JerseyJohn Posted December 23, 2002 Author Share Posted December 23, 2002 Brancaleone True. -- Goering and Udet, both prominent WW I fighter aces and both deciding what German would look into for aircraft, felt jets were too fast to be effective in dogfights. Seems an odd way to see things today, but in an age where there wasn't any sophisticated electronics and eyesight was state of the art, their views make a little more sense. I'm sure their counterparts in England and Italy felt the same way and in countries that didn't look into ultra fast planes at all the too fast view must have ruled the day. It's entirely possible that jets were originally seen in recon or transport roles; what better way to move something valuable in a hurry or take a blurry look at columns of marching infantry than with an extremely fast plane that nobody could shoot down! Originally, and not too much earlier (1914), the military vision of flight itself was limited entirely to those areas, and only grudingly at that! [ December 23, 2002, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfpack Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 Originally posted by JerseyJohn: Brancaleone True. -- Goering and Udet, both prominent WW I fighter aces and both deciding what German would look into for aircraft, felt jets were too fast to be effective in dogfights. Seems an odd way to see things today, but in an age where there wasn't any sophisticated electronics and eyesight was state of the art, their views make a little more sense. Actually, the view still makes sense today. The F-16 isn't the fastest plane we have, but it's still the best dogfighter in the world. If you're building an interceptor, speed is the key. For a dogfighter it's maneuverability. Now, if you can have both in one plane that's great, but the design limitations are something that's difficult to overcome. We're just now beginning to see planes that combine both, but it took thrust vectoring, fly by wire, and very advanced aerodynamic technology to get to this point. The Me-262 wasn't a very good dogfighter, if it got drawn into a dogfight against a P-51 or P-38, it was toast. The thing it could do was make a couple of really high speed passes at a bomber formation, knock a few out, then head home and hope there weren't enemy planes hanging out around it's field, because it wouldn't be able to fight them off if there were. Another reason that jets weren't viewed as a priority for Germany and Italy was resources. When you consider that early jet engines life spans were so short, and advanced and limited materials were an integral part of their construction, the reluctance to move to jet power is more understandable. They simply didn't have the resources to field a large force of jet planes and keep them in the air. To this you'd have to add their horrible fuel efficiency, and we've all heard about Germany's problems getting fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 23, 2002 Author Share Posted December 23, 2002 Wolfpack Terrific posting -- great info -- clarifies a lot of loose ends. Dogfight tactics agains jets sound similar to what was used by U. S. pilots against Japanese Zero's earlier in the war. It would seem air tactics at that stage would have been served best by a combined arms approach; send the jets up to shoot down some bombers and have conventional dogfighters in place to protect the jets on their return. Naturally, Germany didn't have that option. Italy would definitely have been out of the running to build them at that time. I think Germany, had it wanted to, could have continued it's prewar research and had enough resources to put jets in one of it's luftflottes to work in conjunction with other aircraft. Even a small number of jet intercepters in '41 might have done much to dissuade both Britain and later America that long range strategic bombing of German industry was too costly in lives and aircraft. It seems the jet concept, like so much else in the Reich's scheme of things, meandered from first to last without a definite goal or overall plan. Designers were prone to spectacular claims and visionary drawings to lure the sponsorship of either Hitler or Goering; both of whom liked to meddle in details they didn't fully understand and exercise complete control over subordinates who ended up being stymied. [ December 23, 2002, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 26, 2003 Author Share Posted February 26, 2003 Bringing this Forum back as many similar topics have been coming up lately. [ February 26, 2003, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Great topics guys... The more I read it, the more I tend to agree about the possibility of buying lesser technology... You cannot transform a Me109 into a Me262... And deciding to put the Me262 in the production lines doesn't means you'll scrap all your old Me109... They still can be used... But that's a thing we can only hope to see in SC2, I think... If we keep SC in mind, I think creating a new unit: Prop fighter make sense... So we would have 2 air fleets: Air Fleet (the one we know) = Prop fighters and Jet Air Fleet = Jet Fighters... Like the 'Rocket', Jet Fighters could be a luxury with it's own research path... The Jet Air Fleet would be inept against sea/land units but very efficient against air units... It could be a good counter against the Oh-too-powerful Air Fleet... I think it's especially true that Jet fighters of that time were a totally new branch, needing more and differents specialists to pilot, prepare and repare them... So I see no problem creating a unit just for it (like the Rocket)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 27, 2003 Author Share Posted February 27, 2003 Minotaur Couldn't have put it any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 I agree John, the early presence of Jet fighters working in conjunction with regular prop aircraft would have done some damage. You can maximize the pros and cos of both craft, especially with jets in that early development phaze. I'm pretty certian the ME262 that was turned into a fighter-bomber on Hitler's orders would've came out in pretty sufficient #s had they really dedicated the time into it. Plus the 109s were a very weak opponent vs the US & UK Fighters from about 1941 on. Funny enough the most produced fighter and yet they couldn't really come up with a true replacement. As the 109 was never replaced completely. Similar mistakes with Stukas and no real bomber command for the Germans. It seems that Goering and others were stalling their aircraft designs before they ever got of the assembly line. I have to admit the P-51D Mustang was a superb Weapon along with the F4U1D...A corsair even shot down a Mig during the Korean War as to show you how capable those props were! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 27, 2003 Author Share Posted February 27, 2003 Liam Exactly, the German research and production system, especially in the Luftwaffe, was too riddled with favoritism and corruption till Speer came along, which was already too late. But, potentially, if it had been run properly from the start there's no telling where it would have gone. One thing the U. S. did really well was develop new aircraft. It had the largest number of improved models and the fastest replacement of old models of any of the warring countries. Germany and England had good aircraft and used many of them right through the entire war; the U. S. seemed to put out an improved fighter every six or seven months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Originally posted by Liam: I have to admit the P-51D Mustang was a superb Weapon along with the F4U1D...A corsair even shot down a Mig during the Korean War as to show you how capable those props were! Bring back memories of an old DOS flight simulator: Aces of the Pacific... How I liked to fly the Corsair!!! Funny how at the beginning of the war the Zero outmatched anything US has... Even if they had only enough bullets for 1 kill! (two with luck)... But at the end, Corsairs & P51 torched them very easily... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 27, 2003 Author Share Posted February 27, 2003 Minotaur There was a dobumentary the other night that happened to mention the reason for this. Fairly early in the war the United States recovered an intact Zero. It's pilot was inexperienced and flipped it in the Aelutions. They found it belly up but in virtually perfect condition with it's dead pilot in the cockpit. His neck was broken. The rest was reverse engineering. The Americans were amazed at all the corners the Japanese had cut and were quick to single out the aircraft's weaknesses. No doubt the study also aided U. S. aircraft design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Guys I have to admit though in the flight models I've done in Dos/Windows whatever. I remeber really loving the feel of the Zeke. You could roll it on a dime. You could out-turn anything in existence. Poor ammo and durability, it was a flying Kite. Reminds you a lot of what a Fokker Triplane reacts like from the 1st World War. I think that the high speed Corsairs/P-51s came down with these new tactics at high alts and pounced the Zekes instead of attempting to engage them foolishly in a stalefight. Which was the old traditional type of combat. Even so... If you had to put me at low alts... I'd take the Zeke... You have to run in the faster craft to avoid being engaged...there's no way out of a turnfight with a Zeke..A great pilot preserves his ammo and waits for the enemy to get lower and slower until he bleeds him dry and only shoots at close range where the Zekes guns have maximum damage and accuracy. However in these 51s/47s/and Corsairs ammo wasn't a problem the Americans built them sturdy and tough. You could dive down hammer and miss and redo it 20 times until you ran dry of ammo... I would still take a Spitfire above the American fighters although. She can keep pace with them on many alts!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 27, 2003 Author Share Posted February 27, 2003 Liam I like the way you described that -- if I were a billionaire and a bit younger and more adventurous and had a private landing field I'd probably buy a replica zeke and admire it on the runway sipping a cognac (no I'm not going up in the damn thing!). The main problem with those planes is they had all those attributes at the expense of protection for the pilot and self-sealing fuel tanks. Once they were hit, even with light machine gunse, they'd had it! Even before the Americans knew the specs from that captured airplane they learned that they would be okay if they stayed in groups, covering each other, and didn't go off on individual dogfights. [ February 27, 2003, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 19, 2003 Author Share Posted December 19, 2003 Bumping this Golden Oldie bact to the top as it has a lot of interesting material and the current Thread Well has run dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer39 Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 I would like to see attack craft like fighter/bombers and interceptors separated into two different units. The interceptors could eventually become jets. Of course you could use your fighter/bombers to attack enemy air fleets but they would not have the same effectiveness as interceptors. Only interceptors would make interceptions leaving your fighter/bombers ready to attack next turn. Strategic bombers would stay in the game as they are now. There would need to be some balancing like greater range, higher air attack values, and air defense for interceptors while the fighter/bombers would get better ground attack values. The player would have to decide where to invest his chits and also need to spread them out in order to have a balanced air fleet. Hopefully this would kill some of the super air units we get now on a regular basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 20, 2003 Author Share Posted December 20, 2003 That would be good and would also simulate Hitler's poor decision in trying to adapt his jet intercept designs of 1942-43 into fighter bombers, costing the jet program a year of production time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts