Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Which were the best fighters of WW2?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Friday, 11th June 2010
MOst of the nations involved in WW2 produced some memorable planes. Which do you think were the best of them from each?
In my opinion:-
Japan: Zero and a later plane, not used very much.
Germany: Me 109, Focke Wulf 190
US: P51, P47, P38 and perhaps the P40
U.K.: Spitfire, Hurricane, Mosquito, Typhoon.
USSR: Yak20?, Mig-9
Italy, France: Do not recall.
Czechoslovakia, Poland, Netherlands, Norway , Finland: who supplied aircraft to these countries on the eve of WW2? Probably France or Britain.
Tas -
Message 2
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 11th June 2010
Tas, you would have to add at what time during the war. The Spitfire was the only one (In different marks) to see service from before the war and right up to and past the end of it. The Mustang owes its performance to the same engine. Its first engine wasn't really a world beater. In the far east, the Corsier was almost unbeatable, but it must be said that by the time it came on line, Japan had lost most of its better pilots. Those they faced were mostly under trained, but when the Corsier pilots came up against more seasoned ones they had a real fight on their hands. Any allied pilot that tried to mix it with them was likely to end up dead, no matter what plane they flew. If they stuck to the dive shoot and scoot, the allied planes would win most times, even the likes of the Hurricane could hold its own against the Zero if they dived shot and scoot, but if they tried to dog fight, they were dead meat. The F190 was one of the best.
-
Message 3
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Friday, 11th June 2010
Many of the smaller countries built their own fighters. France and Britain did not export much to other countries in the late 1930s, because they needed every modern aircraft themselves. The USA exported a bit more, because its re-armament started late, and meanwhile its aircraft builders really needed that export market to stay afloat. Norway bought Curtiss Hawk 75s from the USA, while Finland operated the Brewster Buffalo, and before that the Dutch Fokker D.XXI. Poland also exported fighters, in the form of the P.24, an export model of its P.11.
Czechoslovakia's most numerous fighter in 1938 was the Avia B.435 biplane. Poland was relying even in 1939 on the PZL P.11, an obsolescent, small gull-winged fighter. The Netherlands were mostly equipped with the Fokker D.XXI, a rather old-fashioned monoplane fighter with fixed landing gear, and a handful more modern Fokker G.1 twin-engined twin-boom fighters. Rumania built the IAR.80 and 81.
France's best fighter in 1940 was the Dewoitine D.520, not really in the class of a Bf 109 or Spitfire, but a good fighter in the hands of a capable pilot. Second best was the Bloch MB.152, not a really successful fighter.
Italy did not manage to focus and throughout the war maintained three fighter families, built by Fiat (G.50, G.55), Macchi (MC.200, MC.202, MC.205) and Reggiane (Re.2000, Re.2001, Re.2005). Any attempt to rationalize production was stifled by the fierce rivalry between the manufacturers.
The USSR relied mostly on the Yakovlev Yak family (Yak-1, Yak-3, Yak-7, Yak-9, all closely related) and the Lavochkin types (LaGG-3, La-5, La-7). The Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-1 and MiG-3 were present in significant numbers in 1941, but production was ended fairly soon to make more Mikulin engines available for the Il-2. And of course the old Polikarpov I-16 was still in widespread service in 1941, and even the I-153 biplane.
Japan of course had two entirely independent air forces, Army and Navy; the Army operated the Nakajima Ki.43 'Oscar' at about the same time as the Navy operated the Mitsubishi A6M 'Zeke' <>. The Army was more successful in getting new types, such as the Ki.44, Ki.61 and Ki.84. -
Message 4
Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Friday, 11th June 2010
Tas, you missed out the Hawker Tempest - considered by some to be the apogee of the piston-engined fighter because of its speed and capabilities.
The Hawker Typhoon was a fighter-bomber which I seem to recall had similar capabilities to the North American Thunderbolt. Both aircraft did sterling service before and after D-Day. -
Message 5
Posted by ambi (U13776277) on Friday, 11th June 2010
"The Spitfire was the only one (In different marks) to see service from before the war and right up to and past the end of it."
