Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Kevmo
I think the point of the article is that, ultimately, war is a still a very Human thing. In the end, it is one man against another, but the machines they use do have a bearing. in the case of the P51 vs the Zero, the disparity is very marked. With the correct tactics, it is almost impossible for the P51 to lose, even if the pilots using it are rookies and their opponents are very good.

The most important attribute of a fighter is speed. The P51D was at least 25MPH faster than the Zero at all altitudes. In WW2 air combat terms that is a phenomenal difference, implying obsolescence in the slower fighter. All you need to do in a P51 is climb above the zero and dive down on it, shooting as you go. If you get him, good. If you dont, you do not stop to dogfight (the zero is much better at that - easily more manoeverable than a P51) you just simply continue the dive and accelerate away. The zero will be lucky to even get a short innacurate burst in. Then you climb, and dive down again. Repeat, until no zeroes left. It doesnt require a very experienced pilot to do that, once you know the trick.

5 posted on 06/02/2013 2:18:58 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Vanders9

It was worse than that. The zeros had an engine that pushed their machine to turn right. They also had no maneuverability at high altitude, much like the FW109. There are several instances of P51’s meeting their opponents at high altitude, only to have their opponents fall into uncontrolled flight, while the P51 pilots simply picked them off.

In some ways, it wasn’t very ‘sporting’.


6 posted on 06/02/2013 2:23:28 AM PDT by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Vanders9

Exactly. Once American pilots learned to use their fighters’ generally superior speed against Zeroes, they became easy kills. Mustangs, Corsairs, and Hellcats still couldn’t out-turn a Zero in a classic dogfight, but they didn’t need to. They dove in at speed, fired quick shots, and extended away, or used that speed to maneuver in the vertical plane to cut inside the Zero’s turn. Or Fw 190s would use their phenomenal rate of roll to quickly change direction against Spitfires and Thunderbolts and get into attack position.

It’s not just all about which fighter could simply out-turn the other in a circling dogfight. That’s just one part of the performance envelope. Look at what the Flying Tigers did with supposedly-inferior P-40s against Zeros at the height of Japanese power in 1942. They played to the Warhawk’s strength—speed, firepower, diving ability—instead of doing what most other American pilots tried at the time, which was to dogfight the Zero on its terms.

}:-)4


12 posted on 06/02/2013 4:15:44 AM PDT by Moose4 (SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Vanders9

“The most important attribute of a fighter is speed.”

See also - F4 Phantom vs. the lighter Migs flown during Vietnam.

The Migs were lighter and more maneuverable, due to the fact that the F4 was designed to be a weapons platform for “stand-off” engagement using missles, and so was larger and heavier in order to withstand large payloads. At first, they didn’t even have machine guns. They were later added in a pod that hung beneath the plane.

Still, the F4’s maintained a 2.5 to 1 kill ratio.

From interviews and documentaries I’ve watched, the speed of the F4 was undoubtedly the deciding factor.


39 posted on 06/02/2013 6:18:32 AM PDT by FLAMING DEATH (I'm not racist - I hate Biden too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson