PDA

View Full Version : Slightly OT:modern aircraft vs. WW2 era aircraft



pogobbler
01-24-2008, 01:48 AM
I was looking through an old solitaire board game, Carrier War, and one of the options going beyond the bounds of history, is to replace all your U.S. forces with a single modern nuclear carrier with modern aircraft to battle the Japanese with. That got me thinking about what more modern aircraft, say from the 60's on, would be most "fun" to mix up with WW2 era aircraft. My thought was that it'd be too easy with some of the most modern jet aircraft as the speed and weaponry differentials would be so great that it wouldn't provide much of a challenge. I finally thought that an A-10 might fit the bill... fast enough to give an advantage from what I've seen, but not so fast as to be in a completely different realm of speed... I've heard it's pretty manuverable, but not sure how it compares... obviously it gives good protection... but what really does it for me is the thought of what that gatling gun would do to a nice big bomber in your sights. Not that I'm saying we need every aircraft under the sun added to the sim, but wouldn't you love to see that gun rip into one of those big bombers and rip it to shreds? You could probably saw a B-29 in half inside of half a second with that beast, not to mention what it would do to any fighter that happened into your sights. Of course, I know so many others here know much more about various aircraft, so what would you want to try out against the WW2 opposition?

Cajun76
01-24-2008, 02:13 AM
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080736/


Perhaps the board game was referring to this fictional scenario?

flyingloon
01-24-2008, 02:26 AM
old old game "dogfights : 80 yers of aerial warfare" gave you the chance to find out how a modern era jet handled a sopwith camel. and it was a pain in the rear to shoot down something that you were zooming past as soon as you had seen it, and that your missiles didn't lock onto. equally impossible to shoot down the jet. now an a-10 against a b-29 would be an amusing and brief fight, and it would probably be catchable for a me-262 or some of the 1946 stuff we have.

Friendly_flyer
01-24-2008, 03:10 AM
The Pucara springs to mind.

http://membres.lycos.fr/wings2/galphot/fma_ia58a_pucara.jpg

Sergio_101
01-24-2008, 03:20 AM
If Korea is any indication, even early jets
were nearly invulnerable to the piston fighters.

I believe there were only two confirmed Jet kills
by prop fighters in Korea, one by a F4U-5 and one by a Sea Fury.
One probable by a P-51D

Jets attacking B-29s got a few losses.
But the B-29s got the worst of it.

Late in WWII saw a razor thin slice in time
when the early jets were still dangerously
flying within the flight envelope
of the hottest piston fighters.

Back to Korea.
No "UN" jets were lost to Communist prop planes.
Two Soviet Mig-15s were confirmed to have been destroyed
by "UN Forces".
UN prop planes managed a 4:1 kill ratio over Communist prop planes
when engaged in air to air combat despite the UN prop jobs
being configured for ground support.

So pilot skill and training was good. Jets by then were to fast.

In one combat report I read a group of P-51Ds was jumped by Mig-15s.
A low altitude turn fight ensued. One P-51 was lost when the pilot straightened out and ran.
Everyone else kept up a tight turn fight, the Mig's were forced to break and run
or face stalling and crashing.
Hits were claimed on at least one Mig with no noticable results.

Slower piston planes can give a fast jet a poor target. But the prop
plane will remain the target.

Sergio

OD_
01-24-2008, 04:05 AM
The RAF tested for such a scenario when tensions were high with Indonesia in the 60's. They flew a Lightning against a Spitfire - in place of Indonesia's P-51s - and found that it was invulnerable to the Spitfire so long as it didn't get into a turning fight. Only downside was the difficulty in getting the missiles of the time to lock on the, relatively, small IR signature, compared to a jet engine exhaust.

Mach 2 Vs Max around 450mph no problem in running, but they did find bringing the guns to bear quite difficult.

Not sure how it would work now with BVR Radar guided and far better IR tracking missiles, but I think we can safely say it would be better than any result from the missiles the Lightning carried...they got put off by cloud!

ViktorViktor
01-24-2008, 04:14 AM
What about these drug-running civil prop-aircraft which have been intercepted by military jets ?

In the hands of a good pilot, would the prop-aircraft have a good chance of avoiding a shoot down ?

I don't seem to recall that the jets had trouble handling them.

OD_
01-24-2008, 04:28 AM
That would be down to rules of engagement though I would have thought rather than any limitation on behalf of the Air Force aircraft.

Bewolf
01-24-2008, 06:18 AM
ah yes

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hcnp9Y-LUU4&feature=related

here, all your questions answered http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BOA_Allmenroder
01-24-2008, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by flyingloon:
old old game "dogfights : 80 yers of aerial warfare" gave you the chance to find out how a modern era jet handled a sopwith camel. and it was a pain in the rear to shoot down something that you were zooming past as soon as you had seen it, and that your missiles didn't lock onto.

Well, the game designers, not being actual pilots, probably forgot about something called 'wake turbulence.'

