Plywood Vs. Armor

If you were a real WW2 pilot and had a choice between a fragile but agile plane like the Bf-109F2 or a Zeke or a Yak and a heavily armored and protected plane like the Corsair, what would you choose?

A lightweight fighter may catch fire and injure you as soon as hit, but it has sweet handling with maneuverability that may protect you from taking hits in the first place. A Corsair or an FW-190 gives you confidence of heavy armor and self-sealing fuel tanks, but at a considerable price in handling qualities. It is stubborn and likes to take advantage of your mistakes. In a well-protected fighter you may have to limit yourself to unimaginative zoom attacks.

[This message has been edited by MonsterZero (edited 09-04-2002).]

I'd take the plane with armour, because in all liklihood you'd be bounced by a plane you never saw or only saw too late to evade.

I'd go for the armor too, if I dont want to get a medal posthumously.

AFAIK there was no P47-Ace that was killed. Err while flying in WWII I mean.



------------------
Purzel

Want to enable swastikas in ÜberDemons way?

Hehe, this is something I've been thinking about too. I doubt the sexy little plywood turnfigfhters would be so popular if we couldn't respawn, so to say. Probably the armoured pigs (ala P-47, Corsair, Fw-190) would gain a lot in popularity, as would hit and run/BnZ.

Zero is a bit different from Yaks though, since it is so deficicent in speed compared to its mid and late war opponents as well as being deficient in protection.

S!

Gentlemen, I would prefer a well armored, but also well ARMED fighter, so my choice would be something like the TBolt, Corsair or Hellcat;

these I would chose over a Yak anytime!

what sense does a really good turnfighter make, if it does not have the punch to knock down its oppononents?

the same is true for heavyweights though;

its very amusing to throw those Yaks around all over the sky, but I have to admit, in a Yak-3 I never score that many victories I do get when flying the Kobra or the German stuff a la 190s;
on the other hand, I never got shot down in a Yak yet during a dogfight, so maybe each type has its advantages and disadvantages;

but as said, gimme a few 0.50s and enough horsepower, and I ll be a happy camper, oh, and bring on the TBolt!

purzel, quite a few TBolt aces were shot down, either by AA or fighters, just look for Gabby Gabreski (he knocked himself down), Quince Brown, and oh, I forgot Neil Keerby, just to mention a few;

concerning the Zero, it may have been slow, but in the right hands, it still could put up a tremendous fight, as evidenced by Saburo Sakai over Saipan in 1944;
even the last kills of the IJN in the war were scored by Zero 52s against Hellcats of VF-88 on August 15th after a hellish dogfight where both sides lost a few planes;

BL

The Zero definitely belongs in the "deadly in the hands of an expert" category. What I meant by the Zero being different is that since it was so deficient in speed as well as in armour, the pilot was less able to dictate the terms of the engagement than e.g. a Yak driver who could at least try to run away if he didn't like the odds.

Well the Japanese were not very likely to try to run away in any case.
That said speed can be used for things better than "running away", it never hurts to be both agile and fast
By the way, the Yaks were nowhere near as fragile as the Zeros.

andrew

[This message has been edited by andrew (edited 09-05-2002).]

My fighter of choice would be the awesome Mitsubishi A7M "Reppu" / "SAM"

Good armament, good rate of climb, good armor, good manouverablity, good top speed, good flying characteristics.

Best Fighter of WW2, but IIRC only 2 or 3 were built

SH, be a little cautious with labelling the Sam the best fighter of WW2;

it was never fully tested, because an earthquake destroyed the flying prototype sometime in 1945;
its engine was not that good either from what I know, the Japs did lack the material to produce good superchargers, so the Sam would have to stay down low, or at least lower than the Mustangs, the N-TBolts or the Corsair and Hellcat;

it may have been on par with them performance wise, but had the war gone on for longer, the USN would have introduced the F8F, the F7F, the F4U-4B, and the USAF the P-51H and maybe the P-80As, so the old performance gap would have still been there;

maybe the Reppu was one of the best, the IJN could possibly have, but it surely was not the best fighter of WW2, this accolade belongs to planes like the TA-152, the Spit XIV, the P-47N, the P-51D or the F4U-1D/4;

BL

No doubt about it... a Hellcat, Corsair, or P-51. The Hellcats 18:1 kill ratio pretty much puts to rest the case Superior armor, guns, roll rate, dive, speed...etc ...
The 50 calibers were the most lethal guns overall, vs fighters especially, in WW2 ...