Surely the Me109 also did all this? Additionally it used essentially the same engine, was produced in greater numbers than any other fighter and was flown by the highest scoring fighter ace (Hartmann). -
Message 6
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Friday, 11th June 2010
What more can I add? Except to say that when Eric Brown tested the Reggiane and Macchi fighters produced just before the Italian surrender he found them pretty good (they had DB601 derived engines I think which helped a lot). Also...to be controversial he also highly rated the Grumman Hellcat as being as tough as old boots and perfectly designed for carrier use..things that are not so sexy as top speed...but I think a lot of FAA pilots might of chosen the Hellcat over the Seafire on a misty raining winters day in a rough sea and marginal conditions.....
-
Message 7
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Friday, 11th June 2010
Hi LG, Mutatis,
LG, how could I forget the Hawker Tempest? That was the plane the Brits left with the Indian Air force in 1947. I saw it an an air display. I sat in its cockpit. It was a very fine plane, eventually overtaken by the Fury.
The Typhoon was a great plane in a dive. If it got above its adversary and then dove down on it, it could be lethal.
Mutatis thanks for clarifying all about the air forces of the smaller countries of Europe and about Japan.
In the Pacific war, also very good were the Corsair and the Hellcat. Both have been mentioned in this string.
Tas -
Message 8
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Saturday, 12th June 2010
In filtering the successful from fighter aircraft from the unsuccessful, then as now you have to consider two elements. The first is the specification drawn up by the customer air force, with its built-in assumptions about the nature of future combat. Most WWII fighters had been designed before the war, so success in this depended on foresight and luck in almost equal measures. For example, before the war a fair amount of time and money was invested in "light fighters", aircraft designed to be small and light enough to get good performance out of engines in the 500-750 hp range; the war quickly demonstrated that this was a dead end as such aircraft just couldn't carry the guns, armor, fuel and equipment to fly the mission.
The second is the technical success the designer achieved in implementing that specification, given the available means, and perhaps adding in some extra flexibility. For example, the Typhoon was the victim of a technical failure, although one for which the design team didn't carry direct responsibility. Wind tunnels of the 1930s and 1940s gave generally unreliable information at transonic speeds, because the building shock waves "choked" the tunnel. Hence Hawker's design team was given aerodynamic data that suggested that a fairly thick wing would be acceptable for high-speed flight. (Westland suffered similarly with its Welkin.) This error ruined the high-altitude performance of the new fighter, which initially was also handicapped by the rather unreliable Sabre engine and a series of crashes due to the failure of elevator balance weights. The aircraft redeemed itself by its good performance at low levels, and its powerful engine and rugged structure made it a good tactical fighter-bomber. The error in wing design was corrected in the Tempest.
In the case of the Vought F4U Corsair and Grumman F6F Hellcat, the responsibility for success or failure also lay largely with the design team, although there was a complicating factor. Vought's team, headed by Rex Beisel, optimized their design for speed, in the process compromising some desirable characteristics for carrier operation, such as a good forward view for landing. But things got worse when the Navy changed its requirements in response to combat experience in Europe, and guns, fuel tanks and cockpit had to be relocated to different positions. The result, in late 1942, was a fast fighter which was unacceptable for carrier operations. Only after a series of modifications did the F4U become an acceptable deck-landing aircraft, but that was in the spring of 1944. Hence the F4U was at best a partial success as a wartime carrier fighter, but it proved its value in the hands of the USMC, operating from land bases in the Pacific.
Grumman's design team had given carrier-compatibility a higher priority, and with the F6F they made a modern fighter with excellent deck-landing characteristics available to the fleet in early 1943. In contrast to the F4U, the F6F needed few changes to make it combat-ready for the Navy. It wasn't as fast as the F4U, nor would it ever be developed to carry the same bomb loads, but it was the fighter the USN needed at the time: A forgiving, effective and immensely rugged fighter that outclassed the Japanese fighters of the period.
