RE: Corsair vs, Jug

RE: Corsair vs, Jug (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

LoBaron -> RE: Corsair vs, Jug (9/23/2014 8:33:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs A friend of mine called Robert Johnson (featured the story mentioned earlier) "Uncle Bob" as he was much older, although technically a cousin. He told me that when he was a small boy he had a few occasions to sit at Uncle Bob's knee and listen to stories of his experiences. It's a pretty good bet that he got to do that because the P-47 was the beast of a plane that it was! First I thought you are talking about Robert S. Johnson. Would have fit with Tbolts as a topic... [X(][:D]

witpqs -> RE: Corsair vs, Jug (9/23/2014 8:36:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs A friend of mine called Robert Johnson (featured the story mentioned earlier) "Uncle Bob" as he was much older, although technically a cousin. He told me that when he was a small boy he had a few occasions to sit at Uncle Bob's knee and listen to stories of his experiences. It's a pretty good bet that he got to do that because the P-47 was the beast of a plane that it was! First I thought you are talking about Robert S. Johnson. Would have fit with Tbolts as a topic... [X(][:D] You lost me... Maybe I worded that poorly. His "Uncle", actually older cousin, was the famous P-47 ace.

geofflambert -> RE: Corsair vs, Jug (9/23/2014 8:41:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs A friend of mine called Robert Johnson (featured the story mentioned earlier) "Uncle Bob" as he was much older, although technically a cousin. He told me that when he was a small boy he had a few occasions to sit at Uncle Bob's knee and listen to stories of his experiences. It's a pretty good bet that he got to do that because the P-47 was the beast of a plane that it was! First I thought you are talking about Robert S. Johnson. Would have fit with Tbolts as a topic... [X(][:D] You lost me... Maybe I worded that poorly. His "Uncle", actually older cousin, was the famous P-47 ace. witpqs, that baboon copyrighted his selfies, you must cease and desist using them. [:-]

witpqs -> RE: Corsair vs, Jug (9/23/2014 8:42:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs A friend of mine called Robert Johnson (featured the story mentioned earlier) "Uncle Bob" as he was much older, although technically a cousin. He told me that when he was a small boy he had a few occasions to sit at Uncle Bob's knee and listen to stories of his experiences. It's a pretty good bet that he got to do that because the P-47 was the beast of a plane that it was! First I thought you are talking about Robert S. Johnson. Would have fit with Tbolts as a topic... [X(][:D] You lost me... Maybe I worded that poorly. His "Uncle", actually older cousin, was the famous P-47 ace. witpqs, that baboon copyrighted his selfies, you must cease and desist using them. [:-] 1) He's not a baboon. 2) He lost in court. No copyright! 3) [image]local://upfiles/14248/00ECAF5786694B8A96AE0ED4DE5FF7E6.gif[/image]

Chris21wen -> RE: Corsair vs, Jug (9/23/2014 8:43:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert Now, why not consider the Typhoon/Tempest against the T-Bolt. It will lose but its (their) value should not be underestimated. Maybe theres a lesson here: that fighter names should begin with the letter T. Like t'hurricane, t'spitfire[:D]

wdolson -> RE: Corsair vs, Jug (9/23/2014 10:34:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton This is an excellent point. In war the power that economizes and refines production usually is the winner. This probably explains it better than anything else. The P38L was an excellent fighter but expensive as hell. Why build it when you can build a mustang? 5th AF pilots flying P-38s in the Pacific were racking up big scores. I believe the P-38J/L still had better range than the P-51 and definitely did it with a better margin of error. Having two engines when flying long over water trips was a solace to the pilots. The Twin Mustang was built to try and get some of the long range performance of the P-38 combined with the combat abilities of the P-51. It arrived too late and the technology was moving in a different direction when it did, but it did make a good night fighter in Korea. The US probably would have been better served if P-40 production was replaced with P-51 production by late 1943. Bill