The P-47M/N was the man. The thing was faster than the jet-powered Meteor!

The Hellcat was a great plane in the Pacific but I'm not so sure that it would have done as well in Europe. The max speeds that I have seen stated are aroun 390 MPH, making it slower than its German contemporaries. Still a great package with good performance all around, but IMHO it would not be the overwhelmingly superior plane that it was against the Japanese.

I would also argue any kill ratio of 18:1. Is this derived from reported losses by both sides or is it derived from "kills we claimed against them vs our actual losses"?

Blacklion, The Reppu could roll around a P 51 while climbing, it also had superior high altitude performance, and it had a 3 stage supercharger

Agreed. The Japanese pilots from mid-war onwards were also (on average) very green. The situation was comparable to the Eastern Front during the first half of the war, with rookie pilots being slaughtered en masse by well-trained adversaries.

Plus, the specs of the Hellcat were clearly superior to the Zero whereas they would not have been superior to most ETO mid-war fighters, just like you say.

S!

SH, I would love to know where you got that info from!
Rene Francillon does not mention anyting about real flight testing of the Reppu in his standard reference work on "Japanese planes of the Pacific war", and I also seriously doubt that its engine would have worked way up high, as NO Jap fighter really performed well at high altitude;
also, the only Mustang, the Japs had to compare their fighters against, was a P-51C, they captured in China;
and they lacked the high octane fuel to get the most out of it, so they really had no possibility to seriously evaluate it;
and the later P-51H Ponies were a whole different breed performance wise compared to the P-51B/C;

basically, the Japs had the same troubles and problems as the Germans, late in the war, they simply lacked the material to build those superchargers;
they even had to resort to use the supercharger they got out of a shot down Lightning to power an experimental high altitude fighter (Nakajima IIRC);

and even if it would have run rings around the Mustang, the Bearcat would have eaten any Reppu alive, there is also serious possibility that the Tigercat could have been a starperformer as well;
the chieftestpilot of the USN once said about the Tigercat something like "its the best damn fighter this service has" and he used it well into the jetage as a private hack;

BL

don't forget that most kills in pacific were done by team tactics...

one on one encounter it's questionable, since, een in a hellcat, the guy might have had rough time aligning an agile fighter as a zero.

Unless I have to escort or atack bombers @10000+ m, I'd take a yak over any heavy plane. It can outturn it, and bring its guns on its target faster. Unless the guy takes me by surprise (which works in both ways), I'll alway have the option of breaking his firing solution even before he gets one. And one 20mm cannon is by far enough to bring down a fighter if aimed properly, and that goes for any fighter.

What made the big heavy fighters successful is not the fighter itself, but his buddy beside him covering his back. Without team tactics, with equally skilled pilots the heavy one is mostly dead meat.

S!

TooCool, am disagreeing here!

1 on 1, turn vs b'n'z fighter, equally skilled pilots, the outcome will most likely be a draw, provided, one fighter does not need to break off since he is running out of fuel;

you said, that the Hellcats should have a tough time to bring their guns to bear on a more agile opponent, yet, a Yak may also have a tough time getting an accurate shot in into a maneuvering heavier fighter!

just read this:

Four Yaks and a couple of Corsairs

Air support for their ground troops has always been a top priority for Marine Air, but the possibility of engaging an aggressive enemy pilot could produce an adrenaline rush in any fighter pilot. During the Korean War, the Corsair pilots spent a lot of time in dangerous situations, and when they worked the northern sectors of the Korean peninsula, they always had their eyes checking for enemy fighters.

As 1950 ended, most of the North Korean Air Force's inventory of Soviet-built WW II vintage fighters had been destroyed, but some of the threat remained because a few had escaped over to Chinese air bases in Manchuria. On April 21, 1951, a division of Corsairs from the Checkerboard squadron (VMF-312) led by Capt. Phillip C. DeLong flew an interdiction mission over North Korea. True to Murphy's Law, early on, the division of four Corsairs was divided into pairs (elements), and that weakened their position in the event that they were jumped by an enemy force in larger numbers.