Besides the single-engined fighters, there was of course also the category of twin-engined fighters. Some ugly things have been said of these, but there was a lot of variation in this category. It ranged from the Lockheed P-38, which in its final form could do anything a single-engined fighter could do (just at higher cost); the Bf 110, Beaufighter and fighter versions of the Mosquito, which proved to be highly versatile and successful in all roles other than daylight air-superiority fighter; and utterly pointless monstrosities such as the Lockheed XP-58 and Arado Ar 240. -
Message 9
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 13th June 2010
Hi Mutatis,
We don't hear much about the Me-110? How was this as a fighter? I suspect it lacked maneuverability. Did it have any advantages that the single-engined fighters did not? How was its speed and service ceiling? How did it fare as a night fighter?
What were they main features of a Night-fighter in those days?
Did Britain have a Night-fighter, or did the Spits and Hurricanes do double duty as Night-fighters?
In view of the shortage of aircraft in the early days of the blitz, was a particular Spit assigned to a specific pilot or did you just take the Spit that was available, in those days?
Tas -
Message 10
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Sunday, 13th June 2010
What were they main features of a Night-fighter in those days?Β
A two-man crew,pilot and radar operator, would be the minimum,three in the case of the P-61.Heavy firepower to deliver a killing shot in a short time and fast enough to overtake a bomber.
Did Britain have a Night-fighter, or did the Spits and Hurricanes do double duty as Night-fighters?Β
Boulton-Paul Defiants, afer being mauled in day fighting, were redeployed as night fighters.The Bristol Beaufighter was the RAF's first real night fighter and was equipped with the A1 radar set.
The Bf 110 Zerstorer was successful as a nightfighter. Equipped with Lichtenstein SN-2 radar and "Schrage Musik"-cannon mounted on top of the fuselage,firing obliquely upwards,enabling the fighter to fire into the bomber's unprotected underside. The leading night fighter ace, Heinz Wolfgang-Schnauffer 121 kills,flew a 110. -
Message 11
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Sunday, 13th June 2010
The 110 was a good nightfighter - having all the characteristics required of the type at the time. Docile handling, reliable engines, roomy cockpit, space for 2. It didn't have to be amazingly fast, only faster than the heavy bombers (I thik it was a fraction faster than a Hurricane). It had heavy armament, plust the Jazz Music installation later on. Roomy fuselage to accomodate the bulky radar sets of the time.
If you have a chance get hold of the book "The Night Fighters" by CF Rawnsley and Robert Wright. Its great in the way it evokes the atmosphere of those early radar interceptions. -
Message 12
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Sunday, 13th June 2010
In the first years of the war, the Bf 110 was effective as a fighter as long as it was employed in a tactically offensive role -- fighter-bomber, interceptor, night-fighter. It had a credible performance, being almost as fast as a Spitfire and faster than a Hurricane, and good handling. It was maneuverable for its size, and compared to the single-engined interceptors of its day it had superior armament and radius of action. But its employment as a long-range escort fighter was foolish because it couldn't manoeuvre with a single-engined fighter. In later years the design clearly showed its age, as because of the failure of the Me 210, it had to be kept in service too long.
Before the introduction of airborne radar, British nightfighters tended to be day fighters operating at night: Hurricanes with a few adaptations, such as shields over the exhausts to protect the pilot's night vision against the exhaust glare. Defiants were also moved to night-fighter service after they proved unsuitable for use at day. The situation wasn't any different in Germany, which at first relied on squadrons equipped with the obsolescent Bf 109D.
The introduction of the first airborne radars, AI Mk.IV radar in Britain and FuG 212 Lichtenstein C-1 in Germany, required a different type of aircraft. Above all it needed to be bigger, to carry a bulky radar and a dedicated radar operator. The RAF at first converted the long-range fighter version of the Bristol Blenheim, the Mk.IF, to the nightfighter role. The Luftwaffe did the same with the Bf 110.
The Bf 110 was an effective nightfighter in the first half of the war. By 1944 the airframe was no longer able to bear the ever-increasing burden of electronic gear and armament, and its performance edge of the British bombers became marginal. The Luftwaffe then gradually phased it out in favor of the larger, more powerful Junkers Ju 88G.
