Starfighters and their modern day counterparts

[RayCav of ASVS]

I would only rate those fighters in the two trilogies. Clearly, GL had a vision that they would parallel both current (then) and WWII fighters to some extent.

I wouldn't bother doing this to EU fighters. In most cases (E-Wing, Avenger, Missile Boat) they were done with "maximum coolness factor" in mind and no real consideration to RL analogies.

[Sea Skimmer]

A few points:
1. F-15 is faster then an F-16
2.The B wing is primarily a bomber. I would think it is close to the F111 aardvark or the F-35 JSF. The F22 is still primarily air supirioerity.
Y-wing is correct, they are both pigs and slow, with heavy arms. Tie fighter is something like a MiG-21 Fishbed. Cheap and expendable. Perhaps it is even more like those chinese deathtraps, the J whatevers.
Tie interceptor is MiG-25, DUH. Tie bomber is closest to something like an SU-23 flogger, used for close air support. Tie Advanced is like the SU-27 Flanker and the Tie Defender is most certainly the SU-37 or one of those.
The A-Wing is also like the MiG-25. F-16s are cheaper multirole fighters while F-15s, excluding F-15E is more for CAP.

The MiG-25 can't dogfight; the TIE interceptor is excellent at that. I'd compare it to the Missile Boat, both are the fastest in their class and both are heavily missile oriented

[Sea Skimmer]

The B-Wing would have been the A-20. That thing was built for ground assault with light bombs and heavy guns. I know a pilot who used to fly them in the Pacific and he told me plenty of stories about bombing air strips and tearing Japanesse destroyers and cruisers a new one.

Tornado GR.4/F3 hybird fits the B-Wing better

[Wicked Pilot]

Star Destroyer = Battleship
Mon Cal Cruiser = Heavy Cruiser
Lancer Frigate = Destroyer

Assault Shuttle = Torpedo Boat
Fighter = Rubber Dingo

[Alyeska]

Star Destroyer = Battleship
Mon Cal Cruiser = Heavy Cruiser
Lancer Frigate = Destroyer

Assault Shuttle = Torpedo Boat
Fighter = Rubber Dingo

Leaving out the fighters I would have to mostly agree. However I would up the Mon Cal Cruiser to BattleCruiser, or even Pocket Battleship (like the Alaska class Battlcruisers)

[phongn]

The B-Wing would have been the A-20. That thing was built for ground assault with light bombs and heavy guns. I know a pilot who used to fly them in the Pacific and he told me plenty of stories about bombing air strips and tearing Japanesse destroyers and cruisers a new one.

Well, I'd argue the B-25G, which had a 75mm main gun.

[Alyeska]

The B-Wing would have been the A-20. That thing was built for ground assault with light bombs and heavy guns. I know a pilot who used to fly them in the Pacific and he told me plenty of stories about bombing air strips and tearing Japanesse destroyers and cruisers a new one.

Well, I'd argue the B-25G, which had a 75mm main gun.

Ah, yes... He flew the B-25 as well. Loved both planes, but IIRC he said the A-20 was the better assault plane. Do you have a website that I could look at the stats of both planes?

[phongn]

Star Destroyer = Battleship
Mon Cal Cruiser = Heavy Cruiser
Lancer Frigate = Destroyer

Assault Shuttle = Torpedo Boat
Fighter = Rubber Dingo

Leaving out the fighters I would have to mostly agree. However I would up the Mon Cal Cruiser to BattleCruiser, or even Pocket Battleship (like the Alaska class Battlcruisers)

The Mon Cals don't really fit into anything well, as they have heavier armor, shielding and maneuverability, but a much weaker armament.

[keb]

The B-Wing would have been the A-20. That thing was built for ground assault with light bombs and heavy guns. I know a pilot who used to fly them in the Pacific and he told me plenty of stories about bombing air strips and tearing Japanesse destroyers and cruisers a new one.

Well, I'd argue the B-25G, which had a 75mm main gun.

Ah, yes... He flew the B-25 as well. Loved both planes, but IIRC he said the A-20 was the better assault plane. Do you have a website that I could look at the stats of both planes?

Joe Baugher's articles at Elevon are pretty good.

[Nathan F]

Joe Baugher's articles at Elevon are pretty good.

Uh, half the entries in the encyclopedia are either invalid or the pictures arent there.

[Connor MacLeod]

B-wing: ...Slowest of Rebel fighters and most sluggish, but also the most durable...