sandlance -> RE: Corsair vs, Jug (9/23/2014 11:22:22 PM)
The P-51 and F4U stayed in active inventories after the war and more went into storage as the best piston engined fighter the respective services had. Most other aircraft were scrapped with only a few examples surviving. While the P-47 was a good ground attack plane, the Air Force didn't really want to support that role after the war and they retired many of their aircraft. The B-29 was reclassified as a "medium bomber" when the B-36 entered service. The attack bomber designation was dropped entirely. A lot of A-26s were brand new at the end of the war and many went into storage, but the thought was probably towards flogging them off to other countries. Because so many F-51s (re-designated in 1947), F4U, and A-26s were in storage or active duty with second line units (like national guard units) and some F4U still on the carriers, they could be activated for Korea. There were a few F-47 active service as squadron hacks or on special duties, but there were not enough left in inventory to fill out a squadron. The P-47 would have been better than the F-51 in the land attack role in Korea, but short sightedness had scrapped them all in a fit of "we don't do that any more". I agree with the P-47 being a better ground attack aircraft than the P/F-51. In the immediate post war the Army Air Force got rid of nearly everthing they didn"t need. The P-38's,P-47's were all maintenance intensive and surplus to there needs. That is why You can count the survivors of the 2 aircraft can be counted on the fingers of one hand. One P-38 was recovered from under the Greenland ice cap and restored.

wdolson -> RE: Corsair vs, Jug (9/23/2014 11:50:09 PM)
P-38s and P-47s have survived in a little better numbers than counting on one hand, unless you have massively deformed hands. I count 14 airworthy P-47s and 7 airworthy P-38ss on the Warbird Registry. There are many more on static display in museums around the world. http://www.warbirdregistry.org/ However, there are hundreds of P-51s still flying, though there aren't as many flyable F4U still out there. There are still quite a few Corsairs flyable though. A lot of the P-47s that survived were sold to Latin American air forces after the war and survived long enough for people to want them again. I once talked to a docent at the Chapman Fighter Museum (collection now owned by the Museum of Flight in Seattle). He was a USAAF pilot but came out of training too late to see any action. Instead, his first and pretty much only flight assignment was flying brand new, factory fresh P-40s to the scrapyard in Kingman, AZ. My father said he would have liked to buy some surplus aircraft after the war. He said you could get a P-47 for less than the cost of a car, though he didn't have the storage space. (At one point he and some friends owned a Rolls Royce that had belonged to a silent movie star, but they got to a point where they couldn't store it any longer and had to sell it. The car is now in some big collection in Nevada.) One of the few people who foresaw the future for warbirds was Edward Maloney who saved a lot of historic aircraft, mostly for the movie industry. At one point he had the only Me-262 in private hands. Bill

LoBaron -> RE: Corsair vs, Jug (9/24/2014 5:39:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs A friend of mine called Robert Johnson (featured the story mentioned earlier) "Uncle Bob" as he was much older, although technically a cousin. He told me that when he was a small boy he had a few occasions to sit at Uncle Bob's knee and listen to stories of his experiences. It's a pretty good bet that he got to do that because the P-47 was the beast of a plane that it was! First I thought you are talking about Robert S. Johnson. Would have fit with Tbolts as a topic... [X(][:D] You lost me... Maybe I worded that poorly. His "Uncle", actually older cousin, was the famous P-47 ace. This justifies another [X(]

AW1Steve -> RE: Corsair vs, Jug (9/24/2014 12:48:39 PM)
One point on the Coursair...it was still in production in 1953 (The A-1U version--pure attack bomber).

AW1Steve -> RE: Corsair vs, Jug (9/24/2014 12:58:53 PM)
After ww2 the USAF was committed to an "All jet force". But there wasn't enough jets for the reserve units. The F-51 was considered the "highest performance" of the WW2 types , as well as the newest and easiest to maintain. AND it was still in production (the P/F-51H). Parts are always much cheaper for an aircraft still in production , than one that is not. Republic and Lockheed had already shifted to jet fighter production , and North American was just working the bugs out of the F-86. (Not yet in production). So in 1948 the USAF's decision made sense from an economic stand point. The USN would have to make a similar decision 40+ years later....do we keep a more (in many ways) capable fighter (The F-14) that is killing us on maintenance costs , or go with a cheaper , multi-role plane (various marks of the F-18) which is cheap , in full production and smaller? And oh by the way , congress is "suggestion" we pick one. You don't always get the best. Sometimes you have to go with what you can afford. [:)]

Symon -> RE: Corsair vs, Jug (9/24/2014 6:02:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve One point on the Coursair...it was still in production in 1953 (The A-1U version--pure attack bomber). Gosh, oh my goodness. P-47 had a turbosupercharger for its R2800-8. Wicked stuff up high. Vmax was at a Crit Altitude ~ 30k. F4U had a 2-stage mechanical supercharger. Wicked stuff in the median. Vmax was at a Crit Altitude ~ 20k. Airplane performance is on the basis of "curves". You look at the "curves" and much is revealed. That's kinda, sorta, the basis of the AE airplane performance algorithm. [8D] JWE

