

[@StirbMensch]

In lore, they could zero in their cannons at customizable distances (in the X-Wing novels and you can do that in X-Wing: Alliance)

[@Psub950]

Please make a video on 200 FO Stormtroopers vs 200 Clone Troopers

[@SLDFSpectreSix]

The T-65 is great but it can't do EVERYTHING. I used to think the T-65 was the only fighter you need, but I'm wrong. Yeah she's a good fighter, and she's gotten me out of a fair few scrapes. But if you want to take a Star Destroyer down yesterday, you get the Y-Wing or the B-Wing. If you want to take the faster TIEs down, or pop them before they can call their buddies, you get the A-Wing. BUT... If you need a main frontline starfighter to flesh out your starfighter retinue, and you need one that's easy to train anyone on to fly, you get the X-Wing. A wise captain once said: "She may have flaws, but she has teeth."

[@johnhodgson4216]

In the Zahn novels, the gravity was variable, luke like reduction to 90% effective. Luke only felt 10% gravity so there is a gravity field around the fighter, so g forces don't apply to the wing and laser weapon. I believe that the generator for the laser weapon needed to be separated from each other, thus the x wing. I also thing the sequenced firing, allows the weapons computer to adjust the shot of the laser.

[@ahmedshaharyarejaz9886]

2:59 Tank Bard for the win!

[@PrinceofPwnage]

Bruh, it was shield, 4 laser cannons, proton torpedoes, and an Astro mech spot. They're awesome.

[@greyareaRK1]

Wow, the apologia for Star Wars has shifted so much since the early days. Originally, X-Wings were originally older models donated by various governments. The detail is fun. I see the X-Wing as more akin to the F-15 Eagle - a heavy, robust, all-weather, all-rounder. Originally Tie Fighters were short-range fighters with no hyperdrive. Is that still the case?

[@StrangerE0ns]

WHY TF DID I GET AN ASMR SOAP AD RIGHT BEFORE I HEAR ALAN WHISPER IN MY EAR

[@TheMalootrager]

The X-wing is one of the best Star 🌟 fighters ever, I recommend giving EC Henry’s video he made talking about the very first original version of the X-wing Colin Cantwell made that shows up as a background ship in the battle of Endor, EC Henry made his own fan lore for how it could exist in the Star 🌟 Wars universe, it’s definitely a great video and so are all his other videos on background Star 🌟 Wars ships

[@Finraen]

One other issue rarely mentioned is that placing your offensive capabilities on the ends of wings is not an optimal design for dogfighting combat. At many angles of attack, the wings become a huge target and liability and could be easily blown off. Even if the fighter could still operate without a wing it would be more likely to lose its ability to defend itself than if the blasters had been positioned closer to the fuselage.

[@jayburn00]

Those shields were very important though. Led to greater pilot survivability.

[@Vo1dSniper]

I was so relaxed for the first 5 seconds of the video I actually thought he was gonna talk like that the entire time 😭

[@tompierson9902]

The s foils do serve a purpose in space flight, that being heat sinks for the guns

[@bostonrailfan2427]

he left out a lot of information that negates his claims…

[@ostrimous]

Nooooo! You were the chosen one! You were like a brother to me!

[@markvicferrer]

In one of the Rogue Squadron books, the mechanics immediately tore down new shipments of X Wings to sus out any defects from the factory. They simply didn't trust them straight from the assembly line. My problem is that by the time of the sequel trilogy, replacements for the X Wings should already be on the battlefield. Technology marches on & while the design is venerable, obsoletion is inevitable.

[@SoftClip_Q]

Love the pop filter

[@lamontcompton9464]

I get what you’re saying, Allen. But I think you’re bypassing the underlying message. Star Wars is an allegory of the here and now. Whenever the time is which you live it. That an underdog, with little on hand and against what feels and seems like insurmountable odds. With a bit of common sense and a TON of luck, can still win. But, you’re absolutely right! Some of that didn’t make any sense. Champagne dreams on a Taco Bell budget!😂

[@dreamingflurry2729]

I agree! They should have rather invested that money into (better shielded) GUN-Boats or if they couldn't get any: Buy up standard Corellian-Engineering-Corporation (CEC) light freighters and turn them into gun-boats (like the Otana, which was a heavily modified YT-2000, used by the Azzameen family - who worked with the Rebellion in true canon (Disney calls it "legends"))...not only can they fly a constant combat-air-patrol (they after all have cabins on board, freshers, food-processors etc.), but they can take a few hits from a Tie-Fighter no problem!

[@isaackim7675]

Speaking of Clone Wars era starfighters my personal favorite would be the ARC-170s. The precursor of the X-Wings

[@Arkancide]

Alot of the T-65 apologists in the comments sound very similar to the 1911 pistol fudds. "It won two World Wars!" ".45ACP is a man-stopper!" "You don't need more than 7 rounds!" etc. The X-Wing is fantastic, I too dreamed hundreds of hours of being a pilot for one. I had micromachines and video games and even an old full-sized toy of one. I bought The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels in part so I could drool over its specs. Nowadays though, my mind goes to the TIEs of the Empire and the Starfury of Babylon 5. And my hatred of 'plot armor' for the 'good guys' has reached peak levels. The X-Wing is a great multi-role fighter. But it isn't what the propaganda makes it out to be.

[@arthurfrayn7619]

I think of the X-Wing like the WW2 Mosquito: a decent fighter that did many roles well meaning it did not need a fighter escort but wasn't the best at anything. If you only had one ship to pick it's good...and that was often the rebels situation.

[@hendrikmoons8218]

As an old school gamer (for star wars games, 1990ies) there is another 2 main problem with all x-wings: Main games that tought me this are X-Wing and X-Wing vesrsus Tie Fighter. 1. The quad wingtip lasers. This is just horible to dogfight with. Don't get me wrong, it has it's options, but they are way beter suited to strafing runs and bombing missions that are suported by your lasers. How and why? 1.1 Single shot fire mode: this is only usefull for bombarding ground targets and strafing realy big enemy capital ships. 1.2 Twin shots by alternating between the 2 oposing wingtip lasers. Again, decent for laserbombing big ships in a consistent stream of laserblasts, but due to alternating between the barrels, extremely difficult to get any consistency in aiming. 1.3 Quad fire mode: Best option, but the positioning of the lasers is here clearly sub optimal. Why? Because you are suposed to be a dogfighter, not a bomber. So why you bring your boomsticks at bear you want all four or at least 3 of them to hit the enemy fighter. Since them lasers are at your wingtips, this is, once again, ideal for strafing/bombing runs, but s*cks at being an anti fighter setup Two fighters that did this beter: The Tie fighter. How? The most nimble and manuvrable fighter gets 2 lasers under the pilot, at the centerline of the craft basicaly right next to each other. So where 1 impacts, so dous the other, essentialy giving you a double strength laser. The other one was the Y-Wing. This did not make, by any means, this fighter/bomber a dedicated space superiority fighter, no. What it did with it's 2 lasers squezed together and for a fighter, tons of shields, made it a sniper. With 2 or 3 burst, you could take out any unshielded Tie series. Failed ship to mention for this reason: The A-Wing (my favorite aliance fighter). Why did it fail IMO? Because they put the lasers not in the centerline, but at oposing ends of the with of the chassi. This recreates the same problem as the X-Wing has for only half the firepower. It had 12 (in 2 tubes) concusion missiles in the center. How to solve this? Put the 2 lasers verticaly on top of each other at the crafts centerline. Move both missile tubes to were the lasers used to be. Beter 'sniper' like firepower. Disadvantage? Yup, you can no longer aim backwards with said lasers BUT instead of fireing your missiles, you can drop them as mines or drop them with a launch delay for the same effect, like with the seismic mines fired from the slave1. (my alltime personal favorite star wars ship) A fighter, in univers that was pound for pound in everything but torpedoes superior to the X-Wing, the Tie Advanced (Tie fighter versus X-Wing). Quad lasers on the inside of a smaler chassi and 12 concussion missiles instead of 8 torpedoes. Same shields, only smaler and an as capable hyperdrive. It was faster, beter acceleration and deceleration and it turned better. This fighter never ever gets enough screen time IMO. 2. The payload of 8 proton/foton torpedoes, whatever the manual calls them. Sure if they hit a fighter, bye bye fighter... But realy? These are anti capital ship torpedoes, not concusion missiles, those are anti fighter. So in any realistic scenario, fire 8 at fighters, maybe hit 1. Personal conclusion: The X-Wing looks cool on paper but, like you said was the wrong fighter for early stage war. The republic could maintain them in large enough numbers that they matered. It is a propaganda poster boy, pasing grade at everything and good at few things, no failiures. (Remindes me of the 45ACP, greatest round ever until the 10mm auto and the .357magnum walk in) For as far as star wars figters go, including legends, Tie Defenders, Tie advanced and missile boats etc... My all time favorite fighter is ... the Tie predator. Sleak, nimble, manuvrable, it's pannels do not obstruct vieuw. 4 Rapid fire lasers in the center and 2 anti fighter concusion missile launchers, 1 on each side of the cockpit. It is shielded and has a class 1 hyperdrive and a presurised cabin.