Actually, that goes to the venerable Y-Wing

Not really. It depends on the exact source. Most I've seen (WEG, EGV&V, SWTJ, etc.) tend to go with the "slow, durable, but sluggish B-wing." The only ones I know of that favor the "agile B-wing" are the computer games (mostly the old X-wing and X-wing vs TIE fighter games). One of hte X-wing novels MIGHT support that notion too (Krytos Trap?) but I dont recall exactly. Possibly it exists, but as a limited production or prototype class.

[Connor MacLeod]

The B-Wing would have been the A-20. That thing was built for ground assault with light bombs and heavy guns. I know a pilot who used to fly them in the Pacific and he told me plenty of stories about bombing air strips and tearing Japanesse destroyers and cruisers a new one.

I never recall ground assault ever being apart of the B-wing's role. The only novel I recall them being used in such a mode was Champions of the Force (but then again KJA seemed to think the Mon CAls used them for everything, incluiding passenger shuttles for high-ranking officers and diplomats/Prime Ministers). But never really ground attacks. Most ground attack roles I remember either used Y-wings, X-wings, or E-wings.

To my knowledge, the chief and only purpose for the B-wing was cap ship killer, and remained thus. Bombing purpioses was designed for the Y-wing first, and then the E-wing (which as I mentioned carries 16 protorps. I believe the ground assault role was mentioned in the EGV&V)

[Alyeska]

The B-Wing would have been the A-20. That thing was built for ground assault with light bombs and heavy guns. I know a pilot who used to fly them in the Pacific and he told me plenty of stories about bombing air strips and tearing Japanesse destroyers and cruisers a new one.

I never recall ground assault ever being apart of the B-wing's role. The only novel I recall them being used in such a mode was Champions of the Force (but then again KJA seemed to think the Mon CAls used them for everything, incluiding passenger shuttles for high-ranking officers and diplomats/Prime Ministers). But never really ground attacks. Most ground attack roles I remember either used Y-wings, X-wings, or E-wings.

To my knowledge, the chief and only purpose for the B-wing was cap ship killer, and remained thus. Bombing purpioses was designed for the Y-wing first, and then the E-wing (which as I mentioned carries 16 protorps. I believe the ground assault role was mentioned in the EGV&V)

Yes yes I know. However durring WW2 the A-20 was about the most dedicated ship killer the US had with a LOT of firepower. Its just that like most weapons of WW2, the A-20 was also an extremely good ground assault platform as well.

[Sea Skimmer]

Star Destroyer = Battleship
Mon Cal Cruiser = Heavy Cruiser
Lancer Frigate = Destroyer

Assault Shuttle = Torpedo Boat
Fighter = Rubber Dingo

Leaving out the fighters I would have to mostly agree. However I would up the Mon Cal Cruiser to BattleCruiser, or even Pocket Battleship (like the Alaska class Battlcruisers)

The Mon Cals don't really fit into anything well, as they have heavier armor, shielding and maneuverability, but a much weaker armament.

Sharnhorst's, quite heavy armor and excellent speed but sub par armament

[phongn]

The B-Wing would have been the A-20. That thing was built for ground assault with light bombs and heavy guns. I know a pilot who used to fly them in the Pacific and he told me plenty of stories about bombing air strips and tearing Japanesse destroyers and cruisers a new one.

Well, I'd argue the B-25G, which had a 75mm main gun.

Ah, yes... He flew the B-25 as well. Loved both planes, but IIRC he said the A-20 was the better assault plane. Do you have a website that I could look at the stats of both planes?

From Elevon:

A-20H (A-20K was a 'command' varient and didn't have as much firepower): Six forward-firing 0.50 Colt-Browning machine guns in the nose with 350 rpg. Two 0.50-inch machine gun in dorsal power turret with 400 rpg. One 0.50-inch machine gun in the ventral tunnel position with 400 rounds. Maximum internal bomb load 2000 pounds in split bomb bay plus 2000 pounds on four underwing hardpoints.

B-25H (B-25J was designed as a conventional bomber): One 75-mm T13E1 cannon in nose with 21 rounds. Four 0.50-inch machine guns in the nose with 400 rpg. Two 0.50-inch machine guns in individual blisters on the right hand side of the fuselage with 400 rpg. Beginning with B-25H-5 No. 43-4405, two 0.50-inch machine guns were added in blisters on the left hand side of the forward fuselage. Two 0.50-inch machine guns in top turret, 400 rpg. Two 0.50-inch machine guns in waist position, 200 rpg. Two 0.50-inch machine guns in tail turret, 600 rpg. Normal internal bomb load was 3000 pounds.

