Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I fully agree, Biff, that they had to fast enough, but top speed was not what made the great fighters great. None of the top fighters had the highest speed in the class. But they mostly had enough speed and a generous serving of all the other traits that made combat a winnable proposition.
In the late 1943 through D-Day timeframe the Spit XIV, P-51B, Tempest, F4U-1A and P-47D-16 were the top Allied Fighters - all with speed advantages over all of the Axis fighters. Only the Spit IX was superior in the vertical (vs 109) in that timeframe and that was marginal. Only the Spit was Clearly superior in Turn rate over the 109. Only the Spit XIV was superior in acceleration and firepower (vs every Axis fighter except the 190. Somehow they (Allied fighters and pilots) secured control of the air. Common denominator? Speed to catch, disengage in level flight and dive.
That is, they were stable in that they didn't snake around in yaw, pitch, or roll. They had good acceleration from cruise to combat speed ... which usually wasn't top speed, but was up in the 320+ mph area.
How about 410-430+mph area? Nobody that wished to fight another day traded speed for horizontal engagement without a lot of confidence in the outcome, or dim brain cells.
For the above named Allied fighters vs the 109G-6, the FW 190A-7, the A6M2 model 21, The Hi 61 the top speed advantage ranged from 30mph (Spit IX versus 109G-6) to 45+ mph) (P-47/51 vs 109G) to
They had good maneuverability, decent protection, decent armament, and were rugged enough to handle the stress of many flights at high power output levels as well as to survivie a few hits from another fighter ... unless it was large cannon hits anyway.
To survive the diving Q load pullouts required by every top line fighter Required the level of structure deemed rugged, the above list is fine for the definition of why the P-40 more or less achieved parity to positive ratios versus A6M,Hi-61 which were slower but far more maneuverable in all dimensions, and not completely hammered vs the 109 and 190, which btw were faster and more maneuverable in the vertical.
Do you see a common thread of airframe performance on the outcomes?
There were no Spitfires that cruised into the Battle area at 420 mph, ambushed Bf 109's and flew home at top speed, too. It didn't happen. You might be able to do that in a jet, but piston engines won't stay together under that type flight plan. They cruised in at 250 mph, accelerated when required for battle, and joined well before hitting top speed ... unless they were high and could dive down on an opponent out of the sun. If they chanced upon this stroke of luck, then yes, they might be attacking at top speed.
Of the Allied fighters named above, the Spit XIV cruise for max fuel efficiency was the lowest in contrast to both the P-51B and P-47D (but superior mpg over the P-47D), both of which cruised at 250 with 2x110 external tanks and 300+ 'clean. In addition, high cruise Speed (that word again) lessened the disadvantage when caught by surprise with respect to altitude advantage and subsequent ability to attack.
But the sun rises from the east and the Germans were east of the incoming bombers. Now I ask you, who was coming from the sun in gthe morning?
Well, for German fighters that were positioned directly in front of the bomber stream, they usually entered combat at or after noon if you look at most of the Encounter Reports for Germany. Additionally the sun is declined to the South. If the German fighters and Allied bombers are in Africa with similar situation, the sun will be more or less overhead. And, surprisingly, under clever LW Controller, can be vectored to a more favorable location if the location of the sun is deemed a critical factor. The real determinant is who spots whom first? - Which is why I left the P-38 out of this discussion.
As for P-51s, they were escorts and had to stay with the bomber stream. You can't DO that at 400+ mph and it isn't even easy at 270 mph if escorting a 185 mph bomber formation. They cruised in at about 230 - 250 mph with their eyes open and accelerated when combat was imminent.
They cruised at 220IAS (with 2x110 gallon external tanks which at 25000 feet is about 260mph TAS) and after tanks are dropped then the same best economy cruise jumps to 300+ TAS Greg
A B-17 at 150 mph IAS (standard)is zipping along near 205mph TAS. The B-24 was 25mph faster with same load. The cruise speed selected was for maximum range. A comparable Max range setting for an F4U-1A with externals was about 210mph at 10,000 feet
The Germans tried to get above and dive through the formations firing at targets of opportunity. In that scenario, an escorting P-51 might well apply full pwoer and dive after the German fighter, but if he stayed in the dive too long he would lose the formation and the bombers would be left without escort. So the P-51 could dive a few thousand feet, spray some shots and them use the excess speed to zoom back up to escort height and catch the now distant formation of bombers.
Basically true for the very rare "one Mustang per bomber formation" escort philosophy, but that was discarded in favor of full squadrons and Groups in which flight and squadron CO's had the latitude to order a flight to pursue while the rest of the Group/Squadron remained in case of more targets. Many encounter reports will illustrate the chase, the catch and optionally return to the formation depending on many factors - not the least including fuel remaining after say 67" of boost in the fight.
