User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 10:00:02 AM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: These threads are nearly as bad as the aviation post accident speculation here. It's okay to say or write, "I don't know", or "Here are performance charts for the airplanes, let's take a look at the differences". Instead it's the usual "derp, obviously the Corsair, it can operate from a boat, and it has an air-cooled engine", or, "Herp, the Mustang is just plain purty, it looks fast". In other words, GD in a nutshell 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 10:00:10 AM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I really hate finding factual errors in these kinds of web pages... "Packard version of the 1,650-horsepower turbocharged Merlin 61." The V-1650-3 fitted to the P-51B was supercharged, not turbocharged. Also, "The Corsair had 86 per cent more firepower than the P-51B because its .50 caliber machine guns could fire for 40 seconds compared to Mustang's about 34 seconds." What math did they use? Mine says that's about an 18% advantage. Quote HistoryQuoted: I really hate finding factual errors in these kinds of web pages... "Packard version of the 1,650-horsepower turbocharged Merlin 61." The V-1650-3 fitted to the P-51B was supercharged, not turbocharged. Also, "The Corsair had 86 per cent more firepower than the P-51B because its .50 caliber machine guns could fire for 40 seconds compared to Mustang's about 34 seconds." What math did they use? Mine says that's about an 18% advantage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 10:05:45 AM EST
[#3]
ibmcg
in before melted cockpit glass
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 10:06:10 AM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ...and an unparalleled ability to take punishment for a fighter from either ground fire or enemy air fire. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The P-47 is just a high altitude fat turd that happens to have a good roll rate and lots of guns. ...and an unparalleled ability to take punishment for a fighter from either ground fire or enemy air fire. I've read a godawful lot about wwii fighters. When the P-47 began operations in, from memory, March 1943, IMO, on paper,, it was the best high altitude fighter by a wide margin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 10:06:42 AM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FWIW, regarding "out turning" an opponent: I've never read an 'official' flight test of wwii a/c that includes turn rate data. Exception: 1 on 1 comparisons with other a/c, how many turns it might take to get behind an opponent and other turn rate circumstances, like speed. It's as if turn rate was a mere curiosity. Dogfighting happened, generally, among an average pilot, when/after he is screwing up or has already screwed up. Dogfighting, as a tactic, was for exceptional pilots. Maneuver was to be avoided when possible. Remember that it wasn't until even after Korea (about 1960) that the energy-maneuverability concept was even considered. This is when a more analytical view of how dogfights actually occurred was developed, and measures of turn rate and turn radius were actually made and compared. There's not even really good data today about the E-M capability of the WWII fighters because nobody is actually out there taking their multimillion-dollar museum pieces and pushing the engine or airframes to see what they're actually capable of....and it wouldn't matter, since they're not running the same fuels with the same combat weights and equipment anyway. Also realize that the vast majority of aerial victories in WWII (on both sides) were unobserved kills, where the one who was shot down likely didn't ever see who shot them down. They were kills of opportunity rather than the turn circle lufberies that we tend to think of now. Fighter pilots of the time thought more about slashing attacks than sustained turn fights with actual tracking gun shots, so that's why they were primarily concerned with dash speed or climbing ability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 10:07:12 AM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Welp, that settles that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Welp, that settles that. Doesn't that story and comparison involve a P51 "B" and not the superior "D"model? The D-model was the one produced in highest numbers for the war, and the one most of us are familiar with. But again...between these two high performance planes, the pilot will make the difference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 10:07:23 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's not SPEED that wins in a Dogfight, otherwise the F-104 and then later the MiG-25 would have an incredible record for air to air kills. Corsair beats the Mustang where it counts. Maneuver, Control, Protection (no radiator), Firepower plus it can land & take off from a Carrier! BIGGER_HAMMER  Speed is what allows the pilot to dictate the rules of the fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 10:13:01 AM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Speed is what allows the pilot to dictate the rules of the fight. Not exactly. A slower aircraft with a smaller turn circle can easily best a faster, more powerful adversary. It is about turn rate, turn radius, and energy....not speed in and of itself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 10:16:40 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Count the total number of rounds available. I think instantaneous firepower is most important. How many rounds, not so much. A pilot might have a 1 second opportunity to get a shot in. A 1 second moment needs to throw enough lead to destroy a fighter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 10:18:54 AM EST
[#10]
When I was younger I lived/breathed air plane stuff. Being an Air Force brat we had great libraries and I check out/read all kinds of old books about WW2 and Korea.
