/m/, how would Veritechs fare against fighters in Star Wars?

>>13841285
What's a veritech

>>13841325
VF-1

Poorly. Far behind in technology. No defenses against blaster fire. Bullets wouldn't leave a dent in Star Wars fighters.

Transformation produces issues that make it a liability rather than an asset. It'd make more sense to just develop a gunship.

While Star Wars ships are the size of a Macross. They are at a serious firepower disadvantage.

They would have to bring around one of those ridiculous space station super weapons to match firepower with a Macross. At which point a VF flies inside it and blows everything up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxahwxY_5jg

Didn't the robot army have transforming fighters in Phantom Menace?

File: question mark.gif (1MB, 268x274px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 268x274px

>>13842232
>Poorly. Far behind in technology

yeah fighters that are slower than even rl modern jets are totally going to be able to shoot down something that moves over 3 times faster than them

>>13842234
>They would have to bring around one of those ridiculous space station super weapons to match firepower with a Macross.

You say this like SW hasn't had cases where fighter pilots brought down huge superweapons before.

And let's not forget, if we go by the SDF rules, that pinpoint barrier will only be able to tank just so many shots.

>>13842232
nigg what? an F-22 would shit all over a fucking tie fighter

>>13842347
and the Macross can destroy small fleets from half a solar system away.

every VF can carry Reaction Weapons