The Blenheim was retired from the nightfighter role much sooner, and replaced first by the Bristol Beaufighter and later by the night-fighter models of the Mosquito. The latter, equipped with the British AI Mk.VIII or the American AI Mk.X, were the best nightfighters of the war. The handling characteristics suffered by the steady addition of heavy new equipment, but these aircraft were well-armed, fast, and carried excellent radar sets.
Apart from radar and a radar operator, nightfighters carried a complex set of electronic equipment to detect enemy radar and radio transmissions, IFF equipment to Identify Friend from Foe, and navigation gear. They also needed heavy armament, because firing opportunities at night were brief, good performance to be able to manoeuvre themselves in a firing position, and good endurance because missions tended to be relatively long. It all called for a relatively big but well-streamlined aircraft with powerful engines. Equally desirable was the ability to operate as "intruders", attacking enemy airfields at night, and this called for the ability to carry a decent bomb load.
There were, however, also a number of attempts to convert single-seat fighters into radar-equipped nightfighters. Experiments in Germany and Britain were not very successful, but the USN persevered because it really needed a nightfighter and its existing carriers could not accommodate twin-engined fighters. This lead to the F6F-5N, with a small radar set installed near the right wingtip: These small AN/APS-6 sets were not as capable as the large SCR-720 a.k.a. AI Mk.X, but they gave the USN a useful capacity for night combat. (Conversions of the F4U were also tested, but the Navy preferred the F6F because it was easier to fly.)
The USAAF also converted a number of single-seat P-38 fighters to the nightfighter role using the APS-4 radar. This happened mostly because when the first dedicated nightfighter, the P-61 Black Widow, became operational in the middle of 1944 it was found to be a bit too sluggish to perform well in its intended role, although it was a capable and well-equipped aircraft. The fault was mostly the air force's, as this had written a specification that resulted in an aircraft that was too complex and too big. Anyway, fast Japanese bombers could outrun a P-61, so the USAAF adapted P-38s by equipping them with small radar sets, achieving modest success. -
Message 13
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 14th June 2010
Hi Mutatis,
One of my favorite planes has long been ignored; the wooden construction Mosquito, which apparently had many roles and carried out each one quite well.
Could you tell us a little about that plane; how it came to be constructed of wood, what its many roles were and how it performed as a bomber, as a night fighter, as a reconnaissance aircraft, etc.
Tas -
Message 14
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Monday, 14th June 2010
Tas the Mosquito was build of laminated monocoque timber becaue DeHavilland were intimately familiar with the technique, in fact they pioneered the technique. It was used on the Swallow airliner and in the Comet racer.
The Mozzie itself was a response to a typically conservative air min spec that called for a fast turreted bomber. DH thought that idea was already dead in the water, so pushed ahead with the DH98 fast unarmed bomber. The Mosquito. I could write more but we have visitors..... -
Message 15
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Monday, 14th June 2010
Tas I can at least partly answer your question; in every role the Mosquito took on it was excellent, probably with the exception of day fighter but that was stretching it a bit!
As a bomber it forshadowed pretty much all strike aircraft since in that they had to be reasonably fast. It carried a good bomb load for its size, out to a decent range, and at night the loss rate was very low. In daylight attacks it was superb and offered a pretty good chance of survival; like it or not no matter how many guns are on a heavy bomber survival in day when there are fighters about is problematic, but with the Mossies speed things could happen so fast defenders didn't know what hit them and empty Mosquitoes could sometimes just pull away from pursuing fighters with sheer speed.
It was probably the best nightfighter of the war, the only rival at all the Hienkel 219...
Anti shipping strikes were deadly with rockets, bombs and 4 x 20mm cannon, the German shipping was terrorized...
It was the forerunner of the Multi Role Combat Aircraft. Succeded by the Canberra, which is the same concept with jets... -
Message 16
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 14th June 2010
Hi Sceptical,
I think it had one more role: that of a Reconnaissance aircraft, and I believe it excelled at that as well. It looks a great aircraft. Its speed was over 400 m.p.h. when everything else was around 50 to 75 m.p.h slower.
Nice aircraft; nice design!
No one else went for wood at that period; did the wood help in getting its phenomenal air speed?
Tas -
Message 17
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Wednesday, 16th June 2010
Power to weight ratio must have something to do with it.
