Corsair vs, Jug

[AW1Steve]

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: Symon

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]

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: Symon

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]

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

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]

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.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.

[decaro]

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]

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.