Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
If that was the case the war would have ended in 1945 with the worlds air forces still flying 1940's aircraft, as for what the Gladiator could do that a FW190 couldn't, it could do really slow speed turns keeping out of the FW's sights until the FW pilot got bored and flew off or ran out of fuel, hardly a winning formula.The Fw 190 was better than a Gladiator, too, but the Fw 190 would have trouble getting a Gladiator in its sights for long since the Gladiator would be WAY more maneuverable. That does not suggest anyone would rather have a squadron Gladiators over a squadron of Fw 190s; they wouldn't. But it DOES suggest that the Gladiator would be able to do some things that Fw 190 could not do. Ditto the Hurricane.
Well the RAF got blooded in Leigh Mallory's ''leaning on the enemy'' farce using MkV's, how do you think the Hurricane would go considering it didn't have the speed to fight or the speed to run away, maybe it could join the Gladiator pilots doing slow speed turns and hope for the best?.But the Hurricane wasn't exactly a kill when it got caught by an Fw 190, especially if the Hurricane saw the Fw 190 coming
No I'm not, the effect the FW brought to the air war directly caused the development of the MkIX Spit, the adoption of the 61 series Merlin and later the 66 series which was designed to give it's best performance at the FW's best altitude, such was it's domination, furthermore, the FW could be blamed for the lack of Spitfire development and the rush production of the interim models to counter it. To put an argument forward that the Hurricane could fight it is far fetched, like the A6M all it could hope for was that the superior aircrafts pilot was not aware or complacent if it found itself in a favorable position or silly enough to get it into a low speed turning fight, needing those types of situations to win is not a winning formula..No, it isn't the case. You are being deliberately obtuse
Saburo Sakai flew combat in the A6M Zero until 18 Aug 45. If anyone had encountered him in a supposedly-better fighter, they may have been VERY surprised how good a fight he could generate in his supposedly-obsolete fighter. On his last mission, he shot at and damaged a couple of B-32 Dominators. I bet THEY didn't believe he was incapable of a good attack because he flew a Zero.
What about the other 99% of pilots, how did they fare flying the Zero in 1945? F6F-3 Hellcat.Saburo Sakai flew combat in the A6M Zero until 18 Aug 45. If anyone had encountered him in a supposedly-better fighter, they may have been VERY surprised how good a fight he could generate in his supposedly-obsolete fighter.
Lets put Yeager in a Hurricane and send him across the channel in 1942.As Chuck Yeager said, "It's the man, not the machine."
Hurricanes were used at Dieppe. There were more Hurricanes and Mustang Is than Typhoons. It isnt the fault of the Hurricane that the Typhoon was a dud.Lets put Yeager in a Hurricane and send him across the channel in 1942.
All General Yeager would need is a baseball bat.Lets put Yeager in a Hurricane and send him across the channel in 1942.
One of those glib comments that doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. Obviously the machine is extraordinarily important. The history of war is full of examples of superior equipment being decisive in battle. Inferiority in equipment can be compensated for to some extent by skill but the disparity cannot be very great. Very few pilots have ability to become experten. They are not the norm. To take the exploits of a few exceptional pilots and extrapolate them to the performance of the bulk of pilots is not correct. An average pilot in a Hurricane is more likely to lose to an average pilot in an FW 190 than vice versa.As Chuck Yeager said, "It's the man, not the machine."
You also need to include tactics and operating as a cohesive unit rather than a lone individual. We always make comparisons within the one-on-one combat scenario but ignore the fact that many major aerial campaigns that involved fighter to fighter engagements were also decided when you had a well trained cohesive unit that developed tactics which exploited the opposition's weaknesses.One of those glib comments that doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. Obviously the machine is extraordinarily important. The history of war is full of examples of superior equipment being decisive in battle. Inferiority in equipment can be compensated for to some extent by skill but the disparity cannot be very great. Very few pilots have ability to become experten. They are not the norm. To take the exploits of a few exceptional pilots and extrapolate them to the performance of the bulk of pilots is not correct. An average pilot in a Hurricane is more likely to lose to an average pilot in an FW 190 than vice versa.
As for a Hurricane MkII vs an FW190 I would point out the the Spitfire V had a great deal of trouble with the FW 190 the Hurricane could only be worse.
No s/e fighter was developed from scrach as combined Air Superiority/LR Escort until the P-51H. Not even P-51B which was only modified to incorporate fuselage tanks before they became production articles for follow on P-51B/C/D/K models.The Corsair wasn't designed for long range escort and we shouldn't expect it to do so as well as aircraft designed for that mission, although the late model F4U5 did perform very well at altitude. On the other hand, I don't agree that the P-38, P-47, and P-51 performed the Corsair's job as well. From the results of the 1944 Joint Fighter Conference, the Corsair rated highest as a ground attack fighter and 2nd behind the P-47 in strafing. When you look at Corsair operations in the Pacific it was often flying quick turnaround close air support within 40 miles of the ground conflict from very short/unimproved airfields or carriers. Conditions where the Lightning, Mustang, and Thunderbolt wouldn't be able to operate at all.
Just my two cents.
No s/e fighter was developed from scrach as combined Air Superiority/LR Escort until the P-51H. Not even P-51B which was only modified to incorporate fuselage tanks before they became production articles for follow on P-51B/C/D/K models.
S/E Fighters designed before 1943 were all of the air superiority type - whether Interception or battlefied or tactical air cover. Offhand I can't remember a single prominant fighter with initial design actually incorprating external racks for fuel to extend range in that timeframe, but Maybe Fw 190 and F6F.
The F6F was more duarble than F4U in CAS due to the relative oil cooler placement. IIRC the US study pst VE Day showed half the losses per sortie for the CAS role.
or a P39All General Yeager would need is a baseball bat.
In an individual combat, yes. However if in my airforce, the average pilot ability and aircraft capability is better than your average pilot and aircraft ability, I will win the war and you will lose.The whole "average this pilot vs average pilot of the other plane" is also sort of bunk. The most likely to win is the one that spits the other first and is able to get into position. That is, luck is a huge factor.
On the small scale you are correct.The whole "average this pilot vs average pilot of the other plane" is also sort of bunk. The most likely to win is the one that spits the other first and is able to get into position. That is, luck is a huge factor.