If I remember correctly the Japanese believed the Corsair was the best fighter we had when the altitude was under 20,000 feet. The Lightning was better above 20,000 feet. The Mustang was felt to be the best all around, low or high altitude fighter we had. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 10:23:02 AM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not exactly. A slower aircraft with a smaller turn circle can easily best a faster, more powerful adversary. It is about turn rate, turn radius, and energy....not speed in and of itself. Not in a real fight. No offense intended: I think you're writing from simulation scenarios. In a real life fight to stop an enemy from doing something, speed and firepower are supreme. Speed. Firepower. Climb. In that order was what pilots wanted. Maneuvering your fast airplane obfuscated its advantage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 10:23:18 AM EST
[#12]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 10:28:56 AM EST
[#13]
It would 100% depend upon the pilots in each and where the fight was taking place.
It also depends upon which model and when and where the fight was happening: most P-51s* cruising around at night would mostly just be waiting for an F4U-5N to sneak up on it but an AU-1 Corsair loaded down for a ground attack mission is going to be in a bad spot vs a clean P-51 ??????? If you look at most air combat,it’s very rarely a one on one duel like a perfect Maverick vs Jester scenario. Someone almost always has some form of numerical or situational advantage that means more than a small difference in aircraft performance. Simply looking at statistics doesn’t really do much in the real world,I mean the number of MiGs shot down vs Sabres shouldn’t have been so lopsided if the pilots only played trump cards and likewise the Arabs should never have looked so bad. *yes I know what an AN/APS-13 set is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 10:34:32 AM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not in a real fight. No offense intended: I think you're writing from simulation scenarios. In a real life fight to stop an enemy from doing something, speed and firepower are supreme. Speed. Firepower. Climb. In that order was what pilots wanted. Maneuvering your fast airplane obfuscated its advantage.  Attached FileRetired fighter pilot, actually. So, I'll still stick with turn rate, turn radius, and energy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 11:09:21 AM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not exactly. A slower aircraft with a smaller turn circle can easily best a faster, more powerful adversary. It is about turn rate, turn radius, and energy....not speed in and of itself. With speed, the pilot has the option to push the fight or leave it. You are missing the key points. The jap planes in ww2 could easily outturn the us planes from mid war forward but the us pilots used boom and zoom tactics where they would use their speed advantage to engage and disengage from the fight. They dictated the rules of the fight because they could pick their fight. The only way a faster, more powerful adversary is going to lose to a slower aircraft with a smaller turn circle is if they screw up. That is what the US and UK learned quickly in the early days of the pacific fight. Once they changed their tactics, they did a lot better. Once they started receiving faster planes, they did much better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 11:11:52 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/470117/DSC00874_JPG-2235484.JPG Retired fighter pilot, actually. So, I'll still stick with turn rate, turn radius, and energy.  We are talking about ww2 fighters. Much less ability to rebuild E and much less total E available. You are conflating modern jet tactics into a conversation about ww2 piston engined fighters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 11:13:35 AM EST
[#17]
Never fails to make me giggle when things like...