Capt. Phillip C. DeLong: "About an hour into our mission, while we were over the Chinnampo Harbor, we heard a radio distress call that one of the Corsairs from another division had been hit by ground fire. The pilot of the stricken aircraft was bailing out, so our priority was to do everything we could to make sure that he was rescued safely. After contacting our carrier with the location, I sent two of the Corsairs from my division to rendezvous with the inbound rescue helicopter; then my wingman and I continued on with our mission."

There was no doubt that the Marine fighter/bomber's presence in the area had already registered on the enemy radarscopes, and serious trouble was probably just minutes away. But a Marine fighter ace from WW II who had 11 confirmed kills in the Pacific theater was leading this element; Capt. DeLong and his wingman spent a lot of time looking for targets at a very low altitude.

DeLong: "We were climbing through two thousand feet when we saw four aircraft approaching us from the northwest at five thousand feet. My wingman, Lt. Harold Daigh, identified them as F-51 Mustangs, so we believed them to be friendly. For this reason, we didn't pay much attention to them as they turned toward us in a loose right-echelon formation. Suddenly, I became aware of what we were facing when one of their seven-point-seven millimeter rounds entered my cockpit and damaged my radio! Right after that, there were several more ‘thumps,' which were more rounds hitting my aircraft."

Lt. Daigh was maneuvering to get behind Yak-9 nos. 3 and 4 when his efforts to dump his ordnance failed! Despite the weight, he pressed the attack and opened fire on the closest one but didn't see any results. Immediately, he shifted his attention to Yak no. 4 and fired a long burst, scoring hits on the wing and fuselage. Seconds later, its wing broke off and it plummeted straight into the ground. In the meantime, Capt. DeLong had his hands full with other problems.

DeLong: "As soon as I was fired on, I executed a quick split-S maneuver to pick up speed. When the fight started, my maps were spread out in my lap, so now I was trying to evade the Yak's guns with my cockpit full of loose maps, which did not help my visibility! I had to get rid of them somehow so I'd be able to fight effectively. These were the tensest moments of the entire mission because you have to remember that we were only at two thousand feet when the fight started! In seconds, I stowed the maps and recovered from the dive, climbing sharply to the left."

This particular Yak flight was either flown by pilots who had survived aerial combat on many earlier occasions, or by fearless and aggressive instructor types. The dramatic loss of the first Yak did not deter the others. They continued to press the fight.

DeLong: "Two of the Yaks made another pass on me from astern, but I was able to turn the tables. While I was still in my defensive turn, one of the enemy fighters crossed in front of me from right to left. I hit it with a solid burst that did significant damage. The Yak began to stream black smoke, nosed over and went straight into the ground about half a mile from where Lt. Daigh's kill had crashed. Things were happening so fast and furious that I didn't realize I was still carrying my bombs. I jettisoned everything except my rockets. I decided that I might be able to use them if the remaining two Yaks proved too tough, or if others joined the fight."

There may have been a few incidences during the Korean War in which air-to-ground rockets were fired at another hostile aircraft, but as erratic as these rockets were, their chance of hitting anything was small. A lucky direct hit on any aircraft would have resulted in a fiery explosion and a certain "kill."

DeLong: "The fight continued to heat up as I sharply banked to the left and chased two Yaks out in front of me. Lt. Daigh was behind the first one, and the second one was right on his tail. I radioed him about the danger, and he cut to the left, causing the trailing Yak to overshoot him. Seconds later, Daigh nailed him with a burst, and the Yak began to trail smoke from its cockpit and wing root. I closed on the one out in front, and as soon as I squeezed off a quick burst, I saw smoke, but this one wasn't ready to call it quits!"

The Yaks were all fast and very maneuverable, but their construction wasn't as rugged as that of the Corsairs and Mustangs. They possessed good firepower and, in the hands of a good pilot, gave Marine pilots plenty of cause for concern. These aircraft had given the veteran Luftwaffe pilots plenty of trouble during the last half of WW II. The North Koreans had been given a significant number of these aircraft in the late 1940s for their fledgling air force.

DeLong: "As soon as I hit the Yak, he split-S'ed. I followed him into the maneuver and continued to score hits, and as the rounds chewed into their mark, pieces of the aircraft fell off and trailed past me. Seconds after I let up on my guns, the Yak pilot stopped using evasive tactics, and at that moment, I knew he was finished. Then I realized that I still had all of my rockets, so I selected the rocket launcher and hit the switch; nothing happened. Without losing a beat, I fired another burst from my guns, and that finished him off. Seconds later, papers, maps etc., flew out of the Yak's cockpit as he jettisoned his canopy and bailed out."

