If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... In message , Mike writes The high-low mix was pioneered during WWII. Both the British and the U.S. stumbled onto the concept without quite realizing what they were doing. In the years before the war's outbreak, the British embarked on a crash program to build eight-gun fighters for the defense of the home islands. The premier model was the Supermarine Spitfire, one of the legendary combat aircraft of the 20th century. But the Spitfire was supplemented by the lesser-known but still capable Hawker Hurricane. The Hurricane could take on the primary German fighter, the Messerschmidt Bf -109, only with difficulty, Not particularly, as the histories show... the Spitfire 1A had the edge on the 109E, the Hurricane 1A was "merely" its equal. As the war went on and Spitfires appeared in more substantial numbers, the Hurricane took on the fighter-bomber role. So did the Spitfire and Seafi aircraft that had no value once the enemy air force was defeated, were of limited utility. I'd look with interest at the USN aircraft of the time: the newer air superiority fighters (Hellcats and Corsairs, then Bearcats and Tigercats) all got good at strafing, bombing and rocketing ground targets once they had shot down every flyable enemy aircraft. There's also the point that RAF procurement was far less linear of "high and low end fighter". Even during the Battle of Britain we had the Hurricane and Spitfire as fighters... plus unfortunate concepts that didn't work well such as the Defiant and the Blenheim IF, and a few Whirlwinds that were held back by engine trouble from their full potential. Later, we had "fighters" like the Beaufighter and Mosquito VI, which were fighters in the same way the F-105 was: powerful strike aircraft that were ill-advised to turn with a small, agile foe but could cruelly punish any enemy careless enough to get into their sights. We also had the Typhoon, designed as an air-superiority fighter but highly effective as a strike aircraft, the Tempest (was it the "high end" or "low end" compared to the Spitfire?) Coming into the '60s without a fighter to carry out its basic missions, the USAF was forced to purchase the F-4 Phantom II, developed on behalf of the enemy service, the U.S. Navy. While an excellent aircraft, the F-4 was in many ways the apotheosis of the fighter-bomber, too heavy and lacking the agility to fill the air- superiority role. During the liveliest parts of 1972, USN Phantoms killed six NVAF MiGs for every aircraft they lost to them, while the USAF managed a 2:1 ratio. (There are many factors in play for the difference, but it's curious how smiting two enemy for every loss is considered inadequate...) Also strange is describing the F-104 as an "indescribable and dangerous oddity" when it was the 1950s/1960s epitome of John Boyd's Light Weight Fighter designed in response to user requests post-Korea: a pared-down airframe optimised for speed, energy and agility, with useless wasteful boondoggles like long-ranged radar, advanced countermeasures, or sophisticated weapon-aiming systems left out to optimise the aircraft for high-speed dogfighting. Perhaps the USAF had no clear idea what it needed? The F-104 epitomised most of Boyd's ideals, yet its limited combat service in US hands was less than stellar. Similarly, the US operated the F-5, another austere, cheap, agile fighter that should have delighted Boyd, yet chose not to field it in large numbers at the frontline. Together, the F-15 and F-16 stand as the most effective fighter team on record. The F-15 compiled a kill ratio of 105 kills to zero losses. While the F-16's record was only half that, it more than effectively filled the swing role as the primary high-speed attack aircraft in theaters including Serbia and Iraq. Neither aircraft ever suffered a loss in air-to-air combat. However, getting there involved breaking most of Boyd's rules. Curiously, as late as "The Pentagon Paradox", Boyd's supporters were bewailing the manner in which the F-16 and F-18 were "ruined" by putting the "useless rubbish" back on them: the same useless equipment that allowed them to be worldbeating combat aircraft rather than manned target drones. It would appear that the high-low thesis is as well established as any military concept ever gets. What's the "low" option for the US Army's armoured forces? They have a very definite "high end" war-winner in the M1 Abrams, so where is the "low end" tank? Suppose, if things get hot, our 120 planes are facing five hundred, a thousand, or even more fifth-generation enemy fighters? (China today fields roughly 2,000 fighter aircraft.) What happens then? Shades of the 1980s when analysts breathlessly counted every Soviet tank that could possibly ever be fielded, looked at the latest and best, then pronounced that we faced "fifty thousand T-80 tanks". In fact we faced a few hundred T-80s, with a tail of older and less advanced vehicles, and a notional swarm of warehoused T-34s left over from the Second World War. Similarly, China's "2,000 fighters" are largely outdated relics - MiG-21 copies and the like - and China has at least the same constraints on replacing them one-for-one with modern aircraft as the US does with maintaining its 1970s numbers while increasing individual capability. Many of these Chinese aircraft will have trouble flying to Taiwan, let alone menacing any US interests less proximate. Unless the US plans to invade China, then the swarms of elderly Chinese warplanes are prisoners of their limited endurance. The F-22 is a ferociously expensive beast, though very capable with it. However, there is a good argument - though it falls apart against traditional politicans' short-sightedness - that the design and development is the key input to maintain capability, and that limited procurement in the face of a limited threat (what aircraft in hostile hands, flying today or in the next five years, can seriously discomfit a F-22?) is a pragmatic response to reality. The key, which will probably not happen, is to recognise that it's been a quarter-century since work