AW1Steve -> RE: Corsair vs, Jug (9/24/2014 6:06:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Symon quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve One point on the Coursair...it was still in production in 1953 (The A-1U version--pure attack bomber). Gosh, oh my goodness. P-47 had a turbosupercharger for its R2800-8. Wicked stuff up high. Vmax was at a Crit Altitude ~ 30k. F4U had a 2-stage mechanical supercharger. Wicked stuff in the median. Vmax was at a Crit Altitude ~ 20k. Airplane performance is on the basis of "curves". You look at the "curves" and much is revealed. That's kinda, sorta, the basis of the AE airplane performance algorithm. [8D] JWE OK? And eactly what has that got to with my post? Did you quote me by accident or am I just too dense to figure the relationship. [&:]

Symon -> RE: Corsair vs, Jug (9/24/2014 6:11:09 PM)
And no, it wasn't a question of airframes in Korea. The political imperitives called up the Marine Reserves. They knew about Ground Support, They flew Corsairs. Thus, Corsairs are in the box. Ciao. JWE

Symon -> RE: Corsair vs, Jug (9/24/2014 6:23:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve OK? And eactly what has that got to with my post? Did you quote me by accident or am I just too dense to figure the relationship. [&:] I don't know. Nothing, probably. People say this and that and it's really hard to point to a specific post for a specific response. One one wants to say something, just who does one respond to? You got caught short and yes, a skoosh it-bay, oo-tay, ense-day, to figure out the lationship-trey. Woof. JWE

AW1Steve -> RE: Corsair vs, Jug (9/24/2014 6:45:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Symon quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve OK? And eactly what has that got to with my post? Did you quote me by accident or am I just too dense to figure the relationship. [&:] I don't know. Nothing, probably. People say this and that and it's really hard to point to a specific post for a specific response. One one wants to say something, just who does one respond to? You got caught short and yes, a skoosh it-bay, oo-tay, ense-day, to figure out the lationship-trey. Woof. JWE OK. I think I understand. What you are trying to tell us is that you started in early on the sauce today. [:D] Have one for me, Im still a couple of hours behind you.[:D] [:D]

Big B -> RE: Way OT - Korean Air War, 4 vs 6 (9/25/2014 3:40:27 AM)
Now that I have caught up to John and Steve on the sauce - this has been bugging me. In an old WitP thread we discussed (endlessly) Zero Vs Wildcat F4F. At one point I broke form the Allied fanboy orthodoxy ranks and offered the suggestion that - after reading Lundstrom's "The First Team", - it became clear to me that Japanese Doctrine was superior to Allied Fighter Doctrine of "Finger Four" in 1942 (borrowed from the Luftwaffe) and was largely responsible for early war successes of the A6M Zero vs Allied Fighters. To whit - the Japanese chose elements of 6 fighters as opposed to the Allies choice (excluding British Vics) of 4 fighter elements. I extrapolated that in any 'gunfight' the side that brings the most holds an advantage...at the very least - is never at a disadvantage for having more guys in the fight (excluding the factors of who has radios - etc). Well, after reading up on Korean War Air Combat, it surfaces again that during the period of 1951-1952 when the Soviets fielded their best formations of seasoned WW2 pilots - the Soviets had their greatest success against the F-86 Sabres. In no small measure was their success helped by flying fighters in formations of 6 opposed to 4. There were two Jimmy's in the USN Fighter ranks in early 1942 that proposed tactics changes...Jimmy Thatch (who wanted to impose his Finger 4 weave) and Jimmy Flatley (who proposed 6 aircraft elements after Coral Sea). We adopted Thatches Weave and Finger Four Schwarm tactics of the Luftwaffe. Flatley propose 3x pairs of Twos - the same as the Russian "Honchos" adopted in Korea. I find it ironic that the 6 plane flight proved superior in Korea - after Flatley proposed it in 1942... http://acepilots.com/russian/rus_aces.html quote: So, why did the Russian pilots in Korea scored so high? It is an interesting question, and it has more than a possible answer. One of them is because -at least in 1951- they were using better tactics: The Soviet fighters were guided to the air battlefield by good ground control, which directed them to the most advantageous position. The MiG-15s always operated in pairs, as part of a team called "the sword and the shield," with an attacking leader ("the sword") covered by a wingman ("the shield"). The squadrons operated in 6-plane groups, divided in 3 pairs, each composed of a leader and a wingman: The first pair ("the sword pair") of MiG-15s attacked the enemy Sabres. The second pair ("the shield pair") protected the first pair. The third pair remained above, with a panoramic view of how the battle evolved, supporting the "sword pair" or the "shield pair" depending the situation. This pair had more freedom than the others, because it could also attack targets of opportunity, such as lone Sabres that had lost their wingmen. Essentially - this is exactly what Flatley proposed before Midway...but Jimmy Thatch won the debate... Edit: So what I am suggesting is - the success of the A6M Zero in early 1942 was much more attributable to their tactics and numbers in every engagement - than to irreconcilable differences of stats of individual fighters encountered. B