The main reason I can't seem to work up to a gallop myself these days. . . -
Message 18
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Wednesday, 16th June 2010
A lot of it has to do with the engines available - the Dewotine 520 was a pretty good aircraft for the time, but was underpowered. The amount of excellent aircraft powered by;
Rolls Royce Merlin
Daimler Benz 601 family
BMW801 series
Pratt & Whitney Double Wasp
was legion, and the engines had a big say in how sucessful they were. -
Message 19
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Thursday, 17th June 2010
The Soviets made extensive use of wood in fighter construction, in particular impregnated and molded birch plywood. Others used wood as a "non-strategic" alternative to metal construction. And of course Focke-Wulf produced a wooden Ta 154 'Moskito'.
As a structural material, wood has its advantages, but the big disadvantage that the strength of a wooden plank is not consistent in the same way the strength of a metal beam is: The designers have to take a larger safety margin. And the experience of WWI had shown that high-quality wood for aircraft construction rapidly became scarce. The use of wood in WWII aircraft required new ways to use the material, in a way consistent with mass production, by averaging out the variability in its strength. The Mosquito used a sandwich of balsa between two layers of plywood, not unlike the modern approach of surrounding a foam core with a composite material.
An advantage of wood was that it permitted a very high surface finish, reducing drag compared to metal, at least until flush riveting and spot-welding were adopted throughout. The Mosquito benefited directly from De Havilland's experience in the construction of the DH.91 Albatross. The other argument for using wood was that it was a safeguard for potential shortages of metal and metal-workers.
But nevertheless, I think it would have been perfectly feasible to build an all-metal aircraft with similar performance characteristics. The Ju 88 came close, and so did some Japanese light bombers. -
Message 20
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 17th June 2010
Of course, a number of designs which might well have proved succesful were dropped later on because of the imminent arrival of the jet enginge - the Spiteful/Seafang line for one, and the "Tempest Light Fighter (Centaurus)" which later morphed into the Sea Fury.
It's a common misconception that the Spit and the Stringbag were the only British types to serve throughout the war, by the way - a number of other types did so, though not in "front line" service - and comparing the later models of Spitfire with Griffon engines with those of 1939 is a bit like comparing late type WV Beetles with the originals - not one single part remained unchanged. -
Message 21
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 22nd June 2010
ambi, you are right with the 109, I was thinking more of allied A/C. Sorry I took so long to answer, we've been away and I am now plowing through my back e mail.
GF -
Message 22
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Tuesday, 22nd June 2010
I'd rate the Beaufighter (incidentally that was preceeded by the Blenheim as a night fighter) as a better shipping strike aircraft than the Mossie - the additional .303 forward firing Mgs helped in suppressing flak to a great extent, and the ability to carry a full-sized torpedo in the TF10 was more than useful.
-
Message 23
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Tuesday, 22nd June 2010
It's almost impossible to answer that question Tas because it depends on what the plane was designed for and where it did its best work.
For e.g., the Spitfire Mk 14 could outperform the P-51 in almost every respect save one, and that one respect rendered it useless for the job the P-51 was designed to do. The Spitfire was a short-range interceptor and it was excellent at that job. The P-51 was designed as a long range escort at which the Spitfire was useless. The P-38 was not particularly impressive as a fighter in the European theatre where the Spitfires and Hurricanes did their best work. On the distaff side, neither the Spitfire nor the Hurricane could handle the acrobatic Japanese fighters, whereas the P-38 was deadly against the Zekes and Oscars.
The P-47 Thunderbolt was extremely good in a fighter-bomber, ground-support role because it's radial engine could take the beating from small arms fire that a liquid-cooled inline engine couldn't. A hit in the cooling system and the Hurri-bombers, Typhoons, P-51's and Tempests were goners. P-47's often returned from ground attacks with their engines badly shot-up. In the right hands the P-47 was a good high-altitude, fighter-vs-fighter a/c, but it took a truly great pilot to handle it in that role whereas a pilot who was good but not necessarily great could do very well in a Spit or a P-51 in that same capacity.
