So you conveniently forgot my point about using an asteroid instead?
Just like yopu seem to assume the resistance has a huge budget to attach light speed engines to asteriods, and drag them around everywhere, hoping for the First order to repeat the same mistakes and get distracted and set it self up...and not notice asteroids with light speed engines attached to them.
You dont have to maneuver, you just aim and fire. The Vice admiral didnt maneuver, she just pointed the cruiser and activated the LS engine. You can do the same thing with an asteroid.
Only because the First order blithely ignored her for quite some time.
You can line up every asteroid individually and fire them separately, its like firing rockets.
Yet they still followed him anyway, so it was still a kamikaze attack.
Except it wouldnt have been, without the freak hit. At least 3 bombers alone, from oen perfectly timed hit.
Even with artificial gravity, its pretty silly to use a bomber in space because they have to get close.
Except they do it al the time. Heck, B winfs are bombers. The Empire has Tie Bombers. Apparnntly, getting close isnt always so susicidal (except maybe when you take in too smalla force against an opponent with so much fighter coverage. Rebels were hugely outnumered, suffeered freakishly bad luck..yet..they bagged a huge kill. That alone suggests getting close under more equal circumstances isnt such a problem.
If they placed the bombs on missiles they wouldn't have had to fight and die their way towards the dreadnought.
Therefore, for some reason, those warheads on missiles arent as effective. the main reason is for dramtic tension. Realism is too triviala thing to get inthe way of fun or drama in space opera.
None of the "reasons" youve spelled out makes any sense
.
They make more sense that nitpicking technology when there are not set terch guidelines for offensive or defensive systems.
Lets get this straight: Space Wizards are easy to accept, but space bombers are the deal breaker?
If you can put the bomb on a rack, then you can surely place them as a warhead on a missile.
And since they don't (and we do see missile projectiles used), therefore bombs of this strength, so powerful that just one bomber can devastate of capital ship, cant fit on missiles or, if placed on missiiles, become completely vulnerable to protective fire and become less effective than large formatiosn of shielded and properly escorted bombers. Movie need and reason for it working thsi way: because having bombers is cool. Standoff combat where craft just belch loads of missiles from far away then run is boring. Realism is the enemy of fun. Do you go to movies for fun, or for a documentary on realistic space warfare theory?
The technical technical reason..they'll make it up later, for whatever supplement or product they sell that details the bombers.
(Which the rebels didnt have here..they had a small number of bombers, with inadequate escort going against vastly superior forces. Their survival was helped to institutional arrogance by the first order, and some incompetence for not launchign their fighter screens the moment they dropped out of light speed.