When the escorts left to go chasing first-wave fighters, the second and third-wave Germans cheered on the radio and bored in for target practice. That is according to former WWII pilots who give talks every month at the museum, not according to Greg. I wasn't there, but the guys giving the talks were.
The tactic worked for green Commanding Officers or the overly aggressive (and somewhat dim witted) that foolishly squandered their role and assets for the sake of getting one or two German fighters. The Germans also used the 'lure' of a couple of high fighters through a bomber (or fighter) formation to draw the fighters away. If it worked once - it didn't happen again. Our guys learned lessons quickly. Additionally, when ambushes were set in this way, the Luftwaffe often got Far more than they bargained for as the fight developed.
In short, Greg, you were listening to LW pilots reminiscing about 'Happy Times" before the green US pilots quickly caught on and then proceeded to turn "happy" to "sad" - and you got to listen to the survivors.
The AVG weren't flying escort and were free to implement their own tactics that were designed for winning agianst superior fighters while flying a P-40. And those tactics worked in a non-ETO environment. They wouldn't work at all in the ETO. They MIGHT have worked in the PTO because when you are over the ocean and encounter enemy fighters, you usualy encountered about 4 - 8 enemy fighters to your own 4 - 8 enemy fighters and you could keep the more or less same size group engaged while the bombers flew on.
Speed at all altitudes is the number one determinant of "fight or Flee" - if you don't have that advantage you have to fall back on less hopeful maneuver capability against the other guy, who with speed advantage may decide to stay or may not - His choice.
I'd believe whatever you say about modern jet fighter combat, but the guys who were flying the pistons in WWII hardly ever mention speed in their talks, except when they got sacred in a dive and survived to tell about it.
Learn to ask the right questions and maybe you will get interesting info.
Hey, you might be 100% right about top speed.
He is. And that might guide you in evaluating the F-86/Mig-15 versus a modern day fighter or give you insight why the USAF/USN doesn't design its fighter force on the A-10 template
I remain doubtful. I don't think 20 mph made a difference at all in combat unless both planes were at top speed going the same direction and very close to one another. Then it MIGHT matter ... unless the slower guy was just a better pilot. And that puts us back to the pilot factor, not the fighter characteristics factors.
Considering the AVG was NOT fighting Zeros, give them advantages in speed, durability, and firepower.
The Ki43 was actually more maneuverable than the Zero if under gunned.
That's what I mean - the Ki43 could actually "out zero" a zero, but was even more lacking in areas like armament. At best 2 x 50 caliber, more likely 2 x 7.7 mm in the early war period. Takes a lot of time on target to down a plane with that limited of firepower.
A Zero would have been different. Similar weaknesses, but not as pronounced. And much better firepower for the Zero.
I would think the most prevalnet armament for a P-40 with the AVG would be 4 x .303 and 2 x .50. Still a bit underarmed, but far better than the K-43. I'd think the AVG also ran into Ki-27's a fair amount, which was a step down from the KI-43 in most ways. Turned a bit better, but that was never a problem for a Japanese plane, to turn better than it's opponents.
Fully Concur, Biif. Energy was near the top, as well as the ability to generate it quickly when surprised.
Greg - Energy is directly proportional to velocity and/or height in the case of Potential Energy. Excess Power over Drag is the road to achieve and maintain energy
As you probably expect, I disagree with Bill, at least somewhat. He says the same things he always says and they are at odds with WWII fighter pilots I have spoken with. Yes, they DID have high speed fights, but NO, it wasn't at 420 mph most of the time ... except by the attackers who were diving down from above. If they were climbing up, nowhere NEAR that speed. If they joined the dive and chased the attackers, the bombers were unccovered.
You missed the point... actually most or all of the points. First get rid of the 'bombers were uncovered' mantra when discussion whether a top attribute of a fighter is or isn't speed. Second, rejoin the discussion regarding WHY speed advantage is a very important attribute of a fighter - very simply Greg, it enables tactical options over a significantly Slower opponent. Fight ve Flight, 'chase and catch up' versus 'be left behind'. Get where you need to be sooner than the other guy.
Let's say that Bill and I have talked with a lot of different people and have come away with diverse points of view. Yes, they DID sometimes fight just as he says but, no, it wasn't all that often from the guys I have spoken with. Obviously he spoke with different guys who had different experiences, and I can respect that and say I wish I had been at least a listener.
