So EckhartsLadder did a video on "Why Didn't Rebel's use the Venator" and while some of his points might be taken, I feel most of this could be highly subjective and based on Starwar's writers perspective, mainly the fact that the Venator wasnt introduced into lore till AFTER the first 3 films, and the initial reaction to the prequel movies from some people.
I posted the video to bring everyone up to speed on his thoughts, but I feel that there is really no lore that the Alliance has that honestly would prevent the Rebel's from using the Venator, just not in the role that Eckhart is attempting to use it as, a front line carrier, battle ship. He made a lot of points about the Alliance using a ton of hit and run missions, and that deploying from a carrier, such as the Lucrehulk against the death star, would indeed be a horrible idea, but if the Alliance DID have them, I feel they would have kept these particular ships more in reserve, and because of the ships capabilities, and size, being underwhelming now against most modern Capitol ships of similar class, would be used as replacements for planetary hidden bases and space stations, perhaps even going so far as to replace outposts such as Yavin IV, Hoth. True, the size isnt anywhere near the Lucrehulk, but the hanger bays all around the vessel would be quite able to handed a large chunk, if not all of the Rebel attack force that took up Yavin base, including all equipment, personal and even has room for some of the support craft, such as the CR-90s, GR-75s, and other various freighters like the YT-1300 size ships.
Now I can hear some of you going, why maintain a ship of that size, especially during the early days of the alliance, or even "are you sure this would fall under rebel doctrine" and the answer is quite simply, YES. They alliance has been shown to use massive Lucrehulk carriers at one point, as well as even harder to maintain CIS ships like the Providence class battleships, and as far as the doctrine, one of the known weakness of hit and run missions was the fact that it was harder to find plantary bodies to actually hide out in all the time, and the Alliance started modifying the Mon Calamari starships to actually fix this weakness, as seen with the MC-80 "Home One" being one of the main Carriers of the alliance fighter corps and home of Rogue Squadron for a good chunk of missions.
This of course wouldn't fully replace planetary bases, but would have even went so far as to enhance them, as you CAN land Venators on the surface of planets. Just imagine if the alliance DID have one buried on the planet of Hoth as the main outpost under some snow with plantary shield generators around it. I feel the battle of Hoth might have gone quite differently as the Venator near the end could have launched near the tail end of the conflict, helped take out some of the AT ATs after the shield generator went down and used the planetary ion cannon to escape, even shocking the Imperial Fleet (all be it briefly) long enough to get a nice chunk of the personal and supplies off world. If anything, it would have helped other transports make a better run for it as the Ventor, after the initial ion cannon bombardment and shock wore off, given the Imperial Fleet a more sizable target to attempt to go after, and with Vader on the surface, it would have been left to the admirals in space to deal with, who most likely wouldn't have been able to properly.
Anyway, I'd like to see other's thoughts on this topic, even as a what if situation is quite interesting to discuss.
Edited by Zeoinx