 happen. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 11:14:00 AM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/470117/DSC00874_JPG-2235484.JPG Retired fighter pilot, actually. So, I'll still stick with turn rate, turn radius, and energy. OK Boomer. I'm just repeating what I've read about wwii pilot preference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 11:18:06 AM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Never fails to make me giggle when things like... happen. yea lol. the dude's been there done that and did it for a living. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 11:18:51 AM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Doesn't that story and comparison involve a P51 "B" and not the superior "D"model? The D-model was the one produced in highest numbers for the war, and the one most of us are familiar with. But again...between these two high performance planes, the pilot will make the difference. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Welp, that settles that. Doesn't that story and comparison involve a P51 "B" and not the superior "D"model? The D-model was the one produced in highest numbers for the war, and the one most of us are familiar with. But again...between these two high performance planes, the pilot will make the difference. They compared contemporaries. For the P-51D, compare the F4U-1D (hint: Nothing much changes). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 11:40:03 AM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We are talking about ww2 fighters. Much less ability to rebuild E and much less total E available. You are conflating modern jet tactics into a conversation about ww2 piston engined fighters. You realize that physics hasn't changed even though our understanding of it has, right? The title of the thread doesn't mention anything about "who would win...only knowing what guys knew in 1944." Rate, radius, and energy are still the key to one aircraft out-performing another so as to maneuver into a position of advantage and employ a gun. That's just as true in a Sopwith Camel as it is in a F-35 (although obviously we're just talking about gun employment). But, by all means I'll yield to your experience in this area if you want to share with us what that is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 11:40:10 AM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The P-51B only has 4 .50cals, not 6. Then that's another error in the article: "Even though both airplanes had the same armament – six .50 caliber machine guns..." The D-variant added two .50 guns |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 11:46:20 AM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Count the total number of rounds available. OK. Per the article: "The F4Us carried 391 rounds per gun while the P-51B only had 350 for the inboard guns and 240 for the four outboard ones." Corsair 391 x 6 = 2,346 P-51B (350 x 2) + (240 x 4) = 1,660 2,346/1,660 = 1.41 So by that metric it's a 41% advantage. Significant, to be sure. But that's not my point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 11:59:58 AM EST
[#24]
Pilot skill and chance will determine that one. The aircraft are too closely matched for technical specs to be of any predictive value. Many pilots have been defeated by opponents in technically inferior aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 12:00:01 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You realize that physics hasn't changed even though our understanding of it has, right? The title of the thread doesn't mention anything about "who would win...only knowing what guys knew in 1944." Rate, radius, and energy are still the key to one aircraft out-performing another so as to maneuver into a position of advantage and employ a gun. That's just as true in a Sopwith Camel as it is in a F-35 (although obviously we're just talking about gun employment). But, by all means I'll yield to your experience in this area if you want to share with us what that is. You must be right. It's not that tactics have changed with changes in aircraft development over a century. We are much more enlightened now and all those hundreds of thousands who came before you developed those different tactics because they were idiots and not due to the relative performance of their aircraft vs their opponents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 12:00:03 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/meme/images/8/8b/Y_actually.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/310?cb=20150702164848 We are talking about ww2 fighters. Much less ability to rebuild E and much less total E available. You are conflating modern jet tactics into a conversation about ww2 piston engined fighters. This is a funny simulation. Spitfire vs. F-15 in a (severely) bounded environment.  Questioned: WWII Warbirds Vs Modern Jet Fighters In Turn Fights (Vid 1 of 3) | DCS WORLD Of course the Eagle could just use splash-and-dive tactics to wipe out the Spitfires. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 12:01:23 PM EST
[#27]
A P38 would smoke them both.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 12:03:12 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pilot skill and chance will determine that one. The aircraft are too closely matched for technical specs to be of any predictive value. Many pilots have been defeated by opponents in technically inferior aircraft. For the most part. The only thing we can pull out of a f4u vs p51 conversation is that the f4u has better lower level performance and the p51 has a better bet at higher altitudes. There is not enough relative difference in the two aircraft for either one to have a large technical advantage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 12:04:00 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You realize that physics hasn't changed even though our understanding of it has, right? The title of the thread doesn't mention anything about "who would win...only knowing what guys knew in 1944." Rate, radius, and energy are still the key to one aircraft out-performing another so as to maneuver into a position of advantage and employ a gun. That's just as true in a Sopwith Camel as it is in a F-35 (although obviously we're just talking about gun employment). But, by all means I'll yield to your experience in this area if you want to share with us what that is. How do you square that with the success the P-47 had? The early models weren't great at turning and were relatively slow to climb, but they could out roll and out dive just about anything. I'm genuinely curious because of your experience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 12:06:20 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is a funny simulation. Spitfire vs. F-15 in a (severely) bounded environment.