#1 note, the fight vs the Yaks in Korea was with F4U-4's. Frankly any Yak 9 is dead meat against that plane as by the 4's the Corsair was actually more manueverable at just about any speed than a Yak-9 could be.

Slickun- we hashed this out before. Doctrine dictates design.

Sorrow, have you got some numbers for F4-U kills in Korea? I've got the known kills for P-51's somewhere...there were a dozen or so. I don't remember the Navy's score. Ummm, seems like one Navy ace in nightfighters? Rats, he might have been a Marine.

Well, we kind of hashed it out. I feel strongly both ways. You can want a doctrine, but not have the planes for it. You can also build a doctrine out of the planes and resources you have available.

I think Russia's path was a bit of both. I truly think that they were limited in the type of planes they could realistically expect to supply in number, but that kind of fit into the way they decided to fight the war. Sort of a marriage of convenience, if you will.

You guys seem to think I'm being critical, but I'm not.

There is kind of a neat theory floating around. It states that the countries that were least prepared in A/C at the start of the war got a huge boost as the war wore on.

For example. The Germans had a great fighter at the start of the war. The Bf-109. However, it was a product of the 30's. Contrast that with the US (and Russia, for that matter), who had, really, no good fighters in the air at Pearl Harbor. America (and Russia) frantically designed and produced modern fighters that were newer than the Germans (and Japanese) early war products. These designs were not eclipsed, or matched, for the most part by the Axis until it was too late.

In other words, the Axis designs ruled early in the war, the Allied designs, utilizing newer technology, passed the early war planes, and stayed on top long enough to see victory. By the time the Jets flew, it was too little too late. The generations overlapped, but the Allies, by luck, had modern designs longer.

Walter Boyne says it a lot better in his books, most notably "Clash of Wings".

------------------
Rick "Slick" Land

S!

Slicksun, the Navy ace you mentioned, was Lt. Guy Bordelon from VC-3 IIRC

here is a link about him:
http://www.acepilots.com/korea_bordelon.html

other than that, I think, Corsairs scored about 4 to 6 victories, mostly over Yaks, but one Mig is also included, scored by Marine Capt. Jesse Folmar;

for any further info, there should be a great site out there that details all known kills of any air war from 1945 till now;
I will dig the adress when I am back home;

best regards
BL

slickun, we agree no the fact that once you have planes, you can do only a limited number of things with them. But, why did the US fighters have logn range? not because the US had planty of fuel to throw arond, but because the specifications asked for a fighter that could do a specific job (escorting fortresses for the P47 and P51) same goes for the russians, from what they had as situation, as pilots and as policy, they asked planes with caracteristics that would fit. What they did want are planes that are fast but most of all, light, manouverable and easy to fly. It's a matter of choice, which was made before the first drawing of the plane was made

Too Cool, I think we agree on most of this.

Now, the US looked frantically for a long ranged escort due to the FAILED doctrine of self defending daylight bombers. Fuselage tanks, merlin engines, drop tanks suddenly became important. It kind of evolved, and wasn't set in stone at the beginning of things.

In the PTO range was always at a premium, as we all know. Navy planes always had range in the Mustang's class.

Now, the only thing I think we may be at odds on is the idea that the Soviet Union, from the very beginning, could have built any plane they felt like, and decided, from the very start, to build the ones they did. Then, why the MiG?

From what I have gathered, from several other posters that obviously know a lot more about the Eastern Front Aerial War than I do, this was SORT of the case. That Russian engines were rather large and heavy for their output, and so very light airframes were built to compensate. And, whether by design or luck or a combination of both, this fit in very well with how they prosecuted the war. This was early in the war

However, as I've said, there's a lot of guys here that kow more than I do about this (a LOT more) and I'm open to any data anybody has.

------------------
Rick "Slick" Land

Not that many kills Slickun- F4u-4's in Korea were mostly doing A2G work. The Panther had allready taken over CAP patrols. Also by the time the marines and navy showed up there were not that many aircraft active over the penninsula.

Still they got a good share- mostly by raping the poor sods DPRK sent to do intercepts against them.

Doctrine defines design. It's a simple concept Slickun. Soviet doctrine in the thirties/forties declared the following:

A fighter should have wood or wood laminates as it's fundamental building material since Soviet supplies of metal or composite material could not be guaranteed in wartime.

That planes should be concentrated into specific roles and specialized for them. This made for planes that could do a specific role very well instead of many roles poorly.

That the airforce provide tactical support for the army.

That the airforce provide air defense for cities and areas of industry.