By study and by Report, 90% of the aircraft destroyed never knew what hit them. 90% of the evasions from an enemy with a tactically superior position were to break into them while running up full throttle to gain the speed and/or position to regain the initiative or run away (from the Slower guy)
So, they DID fight very fast some times, but not all the time. Not suprisingly, almost all situational encounters that can be imagined happened at SOME time.
At no time did I state that fighting 'fast' all of the time - re-read what I said.
I am not saying and never HAVE said high speed fights didn't happen; they DID. I said they were NOT the rule. A great plane could fight at 280 mph and at 470 mph in a dive. So, also not surprisingly, I think that the ability to fight a medium and high speeds was high on the list.
Greg - I have not looked at every spec or even most of them but I have both participated in reading specifications for high performance aircraft including the A-7D, the F-16 and its Naval Derivative VFAX, plus looked at the original proposal document of the NA-91 that the Brits bought for the Mustang. There are zero specs regarding 'the ability to fight at medium to high speeds'. The Specs give high level objectives for 'maximum speed' at critical altitudes, Range, take Off and Landing performance, internal or external load carrying capability, crew, avionics, and in the case of certain AAF/USN/USAF specs - the GFE to be installed
So, Greg the next time you have a chance to talk to an ETO vet regarding their experience in either the ETO or MTO - ask them why they preferred the P-51 and P-47 over the P-40 and P-39 as both the P-40 and P-39 were 'excellent middle speed performers' that also were at a serious disadvantage to the Bf 109 and FW 190 - or ask former VVS opponents of the 109 why they highly regarded it through the end of the war - despite having several airplanes that out maneuvered the 109 (perhaps their judgment was not as severe as yours in context of speed and handling).
In a later war far, far away in a little country called Viet Nam, we dismissed the MiG-17 as obsolete in the early 1960's. By the late 1960's it had been re-appraised as a very potent dogfighter, despite being more than an entire Mach slower than the F-4. Turns out that in the heat of dogfight combat, they just happened to fight in the same speed envelope ... just subsonic.
Ah, here is an example of war overcoming pre-war training which USAF seemed to experience for both WWII and Vietnam. The MAJOR issues were F-105 pilots with only a handful of WWII and Korea fighter vets flying them encountering MiG 17s either vectored to their six coming off the target below 500-550 kts or deciding to stay and fight rather tan use HUGE speed advantage and escape. They compounded the performance disadvantage (namely forgetting about their SPEED advantage) by hanging around in the horizontal and bleeding energy to the point they could not escape from a lighter more nimble adversary. Interestingly the 355th TFW with Thuds was the leading MiG killer until late 1967 (including the F-8 and F4B/C). The solution which cut not only fighter losses but also flak and SAM was to keep the speed up to 550Kt and above - the other major issue was lousy performance of air to air missle and avionics technology resulting in only 2% effectiveness. The 105 had an internal M-61 and was the fastest ship on the deck until the F4E and F-111 - all capable of exceeding Mach 1 on the deck. The F4E with the M-61 didn't show up until 1970.
Speed clearly wasn't everything there, and that comes from former Viet Nam fighter pilots I served with later in the Mid-1970's. We had long discussion about the Soviet fighters and what they could and could not do. The highest-scoring North Vietnamese Ace flew MiG-17's.
Might we remind you that Speed is at or next to the top of a fighter requirements - not the only important requirement (i.e along with Range, Payload, Radar capability, Cruise speed, etc. There are ZERO specs for turn rate, but lot of discussion of landing speed which drives wing sweep, CL, AR, LE devices, etc - ALL influencing ultimate turn capability
The US was out of the fighter-fighter dogfight game (except in the vertical) after Korea and didn't enter it again until Boyd and others got the USAF planners to understand Energy maneuverability - which resulted in the F-16, then the F-15.
It certainly does......I look at this in contrast to today's world where there are those today who feel that manned combat aircraft are obsolete and that only combat drones should be developed to do all the fighting.
History does repeat itself!
despite the poor performance of air to air missiles (especially the Sparrow). !
This sounds like the Randy Cunningham MiG-17 dogfight.I saw a discussion programme on this illustrated by an encounter between an F4 and a Mig 17. I cant remember the missile of the F4 but basically the time taken for the F4 to aquire, lock on and shoot was longer than the time for the mig to take evasive action. The F4 repeatedly "went vertical" when the Mig was maneuvering into a shooting position and the mig repeatedly lost the F4 when trying to target the missile. Eventually the Mig broke off for no reason that could be explained and was shot down. As I remember it with the equipment both had it was impossible for either plane to best the other with two experienced pilots on board.