The Japanese Zeke was a wonder in the hands of a good flier, and in a dogfight at low or medium altitude could outperform any of the allied a/c, but was helpless against the much heavier and less manoeuverable P-38 when the latter was properly handled.
My cousin, who flew just about every WW2 fighter enjoyed flying the P-47 more than any other plane. He liked the big, roomy cockpit and what he called the ''sewing machine purr'' of the engine, but he noted it was an extremely heavy a/c and that huge P&W engine was so heavy, one drove the engine and the air-frame followed it. He loved the lightness and wonderful responsiveness of the Spitfire, but said the Spit-5 couldn't dive worth a hoot and the FW-190 and the Me-109 could both out-dive and out-climb it.
He didn't like the Me 109 because he said the cockpit was small and crowded (he was a big man) and the visibility was terrible. He loved flying the FW-190 and he particularly liked its take-off and landing characteristics, neither of which were at all nice in the Me-109. He said in his opinion, in a dogfight with a P-51 the edge went to which ever pilot was a: luckier and b: knew his a/c better.
He said if he were ever to buy a ww2 fighter for his own private use, it would be the Zero because it was a dream to fly, burned very little fuel, and had an almost unbelievable range. As a fighter, however, he said he would have resisted getting into one because they were so flimsy compared to their allied counterparts.
I guess one derives from all this is that which fighter was best depends on what the pilot was called upon to do with the fighter, and what it had to fight against. -
Message 24
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 24th June 2010
Hi Ross,
Thanks for your very fine in-depth perspective on all the fighters of WW2. It made great reading.
In the case of the Korean war, in which you were involved, what were the planes flown by the RCAF? Did they ever use the single-engine propeller-driven planes, like the Fury' the P-51 or did they immediately start to use the jets of that early period, like the Thunderjet, the Meteor, etc.
What was flying like in The Korean War? How good were the North-Korean pilots? And how good was the Mig-15 compared to, say, the Sabre F-86.
Was there a great deal of aerial combat like in WW2?
Tas -
Message 25
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 24th June 2010
Tas :
The Royal Navy were using piston enginned aircraft exclusively - Fireflys, Sea Furies etc -including for the bombing of the bridges at Toko-Ri (ignore the film on that). I've seen Carmichael's Sea Fury in which he shot down a Mig-15. Korea saw the last operational use by British forces of a biplane - the Sea Otter as an air-sea rescue aircraft, and then, in the same role, their first use of a helicopter, the Dragonfly. -
Message 26
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Friday, 25th June 2010
Hi Tas;
Keep in mind, Tas, that I was in the army, not the air command so all that I now of the air war is the result of 8 missions in B-26s flown with the USAF as an observer and what I was told by others.
The RCAF did have a transport group over there and I know a lot of our supplies were flown in by RCAF transports (most Northstars I think), but I don't recall that we had any combat groups actually fighting as an RCAF unit. I know there was one group of RCAF fliers who were assigned to a USAF squadron in Korea and I'm pretty sure they flew F-86's, but they might have been with an F-84 squadron. Don't know how many of them there were or how they fared.
I do recall the Aussies had a couple of squadrons of F-51 fighters there in the early part of the war because they flew a lot of support missions for the ground forces, but I think they were switched to meteors before long.
I have no idea what the RN did. I know they were there, but that's all.
That same cousin I referred to above flew the Harvard (called the AT-6 by the USAF) in Korea as a spotter plane so he didn't see any actual jet-to-jet combat. He did, however, talk to several US fighter pilots and they said the MIG could climb faster and turn tighter than the F-86 but the 86 could dive a whole lot better and had a tighter roll rate (not sure if that's an advantage). He also said the rate of fire of the MIG's cannon was very slow - again, not sure how much of an advantage that is for the allied fliers. He added that the general feeling amongst the US pilots was that the North Korean/Chinese pilots were not very good. -
Message 27
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Friday, 25th June 2010
The Royal Navy (RN) usually had at least one aircraft carrier on station during the war. Glory, Ocean, Theseus and Triumph, supported by Unicorn (a maintenance and aircraft transport carrier which mostly operated as a ferry carrier to & from Japanese ports). The Australian carrier HMAS Sydney also took part, alternating with the RN vessels, which provided the only British fighter planes to take part in the war. The only front-line unit from a Commonwealth air force RAAF 77 Squadron initially flew P-51 Mustang fighters and later converted to Gloster Meteor jets. British and Canadian aircrews also served with the RAAF. The only RAF contribution was a wing of Short Sunderland based in Japan.