That is a simplification, but it was the basis of what they believed in. It lead to point defence fighters and ground attack aircraft. The actual construction was simply the best methods of obtaining these goals with available materials.

By the time WWII was over the Soviets had moved to Metal framing elements (Yak-3&9) as production provided and had allready moved deeply into Jet and rocket research. Also they closely studied the effect of Strategic bombing esp in Japan. Thus after the war they changed the doctrine substantially- copying the B-29 stratofortress for a high altitude bomber and moving to Jet Engined fighters like the MiG. However please note they still designed the MiG as a point defence fighter. They didn't move much past that until the MiG-21 in the sixties.

About the idea you propose re: catchup in air design.

Doesn't wash with me for a second. The 30's saw the US developing the P-40, P-39, P-38 and allready having the F4F, F6F and F4U on the drawing table or in production. Not even mentioning the P-47 or P-51 that showed up in the early forties.

United States at any period in Aviation has been equal or ahead of any other country's aircraft. Companies like Grumman, Vought, Republic, Lockheed, Curtiss, Bell or North American for easily equal in knowledge and expertise to German, English, Japanese or Soviet producers. Just look at the astonishing amount of companies producing fighters in the US before the war!

What needed to change was simply the requirements they were building to when the war started. German, English and Japanese designers just seemed to have had a better grasp of what would be required of thier planes at the start of the war.

US seemed to be more designed as multi-purpose. Planes had to be fast, big enough to carry ordinance, dogfight, shoot down bombers, and travel long range all in the same package! If the soviets over-specialized arguably the US over-generalized!

Yet isn't that why we all love US WWII planes? What can't they do. I often think that US built planes like Germans built tanks- the same machine had to be capable of everything required of it and do it all well.
Whereas everyone else built airplanes like the US built tanks- mass produced, capable and more over specialized than insects.

Sorry- just reread this part.

You realize that Soviet aircraft (especially ground attack ones) had almost no radio's or people trained enough to do an FAC role?

Not to mention that for the soviets a plane was much safer staying under AAA and camo than lazing about at 3,000 meters waiting for a German fighter to notice it. Not even the US or English did CAS like that in WWII.

Sorrow, I KNOW its a simple concept to sit and read. I understand that.

So, I read about purges. I read about lack of strategic materials. I read about moving factories past the Urals. Engines not that good at hp/weight. Surprise attacks putting the Russians completely off their pace. Total dominance in the early days by the LW. No radios.

And I'm told forget all that, the Russians decided on a strategy that perfectly fit the planes they could make, and they didn't make better ones 'cause they didn't need them. I can't help but wonder, again, which came first, the chicken or the egg.

And again, what about the MiG?

US planes were behind the curve when they entered WW2. Better planes were on the way, many on the design board, some being tested, some available in very limited numbers. But the P-38, P-47, P-51, F6F, and F4U would not be available in any numbers until the fighting was well established. Until then the P-39, P-40, and F4F held the line. These planes did poorly against the opposition, at least in US hands. Anyway, its just a theory, and an interesting one. Buy Boyne's book, he does a much better job of explaining it. He covers all aspects of the air war in WW2, including the Eastern Front.

Too Cool, I'm sorry, but the concept of loaded planes waiting for a target was used in WW2. The Allies had become very adept at CAS by the end of the war. Ground controllers were used extensively. By Korea it was doctrine, and by VN there were specialized A/C to handle the FAC duties. I can see your point over the East, but I swear I've read stories about IL-2's going in big, slow circles over the battlefield blasting German tanks. It even had a cool name I don't remember. Some kind of wheel?

Bring up the B-29 and MiG-15 do NOT make a case for Russian aeronautical prowess, folks. We know why. The MiG's engine was a copy, and the entire B-29 was a copy.

Nothing wrong with copying. The US steal and copies stuff all the time. By gosh, the Mustang was designed by a German, and the best ones used an English engine.

I'm just saying, those are poor choices to use in trying to make the case the Russians could design with anyone. Better picks are available!

:-)

------------------
Rick "Slick" Land

Ahhh, we're going round and round here. Too Cool, Sorrow, great posts. I'm just playing devils advocate here. Trying to stir $hit up in a sneaky way. I'll quit.

OK. I will bow to both of your expertise and clam up now. No more about this (till the next thread). I'm convinced, at the very least, there was a method to the Soviet madness. :-)

BTW, Boynes theory was not being sneaky. It was kind of fun to read and ponder, though.

------------------
Rick "Slick" Land