star wars - Where did the idea that TIE Fighters are weak and disposable come from?

This is something that bothers me about the Star Wars EU, especially in Legends. TIE Fighters (and their pilots) have a reputation for being cheap, disposable fighters that are only threatening when deployed in huge swarms.

If you examine the movies only, TIE Fighters perform vary favourably against Rebel ships - right up to Episode VII and Rogue One. In fact, I can't recall any character making a disparaging remark about TIE Fighters in any movie except Obi-Wan's comment regarding its short-range capability.

So my question is - what was the first/main out-of-movie source that birthed the concept that TIE Fighters and their pilots were weak and disposable?

Answer

It's probably the other way around - TIE-Fighters being expendable is a general conclusion that leaked into EU works.

The earliest mentions I can think of are the Official Nintendo Star Wars Rogue Leader Rogue Squadron II Player's Guide (1999), in which TIE-Fighter pilots are literally called "suicidal" for flying these machines, and Thrawn's Trilogy books from 1991-1993 in which Thrawn occasionally criticises the Empire's usual "wasteful" tactics and unnecessarily high casualties.

Video games from the X-Wing series as well as its spin-offs, like TIE Fighter, surely are to blame as well (years 1993-1999), in which you either get to blow up a multitude of TIE Fighters, or experience just how fragile they are yourself.

It could be noted that aside from Darth Vader's personal fighter, which obviously wasn't designed to be expendable, the first "non-trash" Imperial fighter was TIE-Defender, introduced in 1994, in the game Star Wars: TIE Fighter.

Where did this conclusion come from?

A question that should be asked here. You have to take a look at their combat effectiveness, the technology, and how these fighters are used.

1. 
   
   

   Combat effectiveness: In the Old Trilogy, we've only seen two real battles between Rebel fighters and the Empire; the Battle of Yavin 4, and the Battle of Endor. In both, Rebel fighters outclass the TIEs. It may seem otherwise, as we get shown a Rebel death one after another, but you have to keep in mind that Rebels are always heavily outnumbered. Another factor is that at Yavin 4 the (many) Rebel pilots were inexperienced and distracted with doing unnecessarily long trench runs, and thus very vulnerable to attacks from the rear. In the other battle, a few vastly outnumbered Rebel pilots not only survived waves of dozens of TIE Fighters and Interceptors, but also managed to protect a portion of their fleet.

   
   


2. 
   

   The technology: TIE-Fighters don't have shields, hyperdrives, or life support (as opposed to all Rebel fighters), and are generally considered as short-range, as noted by Obi-Wan in A New Hope. The lack of hyperdrives is most noteworthy here - the Empire would rather have the pilot die unable to retreat than allow the chance to defect, even among their best pilots who are given more expensive TIE-Interceptors, which didn't have hyperdrives either.

   
   


3. 
   

   How they're used: Well, the long story short is that they are easily wasted. They are designed for swarm tactics, quick and overwhelming strikes, not drawn-out dogfights. Another thing the Empire does is feigned incompetence, which often results in some controlled losses - in Return of the Jedi, and especially in A New Hope, where Grand Moff Tarkin sends 4 TIE-Fighters to pretend to assault the Millennium Falcon and be destroyed, just like that. That's not a sign of the Empire caring for their pilots, of which they have many, drafted from all over the galaxy.