Best Pacific Fighter?

Best Pacific Fighter?

  • Total voters
    146

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.

That is not entirely true. There is a place for fast attack planes and their is a place for loiterers. Ideally you want a mix of planes that can provide quick response strike capability and those that can supply tactical ground support. The Skyhawk in Vietnam was extemely effective.

It was the AH-1 in Vietnam, the Skyraider was re-designated. In Korea it was the AD-2/4 Skyraider. Skyraiders and Corsairs served side by side off carriers through most of Korea. My Dad flew about a hundred sorties in them. F-86's were also used as fast attack planes in Korea, along with F-84's and even F-80's. The F-51 mostly served at the start of the conflict.

=S=

Lunatic
 
It has been proven that slower aircraft are better for ground attack roles, that is why they did not retire the A-10. Fast aircraft often fly past the target before they see it. With the right FAC on the ground, high speed aircraft are effective, but for a plane that is going to see out and destroy, you need a slow one.

The AH-1 is a Cobra attack helicopter. The Skyraiders in Vietnam were the A-1E, A-1H and A-1J. They also used the AD-1 in Korea.
 

You are right, I meant A-1H.

The AD-2 through AD-4 were used in Korea. The AD-2 had 2 x 20mm guns, the AD-4 had 4 x 20mm guns.

As I said, there is a place for both kinds of attack planes. It depends on the mission. Jets are fine for attacking fixed emplacements, in fact they are probably better as they are so much harder to hit with flak and small arms. They also can reach a point of contention much faster to deliver napalm or cluster bombs to stop an enemy advance and they can make more round trips in a shorter period of time. Slower attack planes like the Skyraider are better for close infantry support over an active battlefield. It's very situatational.

=S=

Lunatic
 
The AD-1 was also used in Korea, flown by VA-35 and VA-195 of the Navy and VMAT-20 of the USMC. These numbers are from the Skyraider association. They ought to know, they flew them.

You will also find that jets are not that much harder to hit when making an attack run. I have see footage of an A-6 bombing a ground target by dive-bombing, commonly used in Vietnam, He got hit twice by groundfire on the way in. But you stated not too long ago that flak was ineffective anyway, so it doesn't matter what you were flying with flak, right?
 
I saw footage of A-4 Skyhawks attacking a bridge in Vietnam, one got brought down by FlaK.
 

AD-1's may well have flown too, earlier in the conflict. I just know for a fact my Dad flew the AD-2 on his first tour, and the AD-4 thereafter.

Let's make a distinction between "Flak", as in German flak against high altitude bombers, and AAA relatively near the ground okay? Also, by Vietnam, eveyone had proximity fuses, and they also had radar targeting systems only dreamt of in WWII.

A-6's were sometimes shot down by AAA at low altitudes, but it was not all that common and they were not nearly so vulnerable as a prop would have been. Jets are generally tougher targets to start with and they are moving much faster. Also, most of the A-6's shot down in VN were shot down by SAM's, not AAA.

=S=

Lunatic
 
If you are using a radar targetting system for your AAA, then it would have essentially been no different shooting down a jet versus a prop, it's a question of lead time.

The reason prop aircraft are better for it is because they are slower and when you are going slower, you have a better chance of spotting what you are after, hence a better chance to hit it. Plus you can't spot artillery or call in additional FBs from a jet, you are just going to fast over the terrain to effectively spot targets. The exception being the A-10, which they nearly retired until they realized they needed a SLOW aircraft to sopt and go after ground targets.
 
evangilder said:
If you are using a radar targetting system for your AAA, then it would have essentially been no different shooting down a jet versus a prop, it's a question of lead time.
Click to expand...

Error grows exponentially with lead, so you are much less likely to hit, even with radar tracking, if you must lead twice as much. The system also must aquire the target, which takes more time the faster it is moving, and there is less time available.


This depends on the targets. As I said, there is a place for both types of attack planes. Jets have advantages, such as the ability to cover a wider area and generally speaking to carry more ordinance, props (or the A-10) have an advantage in being able to loiter longer over the battle field. Which is better for a given situation is very dependant on that situation.