The Yak crashed into the water below, and Capt. DeLong racked up his second kill of the day. The enemy pilot parachuted safely into the water, and as the helicopter was on its way to pick up the downed Corsair, DeLong radioed that they should also try to pick up the Yak pilot, but the communication was never received. There had been four Yak-9s in the fight against the two Corsairs, and all were shot down, but only three confirmed.

Of course, it isn't over until the fat lady sings!

DeLong: "The dogfight had lasted about ten minutes, and we had shot three down and had one ‘probable.' Fortunately for Lt. Daigh, a few days later, UN forces found a Yak in shallow water within the same area, and this was all that was needed to upgrade the ‘probable' to a confirmed kill. It was a day that I'll long remember, and the only thing that could have made it better was to have taken one of the Yaks out with one of my rockets!"

this should be a classic example of heavy fighter vs light fighter, and it shows, that the heavy one is by no means dead meat always!

I would prefer something like a TBolt or Corsair over a Yak any time, while the Yak would be my weapon of choice against similiar fighters, I do love it much more than any La!

of course, fighting in a TBolt or Corsair takes discipline and skill, but their power, firepower and ruggedness should be very welcome!

BL

I know that story, it's been related anytime someone wanted to prove that russian fighter weren't good, or that US fighters were great, or any oter fact going similar way.

One thig is for sure... the two guys in corsairs were way better than their oponents at what they were doing.

A guy that's flying straight and realises that the planes behind him aren't friendly simply by the 7.7mm hitting his aircraft? I'd say a couple of things about that:

1- what yak had 7.7mm guns?
2- how could a (supposedly) confirmed pilot miss a straight flying target with his 20mm (or forget about using it)?
3- The author talks about "pilots who had survived aerial combat on many earlier occasions, or by fearless and aggressive instructor types" but I wonder what instructor could miss such an opportunity? I'd rather say they flew against rookies that have little to do in combat, hard to draw any aircraft-relative conclusion there.
Just re-read: "Two of the Yaks made another pass on me from astern, but I was able to turn the tables. While I was still in my defensive turn, one of the enemy fighters crossed in front of me from right to left. I hit it with a solid burst that did significant damage" Do you imagine a confirmed pilot overshooting by passing in front of the enemy? Not me. If he has better turning plane, which is normally the case, and if he has numbers for him, he should slow down to his enemy's speed, align him and blow him to pieces. These guys were maybe aggressive, but they flew like they just started to learn.

[This message has been edited by TooCool_12f (edited 09-06-2002).]

S!

granted, you may be right about the experience level of those guys, but, the Corsairs were outnumbered and they flew in CAS configuration, meaning they were a whole lot heavier and more difficult to control than those Yaks;

also, the North Koreans did have some very good pilots at the start of the war;
it seems they had a few guys who learned to fly and fight under Japanese tutelage in the last war and did know how to handle Yaks;

there was another famous fight involving a Mustang and a Yak, and the Yak driver involved was a very competent guy either;

again, if given the choice, I would choose a R2800 engine equipped fighter sporting 6+ 0.50s over any Yak anytime, but I guess, a well flown Yak is still a tough nut to crack!

BL

well, I think we'll agree that the pilot counts more than the machine, unless there's really a huuge difference (like F-16 vs Fokker D VII )

There will always be examples to prove more or less anything about fighters... not often will we be able to compare the real skill ratio between the opposing pilots. You remember the episode when yeager tested the Mig15, and some colonel came saying that the machine was more important? Yeager invited him to a mock dogfight and they made a few fights F86/Mig15 , then whitched planes and made some more. yeager finished in no time on other guys tail, no matter if he was in a f86 or a Mig. Had it been for real, from that story, one plane (yeager's one) would appear to us as a real killer compare to the other, considering the ease that yeager had to get the advantage and make a "kill"

One thing I noticed in this thread, no one mentioned the biggest problem with light aircraft: fighters are not the only danger. There are other missions to be flown and you are likely to be exposed to ground fire, flak, and bomber defensive fire at some point. In all of these situations the plywood aircraft is at a substantial disadvantage relative to the armored fighter. So the mix of fighting you must do should factor into your decision.

My personal preference? I probably still would favor the light nimble dogfighter (it's just my nature: light agile cars, lean quick strike and evade boxing style, etc.) However, I suspect the heavier mount would serve me better if I could conform to it.