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuJ0IV2OrsgOf course the Eagle could just use splash-and-dive tactics to wipe out the Spitfires. Well ya, if you severely restrict the f15 from being able to use it's E advantage to gain verticals or distance, the much better turning spitfire has a major advantage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 12:08:42 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You must be right. It's not that tactics have changed with changes in aircraft development over a century. We are much more enlightened now and all those hundreds of thousands who came before you developed those different tactics because they were idiots and not due to the relative performance of their aircraft vs their opponents. This isn't the sarcastic dunk you think it is. Of course tactics change with technology. Yes, we know more about the "why" of aircraft performance in dogfights now than they knew then. The concept of rate/radius/energy is not a "tactic". Again, eager to hear what your background in education or experience is on this topic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 12:10:28 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again, eager to hear what your background in education or experience is on this topic. Are you going to keep pulling the "actually" card in every post? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 12:10:52 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How do you square that with the success the P-47 had? The early models weren't great at turning and were relatively slow to climb, but they could out roll and out dive just about anything. I'm genuinely curious because of your experience. As posted earlier, most WWII kills were targets of opportunity rather than shots earned through superior 1-v-1 maneuvering. This is why slashing attacks were the most used tactic of the day, and speed and climb capability were valued. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 12:12:29 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you going to keep pulling the "actually" card in every post? As long as you keep telling me I'm wrong (as you have now twice), I'm interested in knowing the basis of your knowledge. I'm perfectly happy to yield to someone with more acute experience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 12:15:17 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This isn't the sarcastic dunk you think it is. Of course tactics change with technology. Yes, we know more about the "why" of aircraft performance in dogfights now than they knew then. The concept of rate/radius/energy is not a "tactic". Yes, we do know more about rate/radius/energy now than we did before. But, they sure understood it then and relative performance characteristics of the aircraft in ww2 were often enough to exploit speed advantages. In that time, it was the most important trait as relative speed advantage could be used to dictate the fight. Speed is not nearly as important now as it was then due to other technology such as longer range weapons and much better power to weight ratios. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 12:17:09 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As long as you keep telling me I'm wrong (as you have now twice), I'm interested in knowing the basis of your knowledge. I'm perfectly happy to yield to someone with more acute experience. well, several people have shown you were you are mistaken, and we are still talking ww2 time frame but you choose to stick to your current and accurate to current times dogma. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 12:22:19 PM EST
[#37]
Hartmann said that most of his kills never saw him and that he wasn’t a very good shot so he fired from exceptionally close range. He learned this as Krupinski’s wingman as he preferred to not try maneuvering with the enemy,just zoom in to dump rounds and run away to repeat.
I think perhaps movies and lore has warped aerial combat into thinking it was all this ballet in the air rather than what it quite frankly was most of the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 12:29:59 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You realize that physics hasn't changed even though our understanding of it has, right? The title of the thread doesn't mention anything about "who would win...only knowing what guys knew in 1944." Rate, radius, and energy are still the key to one aircraft out-performing another so as to maneuver into a position of advantage and employ a gun. That's just as true in a Sopwith Camel as it is in a F-35 (although obviously we're just talking about gun employment). But, by all means I'll yield to your experience in this area if you want to share with us what that is. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: We are talking about ww2 fighters. Much less ability to rebuild E and much less total E available. You are conflating modern jet tactics into a conversation about ww2 piston engined fighters. You realize that physics hasn't changed even though our understanding of it has, right? The title of the thread doesn't mention anything about "who would win...only knowing what guys knew in 1944." Rate, radius, and energy are still the key to one aircraft out-performing another so as to maneuver into a position of advantage and employ a gun. That's just as true in a Sopwith Camel as it is in a F-35 (although obviously we're just talking about gun employment). But, by all means I'll yield to your experience in this area if you want to share with us what that is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 12:30:59 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hartmann said that most of his kills never saw him and that he wasn’t a very good shot so he fired from exceptionally close range. He learned this as Krupinski’s wingman as he preferred to not try maneuvering with the enemy,just zoom in to dump rounds and run away to repeat. I think perhaps movies and lore has warped aerial combat into thinking it was all this ballet in the air rather than what it quite frankly was most of the time. I've tried to write a compelling story about air combat in the modern era but I just can't get anywhere. At least I can't get anywhere when one side has F-22s and 35s. Makes winning too easy and defending nigh impossible unless there's some kind of mythical drones facing the F-22s. Better writers than I have tried to make drone warfare compelling and from what I have seen, they have all failed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 12:35:20 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: well, several people have shown you were you are mistaken, Quote HistoryQuoted: well, several people have shown you were you are mistaken, For example? Quoted: and we are still talking ww2 time frame but you choose to stick to your current and accurate to current times dogma. Again, there's nothing in the thread title that says, "only knowing what they knew in 1944." Still interested in your bonafides. If you want some more on what they did and didn't know in WWII, go take a look at Boots Blesse's 1954 Weapons School paper (a.k.a. No Guts, No Glory!) codifying the combat experiences of his Sabre squadron in Korea. Keep in perspective that most everything you read in there was a new change in what was being taught before and what was "commonly understood" by the WWII vets who had written fighter tactics up to that point. They're just scratching the tip of understanding rate/radius and energy, but can't quite put it into those words. They are putting their finger on tactics that are derived from rate/radius/energy, but they aren't getting to the root of why. They're hinting around the concepts of cornering velocity being able to produce the best rate of turn....hinting around the idea of a rate fight (although mostly as a defensive concept, rather than an offensive one)...and almost getting the single-circle/radius fight identified in their discussion of the "scissors". So, 10 years after WWII, they're just starting to be able to identify the actual reasons that some tactics have worked, and some haven't. It will be another 10 years after this before Boyd publishes his first Weapons School paper about Energy Maneuverability theory, and it will take another 5 years or so after that for E-M to be widely accepted and understood. EDIT: No Guts, No Glory PDF if anyone wants to read it. I think it's a great read. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 12:37:26 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's not SPEED that wins in a Dogfight, otherwise the F-104 and then later the MiG-25 would have an incredible record for air to air kills. Corsair beats the Mustang where it counts. Maneuver, Control, Protection (no radiator), Firepower plus it can land & take off from a Carrier! BIGGER_HAMMER Quoted: Speed is what allows the pilot to dictate the rules of the fight. According to the "fly off" test results, the Corsair was faster below 15,000, at par up 25,000 and only above 25,000 did the Mustang have the lead in speed. And in all cases the speed between the aircraft were within + / - 10mph of each other, so it's not like one was a subsonic Mig 17 and the other a Mach 2 F-4 Phantom (very large speed differential). While the Corsair had more firepower (6x .50s Vs. 4 .50s in the B & C model P-51) , better maneuvering and more rugged construction & protection, (advantages) I think it would still basically boil down to who saw & struck the other by surprise first. That's always been the surest way to "win" in Air Combat. BIGGER_HAMMER Edited to add : I'm always amazed at the GD'ers who try to make "I know better" arguments against actual professionals who have really DONE these things for years or even decades.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 12:42:37 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryThis gets my vote. Best climb rate of any fighter of that period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 12:49:25 PM EST
[#43]
just seeing the Mustang, and then trying to keep it in sight would be a challenge. I didn't realize how small they are till I saw one in person.
The Corsair and P-47 seem huge compared to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 12:49:35 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This gets my vote. Best climb rate of any fighter of that period. Most folks that I know who have flown it absolutely love it. Second only to the Sabre in terms of performance and "fun to fly". I much prefer the Mustang, but that's just personal aesthetic preference. I'd certainly love to get a crack at flying a Bearcat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 12:50:14 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: For example? EDIT: No Guts, No Glory PDF if anyone wants to read it. I think it's a great read. You are right, its a great read. Let's get back to what you are telling me I'm wrong about. I said, in the context of ww2 fighters, that speed is what allows a pilot to dictate the fight. That is, with a speed advantage, the pilot has the ability to engage or disengage a slower fighter at will. You are saying rate of turn ie turn advantage is more important than a speed advantage. Correct? if so, let's pick a clear matchup, say a f4u vs zero. The f4u has a speed advantage the zero has a clear turning advantage. Who dictates the fight? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 1:02:05 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: if so, let's pick a clear matchup, say a f4u vs zero. The f4u has a speed advantage the zero has a clear turning advantage. Who dictates the fight? Unable to just make such a declaration based on just this. There's a reason why the joke goes that the only thing a fighter pilot knows how to say is, "it depends". It depends on a lot of factors other than just who is faster and who can turn tighter. This is why dogfighting isn't just a simple match-up of performance characteristics, and no tactical plan survives past the merge. If it was as simple as what you're trying to imply, no Corsair would have ever been lost to a Zero. If you look at a modern US tactics manual -- maybe there's an old 3-1 for one of the fighters on wikileaks -- and drill down to what it recommends versus a specific adversary, what you're going to see is a going-in gameplan, followed up by a long series of "if this, then that" branches of a decision tree. There's a basic strategy based on what is known about your airplane's performance and that airplane's performance, but the unknowns (where is the fight taking place, what angles, what energy state, what weapon state, fuel state, awareness/SA, mistakes made in executing your own tactic, identifying mistakes made by adversary, etc) mean that a canned gameplan is probably not going to just work. This is true even in what should be simple matchups between, say, an F-16 and a MiG-21. Bottom line: no, the guy with more speed doesn't get to "dictate the fight". Even the old platitude of "speed is life", which used to be one of the basic BFM rules during the Vietnam era, has been changed to "nose position vs energy" to account for the nuance that in some circumstances speed is not life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 1:02:40 PM EST
[#47]
I have no bonfides relevant to this discussion.