Lancaster -

Even from the start Jets were generally harder to shoot down than their prop counterparts. There are only a few places within the engine that are highly vulnerable. The fuel is not nearly as combustible. And because of the placement of the Jet engines, it is often easier to use the same armor to protect critical engine sections and the pilot. Finally, Jets are generally bigger than their prop counterparts and require more internal structure, which also makes them harder to shoot down.

The 262, which was one of the weakest jets, was still harder to shoot down than most props. The USA even introduced a new .50 calibur ammo type, the M23 incendiary, specifically to shoot down jets. This ammo only had an effective range of about 175 yards, but it was very much more incendiary than earlier types. This was necessary because it was much harder to start fires on the 262 than a prop even though the thing was, to a very large extent, a flying fuel tank.

It is generally considered that even the Mig-15's were much harder to kill than WWII prop fighters. By Vietnam, Jets were very much harder to kill.

=S=

Lunatic

=S=

Lunatic
 
The role of the Pacific fighter changed from WWII to Korea. The first was aircontrol and then ground support. The latter saw the two jobs split to different airframes.F8F Bearcats did a great job at hiting the ground in Korea and even latter in Vietnam. I agree slower can give you better results but also you are getting out of the area slower, so more chance to get shot.
 
The F8F only saw limited service in Korea. Most were phased out of US Navy service by 1952, replaced by modern jets. The US never flew F8Fs in Vietnam, however, the French bought some for their forces who did use them in the earlier engagement in Vietnam.

As a ground attack airplane, it would have done okay, but carried a very limited amount of fuel. With economic cruise, your going to have 2 hours of airtime maximum.
 
Getting back to the R-2800 vs. 2 x Allisions discussion...

A little research seems to indicate that one R-2800 was generally prefered for combat durability. The problem with the allisons on the P-38 was that they were highly subject to catching fire when hit by gunfire. The main reason pilots in the pacific liked having two engines was in case of mechanical failure, not battle damage. Mechanical failure was probably as much or more of a risk to US fighter pilots in the PTO during WWII than Japanese fighters after Midway.

On the basis of this, I think the P-47 would be a much better ground attack plane than the P-38. The USAAF was stupid to mothball the P-47N's after WWII until they had a suitable ground attack plane to replace them with.

=S=

Lunatic
 
evangilder said:
Yeah, LG, the external load was extremely light on the Bearcat. The max takeoff is actually pretty light.
Click to expand...

It could carry 2 x 1000 lbs bombs. It could only carry 4 x 5" HVAR's but that was because it simply lacked the stations for more, not that it could not be fitted to carry more. I think the reason for having 4 stations was the belief they might carry some kind of A2A missile. 2 x 2000 lbs bombs puts it on a par with the Hellcat and Mustang's load capacity.

=S=

Lunatic
 
It could carry 2 x 1000 lbs. bombs, but how far? It was either the bombs or drop tanks. WIth the minimal fuel load onboard, it would have been okay for short range attack, but that's about it. It's original design called for a fighter with excellent climb and speed. The reasons for this is it was designed to counter the kamikaze threat, get off the deck fast, get to the planes, get them before they get to the carrier and then get back.

If you guys want a fun article on the F8F, one of our members at the museum is John Deakin. He has a regular column on AVWeb called Pelican's Perch. Here is his article on the F8F, the one at our museum!

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182122-1.html
 
Great article. He's a cheeky sod about flying that Bearcat isn't he? I don't blame him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
4K
SaparotRob
A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
27
Views
7K
Shortround6
S
  • Poll
Best Biplane fighter ww2
Replies
1
Views
6K
wlewisiii
  • Poll
German multiengine jet bomber best immune to Allied interception
Replies
0
Views
1K
Vahe Demirjian
  • Poll
Best US escort fighter in ETO during 1943?
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
17K
DarrenW
Menu
Log in
Register