So, what do you want your air force to do? Be a defensive force, flying lightweight short ranged fighters, only reacting to the other guy's moves? Or, an offensive force, taking the fight to the other guy with heavier fighters, with high wing loadings, relying on speed and firepower? Throw in good dive rates as well on the big, fat hogs.

This is not a theroetical question. It has been settled. Speed, range, and firepower were shown to be more important than climb and turn rate in WW2.

Again, 2/3 to 3/4 of all kills are the result of a bounce, not a dogfight. Building planes for a lightweight, low speed turning fight, rather than for performance, was strictly a defensive strategy, and limited the chances your air force had at the easy, far more numerous bounce kills.



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

I agree Slikun, but in World War 2, I would argue that designs were predominately influenced as much as anything, by overall strategic resources like alloy metals, rubber, stamping dies... and manufacturing capacities... You can make 3 or 4 zeros, Yaks or 109s for every Tbolt...

Slickun, it's a bit more complex...

US campaign was fought with long range fighters, accompanying bombers, etc... on eastern front, fighters' job was to protect their troops advancing on enemy (which US didn't have to until june '44 in europe)

Ground attack was done by flying panzers, the IL2's, while yaks, La's etc... were there fo rtheir protection, and did quite well. Different needs brought different solutions.

Had the US pull to USSR with all their long range fighters, they'd finish nowhere, since all they could reach in germany (industries and such) were far away beyond the reach of any US plane. They wouldn't be able to use anything else but ground attack planes on such a wide front, and there, it would have been quite a different game.

The matter isn't "what plane is the best", but what plane is the best for a specific job?

A yak3 (almost fully plywood machine) isn't made for heavy bomber interception, nor was it made fpor ground attack. it's only job was to make sure that the ground attack planes can do their job without bothering too much about enemy fighters, what means, it had to be the best in low altitudes... If it has a competent pilots inside, any other fighter will have his hands full more than he ever hoped to.



------------------
coolaero.altajeux.com

A good point about the defensive vs offensive role. The Spitfire is a good example. Light , somewhat fragile but a superb defensive fighter as shown in the BoB

The Typhoon was heavy and turned like a truck yet it scored a surprizing number of kills on FW190s. All were "bounces" the victims probably never saw their attackers. Reverse the roles; the Typhoon was a VERY poor dogfighter and the Spit was not a great "attack" A/C

As to 'plywood vs armour' ...... being a Mosquito pilot..... I see nothing wrong with plywood.

If the Russians had had US equipment, I think they would have settled on the same strategy...use the 4 engined bombers to lure up the Lw to the long ranged fighters.

Failing that, they would have used them the same way the US did before D-Day...attack transportation centers and chole points.

The Russians could have used a long ranged fighter just as anyone else. Put them out of range of the short legged LW fighters. Their fields would have been out of range of retaliation. Surely you can find some use for range? I mean, if you could magically double the range of the YAK 3, you saying it would be of little use? It would change its role dramatically in my book.



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

"Hellcats 18:1 kill ratio"

due to vastly superiour numbers of aircraft

slickun, it's not about what it could have done if it had this or that. It's about the doctrine and the use it's intended to have.

A yak3 was specifically designed to be deployed from airfields very close to the frontline. Long range is useless in such a case, since it was made for one specific job. You see to believe that there's some kind of lottery and USSR had bad luck and got only short-legged fighters. They made them for a purpose, and that purpose they served well.

The main role of the aviation, for the russians (stalin in fact) was to support ground troops. And for that they had to operate from in close, to react quickly to any demands. You don't make ground support when you need two or three hours flight to get to the area, you need to be there in minutes. If the Il2's operated from airfields that were noly a few minutes from the fight, they needed cover that could be there whithin minutes too... When they needed a long range fighter, they transformed the yak9 in yak9D, and later in yak9DD which could fly for more than 2000km, which is more than enough to reach germany. They were used to escort B17 from ukrane to bari (italy), but it was another type for another job.

Russians always made specialised planes. They had one task to do, and for most of them, were very good at it. When they wanted long range bombers, they made planes like the Tu-95 (after the war), which could reach any point on earth with their armament, and are still in service.

It's only matter of choice, choice dictated by a certain strategic vision of the war to be fought. As a result, you can hardly compare planes made for different jobs, since, by definition, they're not supposed to get in the same area, and if it happens, one of the two is not in his element, and therefore looses the benefit some of its qualities... loses the advantage

I've asked this question before, and it surely is a rhetorical one: did the Russkies make the planes they did by choice, and already had a plan for their use, or did they merely make the best things they could and adapt that to the situtation?

Sort of which came first, the chicken or the egg?

That being said, planes with good endurance are much more useful than planes with little. Loiter time has been shown to be an invaluable asset in CAS and attack planes. The Allies have used it to great effect in WW2, Korea, and all wars since.

Want them to get there fast? OK. Put them close to the battlefield if you must, but being able to hang around for an hour or so, being "on call" with a FAC or ground controller gets them there faster than any scenario that includes a takeoff and rendezvous.

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

well, for stalin, the air force was just an extent of artillery. their job was to help pound the enemy on the ground. that was th epurpose for developping IL2. Since it was to fly low and got it's hands full with ground attack, it needed fighters to protect it. these had one job to do. maintain air supremacy in the zone where they needed to operate, meaning up to 3500/4000m. They had no particular need to go after german bombers @ high altitudes for two reasons:

1- if germans wanted to hit anything, they had to get lower

2- there wasn't much they might aim for anyway, since all vital assets were beyond their reach.

the major targets for the luftwaffe would be troops, and to attack them, you need to get in low... right where russian fighters had to operate.

It was more matter of choice. Stalin purged the VVS of almost all experienced pilots, which meant the "new" VVS was to be built with young, inexperienced men, they would go down in massive numbers. Why spending X hours on building a heavy and rugged fighter, with plenty of fuel, lots of weapons, delicate to manage (energy etc...)... and all that for rookie pilots that mostly had balery an idea of how to remain airborne? Instead, you build light aircraft, that can be built fast, wiht little material, easy to fly, and able to sustain almost any manouver. Those that survive long enough that their aircraft can't fly anymore can get another one. no big deal. but you had to make planes that could be used by pilots you had, built with materials you had, and most of all, that could do the job in the circumstances you had to deal with.

Circling above the battle field is waste of fuel, if you can take off and be ready to fight within minutes. The US maybe used to have plenty of it, but other countries in war had to make choices. Why do you think the spitfire wasn't carrying a bigger amount of fuel and fly permanent patrols to intercept the bombers faster? British, just like the german and just like the russians, had to deal with the situation in the most cost-effective way they could.

Rarely have you plane caracteristics that come by hasard. It aways a choice to be made. And that choice is always based on an analysis of the situation the plane is expected to meet, and the role it's expected to play.

#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

Slickun!

We still owe each other a flame war on F4U-4 vs P-51H.... one day.

PS the tactic was a Kuban wheel IIRC. But the point of it was also to allow better coverage of your flight partners- ie the 109 can't saddle up your 6 because there is always a person behind you in the circle for cover. There as also a Kuban step where you layered the flights 1,000 meters above each other for a cohesive defense of the ground attack planes.

Never heard of ground controllers as FAC in WWII. Do you have any records of it? I read the accounts of the USAAF in Italy and N africa and never saw anything.

Slickun, I never said the planes didn't wait armed for the call to take off to combat. what I did say was that they wouldn't just take off, and fly patrolling just in case someone needed them. btw, I guess they had their hands full anyway, taking off hitting the enemy, landing rearming and taking off again...

Too Cool, I think we agree pretty much on stuff here.

BL, I don't need no stinking H model, I'll take you on with the B/C/D model if you want too. Using the H makes it a wipeout.

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

Slicksun calm down

it was sorrow who challenged you!

but gimme a F4U-4B and I am in the fight anytime you want, and if you take one of those lowly early Ponies, fine, a early Bent wing ******* will do in this case either

Corsair lovers and Pony smackers UNITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BL

Senility strikes again! Sorry, BL.

But, you must admit, BL, it could have just as easily come from you :-)

Let her rip, Sorrow...I'm ready. BTW, don't use that article in Flight magazine,or whatever it was, that asked if the -4 was the best fighter bomber of the war, and proceded to compare it to the Mustang. It got very, very many things wrong.

Anyway, it might be a bettr place for it than here, like the EAW forum. I mean, if you really want to...

How did we get off on this? lol

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

[This message has been edited by Slickun (edited 09-11-2002).]