[RayCav of ASVS]

you're forgetting the hard-nose J's

EIGHT 5 cals in the nose with 4 more in gun packs for 12 forward firing .50 calibre machine guns!

[Sea Skimmer]

you're forgetting the hard-nose J's

EIGHT 5 cals in the nose with 4 more in gun packs for 12 forward firing .50 calibre machine guns!

Plus the ability to lock the top turret firing forward and link its firing control to the other guns giving it 14 guns. However this version proved overloaded in the nose. Several guns where removed IIRC and a fuel tank shifted aft in later ones IIRC.

[Alyeska]

Heh, durring one mission a flight of ME-109s (Japs had a few) decided to bank right infront of his mission element. They all opened fire with their .50s and killed every single 109.

[Sea Skimmer]

Heh, durring one mission a flight of ME-109s (Japs had a few) decided to bank right infront of his mission element. They all opened fire with their .50s and killed every single 109.

By a few, just two, and they never saw combat, they where used to help test out new IJA and IJN fighter designs.

All reports of Japanese Me109's in combat have proven false. There where also reports of JU-88's,188's, HE-111's, Stukas, SM.79's,Fu-190's and a couple others. Chances are his flight gunned down some Ki-61's, which have a resemblance to the Me.109

Allied intelligence also produced data on a half dozen planes, which didn't exist, or where just designs drawn by Japanese aviation students and published in a magazine. The magazine got miss translated by a German magazine. The British magazine Flight copied the Germans and the Allied Intel got the info from that..

[LordChaos]

Star Destroyer = Battleship
Mon Cal Cruiser = Heavy Cruiser
Lancer Frigate = Destroyer

Assault Shuttle = Torpedo Boat
Fighter = Rubber Dingo

Leaving out the fighters I would have to mostly agree. However I would up the Mon Cal Cruiser to BattleCruiser, or even Pocket Battleship (like the Alaska class Battlcruisers)

The Mon Cals don't really fit into anything well, as they have heavier armor, shielding and maneuverability, but a much weaker armament.

Scharnhorst class battleships.

[RayCav of ASVS]

correct: Scharnhorst battlecruiser

[Sea Skimmer]

correct: Scharnhorst battlecruiser

Wrong

A battlecruiser trades armor for cruiser speed and battleship armament. The Sharnhorst had cruiser speed and battleship armor while mounting a fairly light main battery. They are not battlecruisers but rather smallish battleships.

Learn somthing about the topic before you attempt to correct people.

[RayCav of ASVS]

correct: Scharnhorst battlecruiser

Wrong

A battlecruiser trades armor for cruiser speed and battleship armament. The Sharnhorst had cruiser speed and battleship armor while mounting a fairly light main battery. They are not battlecruisers but rather smallish battleships.

Learn somthing about the topic before you attempt to correct people.

First of all, most reference sources state that the Scharnhorst is indeed a battlecruiser.

Second, the definition of a battlecruiser has changed, from mounting battleship guns but thin armor, to anything between a heavy cruiser and a battleship. Stop using arcahic definitions.

Finally, I did learn something from the topic before posting, you goddamn wanker

[Alyeska]

correct: Scharnhorst battlecruiser

Wrong

A battlecruiser trades armor for cruiser speed and battleship armament. The Sharnhorst had cruiser speed and battleship armor while mounting a fairly light main battery. They are not battlecruisers but rather smallish battleships.

Learn somthing about the topic before you attempt to correct people.

First of all, most reference sources state that the Scharnhorst is indeed a battlecruiser.

Second, the definition of a battlecruiser has changed, from mounting battleship guns but thin armor, to anything between a heavy cruiser and a battleship. Stop using arcahic definitions.

Finally, I did learn something from the topic before posting, you goddamn wanker

Indeed. It seems the modern definition of a Battlecruiser is something between a Heavy Cruiser and a Battleship. Some would say the Alaska class Battlecruisers were actually Pocket Battleships because they were just to powerful, fast, and heavily armored for a Battlecruiser, yet the Alaska wasn't even close to the new Battleships, so it was not at an equal level.

IMO a Battlecruiser has Cruiser speed and armor but Battleship weapons. A Pocket Battleship has battleship speed and armor, and nearly battleship level weapons.

[RayCav of ASVS]

Really, the "Pocket Battleships" of the Deutschland class can arguably be considered nothing more but here heavy cruisers.