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

To: edpc
Most of the examples you cited can be attributed to the poor command decisions of people like FDR, Truman, LBJ, and McNamara.

Precisely my point, now we can add Obama & Gates to that list.

Regarding your summary:

The F-6F was designed specifically to beat the zero. The Hellcat was an air superiority fighter by birth, by design and in application.

Most B-17 and B-24 combat losses were to fighters, not antiaircraft fire. The daylight strategic bombing campaign in the ETO was almost stopped because of losses. It did not shift to the USAAF's favor until the P-51 arrived. The P-51 was designed as an air superiority fighter and long range escort.

In Korea. the F-86 was outclassed in performance by the MiG-15. What earned the spectacular kill ratio was the pilot skill in the USAF and the absolute incompetence of the NKAF.

The 1:1 parity in early air-to- air combat in Vietnam was because the F-105 and F-4 could not engage the enemy on clearly superior terms. The F-14 and F-15 were designed with one mission. Air superiority based on what was learned with the F-4 in combat.

The legacy of the SR-71 was that it could outrun SAMs and intercepters, not that it could defend itself or outfly them in ACM.

43 posted on 02/23/2010 9:08:39 AM PST by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]


To: pfflier
I disagree with your opinion that the P-51 was the pivotal aircraft in the ETO. The P-47 thunderbolt outnumbered the P-51 by 2-1, had a much higher kill ratio and after they installed 2800 HP, the new 4 blade props, supercharged ammonia/water injection and long range fuel tanks and drop tanks, the P-47 was THE most formidable fighter of the war from the standpoint of sheer fire power, dive/climb performance and versatility.

The P-51 came along in force long after the P-47 and the B-17’s had already broken the backs of the Axis. This explains the later absence of enemy opposition to our bomber missions and gave the P-51 the appearance of having won the war. The real heroes, the P-47’s, then turned their fury and massive fire power on the ground where it did the most damage to the Luftwaffe before they could get into the air to fight the P-51’s.

44 posted on 02/23/2010 9:26:00 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP ( Give me Liberty, or give me an M-24A2!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: pfflier
In Korea. the F-86 was outclassed in performance by the MiG-15. What earned the spectacular kill ratio was the pilot skill in the USAF and the absolute incompetence of the NKAF.

The 1:1 parity in early air-to- air combat in Vietnam was because the F-105 and F-4 could not engage the enemy on clearly superior terms. The F-14 and F-15 were designed with one mission. Air superiority based on what was learned with the F-4 in combat.

Yes and no on both.

While the MiG-15 had a better rate of climb, it was inferior to the F-86 in many ways. The heavy armament served well against bombers, but the slow chugging cannon required more skill on the pilot's part to make the shots hit their mark. It's airframe was very unstable and prone to stalling. The MiG, despite it's rate of climb, could not turn or dive with the Sabre.

The best attributes of the F-86, other than the pilot, were the Sperry gunsight and high rate of fire machine guns. Made a huge difference in the dogfight.

The F-15 was designed in response to the overblown perceptions of the MiG-25's capabilities. It wasn't until Lt. Belenko's defection we learned what a dog it was as a fighter.

The F-14 was designed to protect the fleet and homeland by intercepting Soviet bombers with the long range Phoenix missiles.

46 posted on 02/23/2010 9:56:26 AM PST by edpc (Those Lefties just ain't right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | 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