[@soulphisto79]

I'd hate to be a Rebel flight crew chief having to sight in those cannons...man that paralax had to really screw with the effective range of them. OH, and the B-wing...ouch.

[@stefaneer9120]

(2:24) Today many service personnel of the German Luftwaffe, did have a X-Wing Lego Model and Poster in their home, or on their base.

[@marshwalker7217]

Multi-role fighter is the word you're looking for in that second section. Does everything well, but isnt maneuverable enough to be a superiority fighter, not fast enough to be an interceptor, and not heavily armed enough to be a strike fighter. It might've been more expensive to maintain than a single TIE, but its cheaper to maintain than three TIES that fill all of the same roles.

[@DidrikMonsen]

Yes

[@bigsarge2085]

Red Leader standing by.

[@spark300c]

since the rebels lack man power maintenance is non issue since x-wing could be easily maintained compare to other star fighters. so it more about general space fighter that could do hit and run missions effectively. that why rebels use the x wing and not much of Z95 headhunter. I think a wing and b wing has more maintenance issues. the a wing engines where push to their limit. gyroscopic cockpit of the b wing gave it maintenance issues. the x wing wings did not move much because just move twice per mission. So it can go through all missions before needing maintenance. the a wing need maintenance after every mission because of its engines.

[@nkosig4995]

I wonder if someday we will get a saboath squadron video

[@gloriousginger]

What if (in "fan canon") the S Foils, as they were primarily designated "Attack Position", were all vented cooling method for the laser cannons?

[@uccmaster1938]

I always thought the comparisons between X wings and Tie Fighters was the American Wildcat and the Japanese zero. One was slower, bulkier, and harder to produce, but was tougher, and retained less casualties. The other was way faster, had better guns, and was cheaper, but had a lot less durability and had far more experienced pilot losses. X Wings were chosen because everyone knew how to fly one (If you could fly a sky hopper, it wasn’t much harder to fly an x wing), had its own personal shields, and had a hyperdrive for the hit and run tactics favored by the rebellion. Rogue squadron makes it very clear why the X Wing was preferred by the Rebellion.

[@Wedgekree]

Not particularly applicable to Disney, but the Rebel Alliance Guide done in the 90's by West End Games (the Star Wars RPG) said that it took roughly an hour of maintenance per ten minutes of expected flight time. That seems decidedly unrealistic and I'd presume that in canon they hvae a far longer downtime even when you have spare parts and technicians.

[@TheZamaron]

For any problems it may have had, it’s the perfect fighter for the Rebels, the Y-wing is great for bombing but not fighter duty, the A-wing is a great fighter but lacks heavy ordinance, and the B-wing was best used in the late Rebellion as the Rebels engaged the Empire in more open warfare serving as an elite specialized but rare fighter. But the X-wing was a good all rounder, useful in dogfighting with the shields making up for less agility then the Tie, hyperdrive made up for the early Rebellion having few hangar equipped ships meaning X-wings could either be stored in a base, or operate alone for a while as long as the pilot can keep up getting enough supplies, it also has torpedoes for heavy ordinance when needed.

[@FinnMellor]

I would imagine that a big part of the late rebellions choice to use the X wing was because even though 1-1 it is much more expensive and resource intensive that a tie fighter each X wing could engage and defeat multiple tie fighters and also it can do more than 1 role it is like the f-35 but point is that if you want to engage a imperial ground base protected by star fighters ground defense and featuring bunkers traditionally you would need fighters to engage the enemy fighters and screen the remaining aircraft you would need ground strike fighters to engage the enemy ground based air defense and then to deal with the bunker complex’s you would need bombers but instead you can use fewer x wings to do all that because the x wings can 1 be rearmed and repurposed and 2 be used to attack ground anti air defense before dropping heavier ordnance on the bunkers also the use of only one fighter reduces logistical complexity as you only need 1 type of fuel fewer types of ordinance and all the same spare parts like how if you were to use a rifle and another rifle in different calibers and then you need to buy thousands of them and then millions of bullets cleaning kits and spare parts and then ship them across the world that would be much harder then if you were to chose 1 and get only stuff for that and it gets infinitely more difficult the more that you add wich is why armies are so eager to standardize everything if you only need 1 thing but 3 of the to do the job why buy 3 separate items that you then need to buy there special stuff for

[@AlbertoRodriguez-ju6hc]

Interesting question can you do a video on the differences between Luke's old X wing in the original movies and his new X wing in the force awakens?

[@stangundam01]

what are your thoughts on the advanced versions of the x-wing & y-wing along with the k-wing?