FAA Seafire vs Corsair

[buffnut453]

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.

Only if your forces are relatively well matched quantitatively. If you're a tidgy-tiny air force going up against a much larger air force with comparably-performing aircraft, the likelihood is that you will lose because attrition will have a much greater impact on your force. Quantity has a quality all its own, remember.

 

[Glider]

Only if your forces are relatively well matched quantitatively. If you're a tidgy-tiny air force going up against a much larger air force with comparably-performing aircraft, the likelihood is that you will lose because attrition will have a much greater impact on your force. Quantity has a quality all its own, remember.

You are of course correct, but the numbers can be very different, it depends on how big the difference is in the difference of the Average pilot/aircraft combination.

Two examples I think most people are aware of.
The German invasion of France and the Invasion of Russia. In the first the numbers involved were fairly equal, in the second Russia had a massive numerical advantage.

Two more recent examples
Israel against the other Arab nations
Ukraine against Russia

In both of the above the Arab nations and Russia had a significant numerical advantage yet Israel dominated the skies and Ukraine are more than holding their own despite being outnumbered and often having inferior aircraft.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In both of the above the Arab nations and Russia had a significant numerical advantage yet Israel dominated the skies and Ukraine are more than holding their own despite being outnumbered and often having inferior aircraft.

"a well trained cohesive unit that developed tactics which exploited the opposition's weaknesses."

 

[Glider]

"a well trained cohesive unit that developed tactics which exploited the opposition's weaknesses."

Exactly.

 

[PAT303]

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.

In my opinion this is where both the Spit and Hurri win, both are known for their docile handling, as Molders said and I quote '' they are childishly easy to fly, our 109's in comparison are fiendish'', the average pilot who can take off and land without worrying if he's going to crash every time will build confidence quickly and start searching and pushing the limits of his plane, the difference between the British pair and the 109 is like this, same for the Corsair V Hellcat, the Hellcat was loved by it's pilots because it was also vice free, important for a naval aircraft. The whole ace whoever shot down X amount of planes means nothing, I've never read anywhere of pilots wanting their older model aircraft when new ones are available.

 

[buffnut453]

You are of course correct, but the numbers can be very different, it depends on how big the difference is in the difference of the Average pilot/aircraft combination.

Two examples I think most people are aware of.
The German invasion of France and the Invasion of Russia. In the first the numbers involved were fairly equal, in the second Russia had a massive numerical advantage.

Yes, but in qualitative terms, Germany had a significant advantage. The primary French fighters were the MS.406 and MB.150/152 which were significantly inferior to the Me109. Yes, they had 180 H-75s and a few D.520s were starting to arrive, but overall the French fighter force was second-rate. As for bombers, the Luftwaffe again had far better equipment (IMHO). The only noteworthy French bomber was the American-built Maryland. All the rest were pretty useless.

As for Russia, again they had numbers but not quality. The fighter force was woefully outdated and the training was questionable at best. The Stalin purges of senior military leaders had done nothing to instill confidence, or even consistency, in training and direction in the run-up to Barbarossa.

The other factor that also plays a huge part is the operational situation. In both cases, Germany was on the offensive and could pick the time and location of their attacks. Without radar, the defenders' task becomes substantially more difficult. That, in itself, becomes a force-multiplier. If the roles were reversed in 1940 and France attacked Germany, I expect the Luftwaffe would have similar problems to those experienced by the French (although, undoubtedly, the disintegration of French ground-based defences undoubtedly hindered their ability to provide adequate air defence).

 

[33k in the air]

Lets put Yeager in a Hurricane and send him across the channel in 1942.

That's probably not using that particular aircraft to its strength. Tactics do matter.

 

[33k in the air]

One of those glib comments that doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. Obviously the machine is extraordinarily important.

Yeager's point is that most of the time a superior pilot in an inferior machine will defeat an inferior pilot in a superior machine because the superior pilot will know how to wring out every last ounce of performance out of his aircraft, while the inferior pilot will likely make mistakes which negate the better performance of his aircraft.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I've never read anywhere of pilots wanting their older model aircraft when new ones are available.

Hans-Joachim Marseille did not want to convert from the -109F to the G because of engine reliability issues. The rest is history.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I've never read anywhere of pilots wanting their older model aircraft when new ones are available.

USN and USMC pilots preferring F4F-3s to -4s. Four fifties vs six, but more shot-time.

 

[PAT303]

Hans-Joachim Marseille did not want to convert from the -109F to the G because of engine reliability issues. The rest is history.

The G wasn't a better plane than the Fiesla because it was unrelaible so my point still stands.

 

[PAT303]

USN and USMC pilots preferring F4F-3s to -4s. Four fifties vs six, but more shot-time.

Less weight so better overall performance would be the reason here, the F3 was the better aircraft.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Less weight so better overall performance would be the reason here, the F3 was the better aircraft.

Well, you'd written "'I've never read anywhere of pilots wanting their older model aircraft when new ones are available" so I thought I'd present one example you might not have heard of.

As for the weight issue, I can't be sure if the extra ammo carried earlier weighed more than the two extra guns with reduced ammo. I only know that the pilots preferred more trigger-time.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The G wasn't a better plane than the Fiesla because it was unrelaible so my point still stands.

The G was a NEWER plane! You never said anything about "better."

Your words -

"I've never read anywhere of pilots wanting their older model aircraft when new ones are available."

And saying the BF109G was better than the "F" is "very arguable" at best. Yes, early 109Gs had issues, but the BF109F was "better" than say the -109G6 or G14???

 

[33k in the air]

Well, you'd written "'I've never read anywhere of pilots wanting their older model aircraft when new ones are available" so I thought I'd present one example you might not have heard of.

As for the weight issue, I can't be sure if the extra ammo carried earlier weighed more than the two extra guns with reduced ammo. I only know that the pilots preferred more trigger-time.

According to America's Hundred Thousand:

F4F-3 weights: 286 lbs (4 x .50-cal MG) + 516 lbs (1,720 rounds of .50-cal ammunition) = 802 lbs
F4F-4 weights: 433 lbs (6 x .50-cal MG) + 432 lbs (1,440 rounds of .50-cal ammunition) = 865 lbs

That's 63 lbs more for the F4F-4 model.

 

[PAT303]

Well, you'd written "'I've never read anywhere of pilots wanting their older model aircraft when new ones are available" so I thought I'd present one example you might not have heard of.

The point I was making was latest model aircraft incorporate leasons learned in combat, developements in technology and are generally better performing than the previous model so pilots would naturally want the newest one, the six gunned Wildcat was lower performing than the four gunned model, the six guns was a British request for more firepower, in this case the newer model was not an improvement so yes the pilots would not look kindly at it.

 

[PAT303]

According to America's Hundred Thousand:

F4F-3 weights: 286 lbs (4 x .50-cal MG) + 516 lbs (1,720 rounds of .50-cal ammunition) = 802 lbs
F4F-4 weights: 433 lbs (6 x .50-cal MG) + 432 lbs (1,440 rounds of .50-cal ammunition) = 865 lbs

That's 63 lbs more for the F4F-4 model.

The folding wings added weight too, it was a slug compared to the F3.

 

[Glider]

We tend to concentrate on the fighters but to a degree this also applies to the bombers. I have read that some crews preferred the B17F to the G and the RAF definitely preferred the earlier Boston III to later versions.

 

[GregP]

The G wasn't a better plane than the Fiesla because it was unrelaible so my point still stands.

Funny, the Bf 109G was the the most-produced version by far at 24,931. Next was the Bf 109F at 5,460.

If it was unreliable, you'd think that it would have a reputation for that. It doesn't other than very early models. Could you elaborate a bit on why you say it is unreliable?

Just curious.

 

[PAT303]

Funny, the Bf 109G was the the most-produced version by far at 24,931. Next was the Bf 109F at 5,460.

If it was unreliable, you'd think that it would have a reputation for that. It doesn't other than very early models. Could you elaborate a bit on why you say it is unreliable?

Just curious.

Take what I said in context to the discussion, Marseille didn't like the G compared to the F because the early G models were suffering from known engine problems at the time.