Tie Fighters- Unfairly maligned?

[Soulman]

Maybe the 10 guns are of a smaller type than those on other fighters. Much like the some WW2 fighters mounted a large amount of MGs (8 7.62mm on the Spitfire) while some have a smaller amount on larger cannon )the Me-262 had 4 20mm cannon)

[BenRG]

Maybe the 10 guns are of a smaller type than those on other fighters. Much like the some WW2 fighters mounted a large amount of MGs (8 7.62mm on the Spitfire) while some have a smaller amount on larger cannon )the Me-262 had 4 20mm cannon)

A nice suggestion, but it invalidates the reason for which the presumed 10-gun would have a larger beam weapon compliment. Why have more guns when they are weaker?

The Spitfire Mk1A had eight 30-cal machine guns. The reason for this was to create extra weight of firepower, overcoming improvements in armour and aircraft survival technology by sheer force. The later WW2 aircraft (like the Spitfire XIII and the Me262) had a small number of larger weapons because they were capable of delivering the same amount of, or far more, firepower than a large number of smaller guns. They also offered better range (About 250 yards for the 30-cal machine gun, which jumps to nearly 2 miles for the M61A1 Vulcan on modern US jets).

The 10-gun would have to have weapons of the same type used by the standard Squint or there would be no point. Maybe my memory is beginning to fail me, but I'm sure that the picture of the 10-gun I saw had enough boxy space for the weapons on the solar arrays for them to have their own generators.

I tell you what, people. I'm out of my depth here. I'm going to drop my debate (not conceded, just paused) until I've read SW-ICS and the SW-E again and refreshed my memory.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Why have more when they are weaker? As Soulman said, there were WW2 fighters like that.

I was trying to say that there are 2 types of TIE/Is: 4-gun s and 10-gun s.

It's basically a decision of quality or quantity.

[BenRG]

Why have more when they are weaker? As Soulman said, there were WW2 fighters like that.

Yeah, and the point that I was trying to make was that more of less-powerful weapons is less effective for a whole host of reasons. The 'results'-obsessed Empire just wouldn't do that.

Of course, I wouldn't blame you if you missed that. I didn't exactly make it plain

[Isolder74]

One difference between ST and SW technology is that technology in the Star Wars universe does not always rely on a single central power source. Individual systems (weapons, shields, life-support) can and are shown in canon sources to have independent power generation systems.

The 10-gun TIE-Interceptor would have extra gun power generators seperate from the propulsion and manoeuvring systems. Given the size of the power unit on the E-Web, It wouldn't be that hard to do.

but that does not mean you can get power from nowhere. extra power generator not tied into the engines would use fuel that could be used for range or speed. it's like i said before when you add an energy weapon you must also add the power required to run it. generators take up space and fuel. there is not alot of space to work with in a Tie Interceptor. also i said before that in a starfighter the power for the weapons must come from the engines somehow. if you add extra power generators you can't change the size of the ship's fuel tank so the drain in the fuel will greatly reduce you range. you could add extra fuel tanks with the added power generators but this will only make the ship easier to kill (all that extra fuel blows up good). if you armor those pods then you just added to the mass of the vehicle meaning the engines now have to push more "stuff" around. this will also slow down the fighter. my conclusion is that a ten gun tie may be possible but it's doutful the Empire would deploy it as the vehicle would not perform as well as the standard version.

[Isolder74]

bump