-
Message 28
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Saturday, 26th June 2010
Urn,
There was one other Commonwealth,at the time, squadron involved.Number 2 Squadron of the South African Air Force, operating Mustangs, and from March 1953, Sabres.
..................
Regarding the Sabre, there is a belief that XP-86 test pilot,George Welch, went supersonic in a dive some days before Chuck Yeager in the X-1 -
Message 29
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Saturday, 26th June 2010
Could be true Tri, however I'd always give Yeager the credit as he did it in level (maybe even climbing) flight.
I have a book about the RAAF by George Odgers that has quite a good chapter on Korea. There is a picture of pilot Lou Spence from 77 Sqdn with some wire that the North Koreans strung out to stop low level strafing missions. He picked some up but made it home OK. Later as they say they switched to Meteors which were inferior jet vs jet, but pretty handy at ground attack with a whole load of rockets under the wings. Somewhere I have read that the RAF may have been better in 1945 using the Meatbox as ground attack, and the Vampire as the dogfighter.... -
Message 30
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Saturday, 26th June 2010
Hi Scotty,
Yes,Yeager's was in level flight and he had the ground measuring instruments to prove it,which Welch didn't.
A well flown Mig-15 was a handful even for the Sabre. A number of Soviet pilots became aces during the Korean War.Nicknamed "Honchos" by the US pilots,they were the most dangerous of the Communist pilots.
Like the story about the barbed wire. -
Message 31
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Saturday, 26th June 2010
In a dogfight, roll rate is highly important for a fighter, mostly because it determines how quickly a fighter can enter or leave a turn; or how quickly it can enter an inverted dive.
When the swept-wing jet fighters entered combat in Korea, the MiG-15 was slightly superior to the F-86A in most aspects of performance, primarily because it had a better power-to-weight ratio. Partly thanks to the Klimov VK-1 engine, a development of the Rolls-Royce Nene (generously supplied by the British government after the end of WW2). The F-86A only had a performance advantage in a dive and at low altitude. (The later F-86F, with a more powerful engine and changes to wing and tail, was at least the equal of the MiG-15.)
On the other hand, the F-86 was better equipped and had superior handling characteristics, especially at high speed. While the Sabre's accident rate was astronomical by later standards, it was a more forgiving aircraft than the MiG-15; a fair number of the latter were lost when poorly trained pilots simply lost control and opted to eject. One important characteristic of a great fighter is that even an inexperienced fighter pilot can fly it with confidence, executing combat maneuvers without having to fear that his own aircraft will kill him; by this standard the F-86 was a great fighter (so were the Spitfire and the Fokker D.VII) but the MiG-15 was not.
Besides, the American pilots were far better trained than their counterparts, with the exception of a number of Soviet 'advisors' who flew combat missions in Korea.
As for armament, the F-86 had six .50 machine guns, just like most American fighters of WWII, except that the guns fitted where the fast-firing Browning .50 M3. Against the sturdily built MiG-15 this distinctly lacked hitting power, and numerous MiGs just absorbed the hits and flew home. (The USAAF initiated a program to install 20-mm cannon in its fighters.) On the other hand, the guns were accurate, and the Sabre was a good gunnery platform and had a better sight.
The MiG-15's armament had been optimized to destroy bombers rather than fighters (this was the time of the US nuclear monopoly) so it featured one 37-mm cannon and two 23-mm cannon. These guns had different trajectories and a relatively low rate of fire. At high speeds the early MiG-15s were directionally unstable, so they were not good gunnery platforms, and the sight was an unsophisticated affair. (The Soviets would later copy the Sabre's Mk.18 sight.)
The British Meteor and the US Navy fighters with their 20-mm cannon were all better armed than the F-86 or MiG-15, but that didn't offset the inferior performance of these straight-wing fighters.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.