In wwii, because of the colossal buildup of airpower, most American pilots were green. What I've timidly offered in this discussion were preferred tactics probably suited to green pilots participating in combat with opposing aircraft in numbers far exceeding any aerial combat since. Intense maneover was discouraged, I think, for the sake of the green pilots who were flying excellent a/c; and who did well enough if they stayed with their leader in combat. Most pilots were never well positioned to get a kill. A small percentage of pilots 'went after them.' The excellent agressive pilots got kills. The aggressive, unskilled go getters got killed. The skill of these excellent pilots, I think, was cataloged and taught to later pilots like ME. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 1:07:04 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have no bonfides relevant to this discussion. In wwii, because of the colossal buildup of airpower, most American pilots were green. What I've timidly offered in this discussion were preferred tactics probably suited to green pilots participating in combat with opposing aircraft in numbers far exceeding any aerial combat since. Intense maneover was discouraged, I think, for the sake of the green pilots who were flying excellent a/c; and who did well enough if they stayed with their leader in combat. Most pilots were never well positioned to get a kill. A small percentage of pilots 'went after them.' The excellent agressive pilots got kills. The aggressive, unskilled go getters got killed. The skill of these excellent pilots, I think, was cataloged and taught to later pilots like ME. You're right, in fact there was very little actual training in dogfighting for WWII fighter pilots. The gunnery training in the States before deployment taught basics about deflection shooting, but very little about how to maneuver into a position of advantage. Some of the 8th AF fighter units in England instituted their own on-the-job training course that they called "clobber college" for the new pilots that showed up. There were no formal tactics manuals that even existed then, so it was basically the more experienced pilots trying to pass along what they'd learned and what worked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 1:13:24 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Unable to just make such a declaration based on just this. There's a reason why the joke goes that the only thing a fighter pilot knows how to say is, "it depends". It depends on a lot of factors other than just who is faster and who can turn tighter. This is why dogfighting isn't just a simple match-up of performance characteristics, and no tactical plan survives past the merge. If it was as simple as what you're trying to imply, no Corsair would have ever been lost to a Zero. If you look at a modern US tactics manual -- maybe there's an old 3-1 for one of the fighters on wikileaks -- and drill down to what it recommends versus a specific adversary, what you're going to see is a going-in gameplan, followed up by a long series of "if this, then that" branches of a decision tree. There's a basic strategy based on what is known about your airplane's performance and that airplane's performance, but the unknowns (where is the fight taking place, what angles, what energy state, what weapon state, fuel state, awareness/SA, mistakes made in executing your own tactic, identifying mistakes made by adversary, etc) mean that a canned gameplan is probably not going to just work. This is true even in what should be simple matchups between, say, an F-16 and a MiG-21. Bottom line: no, the guy with more speed doesn't get to "dictate the fight". Even the old platitude of "speed is life", which used to be one of the basic BFM rules during the Vietnam era, has been changed to "nose position vs energy" to account for the nuance that in some circumstances speed is not life. I was trying to simplify the conversation down to the key points being made so we could make some actual progress in the conversation. I can see you have the ability to obscure simple points in the pedantic. So basically any point being made by someone else gets dragged through the mud with options after options being tossed in to keep obscuring the conversation. Yes, we can both do that so neither of us needs to concede any point the other is making. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2022 1:24:54 PM EST
[#50]
Only on arfcom A SME (an actual fighter pilot) comes in with info and gets told he's wrong |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