started on the Advanced Tactical Fighter and that the next aircraft type needs to start work *now* to keep that skillbase together and have a candidate ready to buy in 2020 (if hurried) or 2030 (if no urgent issues arise). But simply bleating "buy more F-22s!" reads as industry lobbying rather than rational argument. The 109 was better than the Hurricane and the Spit and 109 were basically equals. the Spit is prettier British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB. as for aerial kill loss ratios, claims well exceed kills that is true for every war. Eric Hammel in his Books on Guadalcanal took a perverse delight in exposing Joe Foss's claims of kills as being hollow he cross referenced Foss'sclaims with Japanese records and found on several occasions when Foss had victories, especially multiple victories Japanese records showed no losses. and Joe wasn't the only over-claimer in the days of gunfighters speed, rate of climb and ceilling seemed to matter more than turning. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 00:54:20 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
wrote: The 109 was better than the Hurricane and the Spit and 109 were basically equals. the Spit is prettier The Spitfire and Hurricane were not isolated from one another - in order to make the Hurricane more competitive against the Bf109, they got the more powerful versions of the Merlin, with the Spitfire still able to be superior with the lower powered versions. This was one of Freeman's decisions to make best use of the available resources. British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB. Indeed, to say the least. Cheers, Paul Saccani, Perth, Western Australia |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
Paul Saccani wrote:
wrote: British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB. Indeed, to say the least. *Were* exaggerated, at the time, because of confusion (even though both sides were quite rigorous in their verification) and to help morale. We still won. The Germans also overclaimed - their intelligence system several times reported that the RAF was down to its last few aircraft. It's one reason why the appearance of the formed-up Big Wing on September 15th was such a shock. "Here they come again, the last 20 Spitfires..." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
"Alan Dicey" wrote in message o.uk... Paul Saccani wrote: wrote: British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB. Indeed, to say the least. *Were* exaggerated, at the time, because of confusion (even though both sides were quite rigorous in their verification) and to help morale. We still won. The Germans also overclaimed - their intelligence system several times reported that the RAF was down to its last few aircraft. It's one reason why the appearance of the formed-up Big Wing on September 15th was such a shock. "Here they come again, the last 20 Spitfires..." won? the British bombing German cities causing retaliation against London "won" the battle. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 09:58:27 +0000, Alan Dicey
wrote: Paul Saccani wrote: wrote: British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB. Indeed, to say the least. *Were* exaggerated, at the time, because of confusion (even though both sides were quite rigorous in their verification) and to help morale. Actually, the poms didn't exaggerate their claims to help moral. They understated their losses instead. Their exaggerated claims continue to be used even today. An interesting issue is that Hurricane units exaggerated their claims three times more than Spitfire units. And the biggest exagerators of them all were Defiant units. The motivations would appear to be more those of the individuals concerned than any official attempt to exagerate. Even today, those grotesque exagerations result in difficulties in understanding the lessons of the battle, particularly the relatively greater exageration by the Hurricane units versus Spitfire units, and by "Big Wing" formations versus the smaller formations. Even today, there are still people who think that the Balboas were a successful tactic. We still won. The Germans also overclaimed - their intelligence system several times reported that the RAF was down to its last few aircraft. They did, but your juxtaposition of the intelligence assessment is illogical. They thought they had dramatically curtailed production of fighter aircraft. They were mistaken. It's one reason why the appearance of the formed-up Big Wing on September 15th was such a shock. I would've said that the biggest shock was that it that it managed to be formed in time - that was only because of careless planning by the Germans, who neglected to make any feints and allowed their intentions to be clearly determined whilst they were still over France. You know the real losses were only 56 to 27, don't you? "Here they come again, the last 20 Spitfires..." Cheers, Paul Saccani, Perth, Western Australia |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
"Ray O'Hara" wrote in message
... The 109 was better than the Hurricane and the Spit and 109 were basically equals. the Spit is prettier British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB. During the Battle of Britain the RAF over claimed by about 2 to 1. If that is vastly exaggerated what does the Luftwaffe over claim of 3 to 1 for fighter kills and overall up to 5 to 1 when you count bomber claims, rate as? The RAF fighter force over claims over France in 1941, also up to 5 to 1? The USAAF heavy bomber gunner over claims were even higher, if 2 to 1 is vastly exaggerated what is the description for the bomber gunners? Generally the rule was the fewer the number of aircraft the more deadly the fight and the more accurate the claims, the larger the number of aircraft the safer the fight and the less accurate the claims. Hence the 12 Group Big Wing looked far more impressive at the time than it was. The reputation of the Spitfire started early, 1 July to 31 October 1940 the German fighter pilots claimed 1,266 Spitfires and 719 Hurricanes, something approaching the reverse of the 2 Hurricanes to 1 Spitfire present in Fighter Command. Geoffrey Sinclair Remove the nb for email. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message . au... "Ray O'Hara" wrote in message ... The 109 was better than the Hurricane and the Spit and 109 were basically equals. the Spit is prettier British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB. During the Battle of Britain the RAF over claimed by about 2 to 1. If that is vastly exaggerated what does the Luftwaffe over claim of 3 to 1 for fighter kills and overall up to 5 to 1 when you count bomber claims, rate as? The RAF fighter force over claims over France in 1941, also up to 5 to 1? The USAAF heavy bomber gunner over claims were even higher, if 2 to 1 is vastly exaggerated what is the description for the bomber gunners? Generally the rule was the fewer the number of aircraft the more deadly the fight and the more accurate the claims, the larger the number of aircraft the safer the fight and the less accurate the claims. Hence the 12 Group Big Wing looked far more impressive at the time than it was. The reputation of the Spitfire started early, 1 July to 31 October 1940 the German fighter pilots claimed 1,266 Spitfires and 719 Hurricanes, something approaching the reverse of the 2 Hurricanes to 1 Spitfire present in Fighter Command. Geoffrey Sinclair Remove the nb for email. Bombers would overclaim because several bombers would claim the same kill. one wonders how much damge B-17s did to each other. especially the waist gunners. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
"Ray O'Hara" wrote in message
... "Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message . au... "Ray O'Hara" wrote in message ... The 109 was better than the Hurricane and the Spit and 109 were basically equals. the Spit is prettier British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB. During the Battle of Britain the RAF over claimed by about 2 to 1. If that is vastly exaggerated what does the Luftwaffe over claim of 3 to 1 for fighter kills and overall up to 5 to 1 when you count bomber claims, rate as? The RAF fighter force over claims over France in 1941, also up to 5 to 1? The USAAF heavy bomber gunner over claims were even higher, if 2 to 1 is vastly exaggerated what is the description for the bomber gunners? Generally the rule was the fewer the number of aircraft the more deadly the fight and the more accurate the claims, the larger the number of aircraft the safer the fight and the less accurate the claims. Hence the 12 Group Big Wing looked far more impressive at the time than it was. The reputation of the Spitfire started early, 1 July to 31 October 1940 the German fighter pilots claimed 1,266 Spitfires and 719 Hurricanes, something approaching the reverse of the 2 Hurricanes to 1 Spitfire present in Fighter Command. Bombers would overclaim because several bombers would claim the same kill. one wonders how much damge B-17s did to each other. especially the waist gunners. Since you describe over claiming by 2 to 1 as "vastly exaggerated" could you please indicate what 3 to 1, 5 to 1 and more than 5 to 1 should be described as. When I did a basic check of cause of loss of B-17s in the 8th Air Force something like 3 were listed as lost to other B-17s. How many USAAF were damaged by fellow bomber's gunners is rather hard to determine, given the damage done by the German fighters that caused the bomber gunners to open fire in the first place. Geoffrey Sinclair Remove the nb for email. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 9, 11:21*am, "Ray O'Hara" wrote:
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message . au... "Ray O'Hara" wrote in message ... The 109 was better than the Hurricane and the Spit and 109 were basically equals. the Spit is prettier British aerial *victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB. During the Battle of Britain the RAF over claimed by about 2 to 1. If that is vastly exaggerated what does the Luftwaffe over claim of 3 to 1 for fighter kills and overall up to 5 to 1 when you count bomber claims, rate as? *The RAF fighter force over claims over France in 1941, also up to 5 to 1? *The USAAF heavy bomber gunner over claims were even higher, if 2 to 1 is vastly exaggerated what is the description for the bomber gunners? Generally the rule was the fewer the number of aircraft the more deadly the fight and the more accurate the claims, the larger the number of aircraft the safer the fight and the less accurate the claims. *Hence the 12 Group Big Wing looked far more impressive at the time than it was. The reputation of the Spitfire started early, 1 July to 31 October 1940 the German fighter pilots claimed 1,266 Spitfires and 719 Hurricanes, something approaching the reverse of the 2 Hurricanes to 1 Spitfire present in Fighter Command. Geoffrey Sinclair Remove the nb for email. Bombers would overclaim because several bombers would claim the same kill.. one wonders how much damge B-17s did to each other. especially the waist gunners. One of the UK posters a while back mentioned a Luftwaffe night fighter pilot who saw two Lancasters shoot each other down one night. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushite Grunters - 1.The ISI's General, Mahmoud Ahmad funded 911's Atta - 2. We have video of ironflowing like water from the towers - American Women Raped in Iraq by"Lawless" Bushite | frank | Naval Aviation | 1 | August 30th 08 12:35 PM |
American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushite Grunters - 1. The ISI's General, Mahmoud Ahmad funded 911's Atta - 2. We have video of iron flowing like water from the towers - American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushi | Charlie Wolf[_2_] | Naval Aviation | 0 | August 29th 08 03:19 AM |
Corporate News Whores are Evil to All Humans Being - PentagonWon't Probe KBR [GANG] Rape Charges - "Heaven Won't Take [bushite] Marines" -American corporations actively attempt to MURDER American women, and American"Men" refus | WiseGuy | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 9th 08 02:50 PM |