LoBaron -> RE: Way OT - Korean Air War, 4 vs 6 (9/25/2014 8:06:40 AM)
While I agree with your general conclusions Big B (the ones about numbers), I think your summary is a mixup of two topics: Numerical superiority and structure of tactical elements. That a single flight of Finger Four is at a disadvantage against 2 3-plane Vics - or a typical 6 plane Honcho formation - is not surprising. It is a 4 vs. 6 fight. Then again, two flights of Finger Four would have the numerical advantage over 2 Vics or a single 6 plane Honcho style formation. You could extrapolate this ad infinitum and essentially what is debated is resources and nothing else. The basic discussion always has been one of efficiency, and there the two plane element proved superior to the 3 plane Vic in use of guns available. Noone denies that 3 planes will - disregarding all other elements of air combat - always have the advantage over two planes. But as long the number of planes on both sides is the same (e.g. 6, 12,...), the advantage is with the formation consisting of 2 plane elements as smallest tactical unit. The SU 6 plane formation consists of 3 2 plane elements tactically cooperating, which makes it superior to 2 3 plane Vics - both formations with the same number of planes. But extending the comparison to a Finger Four vs. a 6 plane formation is a line of thinking, which then suggests that the best counter to a Honcho would not be a another 6 plane formation but two Finger Four formations. Which you then could again outnumber by 2 Honshos. That doesn�t make much sense to me. The only way to compare the competitiveness of Honsho vs. Finger Four would be a comparision of 2 Honsho formations vs. 3 Finger Fours, so we arrive at a 12 vs. 12 situation. And with those numbers there are already so many other tactical variables at play which can influence the outcome of the air battle (still neglecting other factors like how many planes have to be launched from a CV deck to get a complete formation airborne) that it is next to impossible to arrive at a meaningful conclusion. Personally I think the extrapolation of the two plane element into larger formations by increasing by factor of 2 was the best approach for efficiency, simplicity, safety and flexibility.

Erkki -> RE: Corsair vs, Jug (9/25/2014 10:47:36 AM)
Re.flight simulator experience: P-47 is better in fighter vs. fighter combat thanks to the firepower, bug-out maximum dive speed and top speed(most models, most altitudes). They both fare poorly against pretty much anything Japanese in a duel, but have the edge in larger battles, as expected. Ki-84 and J2M are the toughest opponents as they are very fast. When it comes to German opponents... Bf 109 they can deal with as they are mostly slower and cant follow well through high speed manoeuvres with their lacking rate of roll and generally heavy control forces at high speeds(109 does still eat both for breakfast in a duel), but when meeting well flown Fw 190 you want to be in a P-47 and preferably somewhere else. P-47 really, really needs the numbers and altitude advantage as theres no margin of error. 190 can follow through every move that isnt P-47's famed super high speed dive. Historically numberd, position, altitude and training/experience advantaged were the reality most of the time, but at even odds imho for winning against Fw 190, especially the D-9, and not just cruising at 9 km+, one needs planes like P-51, Tempest and La-7 that can challenge the Fw 190 in a duel or many vs. many at any altitude.

Joe D. -> RE: Corsair vs, Jug (9/25/2014 12:06:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson P-38s and P-47s have survived in a little better numbers than counting on one hand ... However, there are hundreds of P-51s still flying, though there aren't as many flyable F4U still out there. There are still quite a few Corsairs flyable though. A lot of the P-47s that survived were sold to Latin American air forces after the war and survived long enough for people to want them again ... The Corsair that has been on display for decades at my local airport also came from South America; after years of weathering and seagull droppings it's getting a major refurbishing.

Lecivius -> RE: Corsair vs, Jug (9/25/2014 2:47:05 PM)
Just for argument, a Vic is a 3 plane formation. A 'finger 4' is a 2 pair (4 plane) formation. What the Soviets, and Flatley, proposed was a 'finger 6' if you will. Three 2 plane sections. The 'finger 4' was adopted because it was a more aggressive formation.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.703125