You fly an F15 in the path of the Sopwith and the wake turbulence of the F15 alone would probably cause the Camel to crash.

No need for all that fancy guns, radar and air to air missles. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Bremspropeller
01-24-2008, 08:23 AM
Everyone else kept up a tight turn fight, the Mig's were forced to break and run
or face stalling and crashing.

Poor pilots IMHO.

The 51s would have been dead meat for a well-flown MiG squad.
Just as any prop against a well flown jet opposition.

jarink
01-24-2008, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
What about these drug-running civil prop-aircraft which have been intercepted by military jets ?

More often they are intercepted by helicopters and light jet aircraft than high perforamnce fighters like F-15s and F-16s.

http://uscgaviationhistory.aoptero.org/images/CGAVHISTORY/HU-25%20Falcon.jpg

There's two reasons for this: the aforementioned perfmance differential makes it difficult for the fighters to keep these planes in sight, let alone 'take them on'. Most drug runners fly very low and slow to avoid detection and make such interceptions difficult.

Secondly, there is more of a need for an aircraft that can shadow the druggies until they are apprehended than there is a need to shoot them down. (No matter what Tom Clancy has written in his books)

I always thought it would be neat to see a Pitts Special or a Christen Eagle with guns duke it out with SE5a's or Fokker D VIIs.

Bremspropeller
01-24-2008, 09:14 AM
I always thought it would be neat to see a Pitts Special or a Christen Eagle with guns duke it out with SE5a's or Fokker D VIIs.

"Duke it out" is a nice term, since these high-performance planes would eat those ancient "fighters" for breakfast.

flyingloon
01-24-2008, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by BOA_Allmenroder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flyingloon:
old old game "dogfights : 80 yers of aerial warfare" gave you the chance to find out how a modern era jet handled a sopwith camel. and it was a pain in the rear to shoot down something that you were zooming past as soon as you had seen it, and that your missiles didn't lock onto.

Well, the game designers, not being actual pilots, probably forgot about something called 'wake turbulence.'

You fly an F15 in the path of the Sopwith and the wake turbulence of the F15 alone would probably cause the Camel to crash.

No need for all that fancy guns, radar and air to air missles. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

not being pilots, but i'd say mainly because it was a pretty early 90's game on the amiga 500!

DuxCorvan
01-24-2008, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I always thought it would be neat to see a Pitts Special or a Christen Eagle with guns duke it out with SE5a's or Fokker D VIIs.

"Duke it out" is a nice term, since these high-performance planes would eat those ancient "fighters" for breakfast. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, but even so, these are very small, lightweight planes, and carrying two bulky MGs sure has to represent a severe impact on their balance and performance.

Deedsundone
01-24-2008, 09:49 AM
WHAT! JA 37 Viggen amongst the evil bunch in Ring raiders! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Sharpe26
01-24-2008, 10:19 AM
maybe this explains the problem and the solution a little better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gChU-mGeBaM&feature=related

horseback
01-24-2008, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Everyone else kept up a tight turn fight, the Mig's were forced to break and run
or face stalling and crashing.

Poor pilots IMHO.

The 51s would have been dead meat for a well-flown MiG squad.
Just as any prop against a well flown jet opposition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Wait a minute. It was my impression that recent records from the former Soviet Union tell us that the MAJORITY of MiG sorties in Korea from Day One were flown by Soviet pilots, many of them veterans of the Great Patriotic War.

Are you saying that these guys were, shall we say, less than stellar in their skill set?

I would expect that since the MiG 15 used a gun armament and had to engage at comparitively close range, that unless they caught the prop-powered opposition completely unaware, it would be hard to get kills in the short engagement time available to it (remember that the MiG was relatively short legged compared to the Mustang, and did not operate from bases close to the front).

As long as the other guys know where you are, and can present a valid threat of nailing you if you slip up, the greater ability to make instant changes of direction would favor their survival long enough for help in the form of F-86s to show up. This goes double if your intended prey have equal or greater numbers.

Today's more sensitive missiles and radars confer a much greater advantage to the modern jets, but at the dawn of the Jet Age, I think things were still a bit more dice-y.

cheers

horseback

Sergio_101
01-24-2008, 06:58 PM
Again Korea gives us a clue.
At the beginning of UN involvment
the USAF had trouble intercepting
the various Communist prop planes with
jet fighters.
The quick solution was to use F-82E Twin Mustangs.
The results were nearly instant, the Communists
were more wary of attacking South Korean bases
after the first few engagments.
After that several USAF fighter groups converted
back from F-80s to P-51Ds !

The US NAVY was far better off as it never fully
converted from F4U Corsairs and had a few thousand
F4U-4 and F4U-5s in service.
A special low altitude version was also STILL IN PRODUCTION!

Horseback is correct, and I will add that most communist
aircraft were flown by Soviets, not just the jets.
The US radio survaliance people knew it all to well.
Many times the Soviet pilots were trying to communicate in Chinese
only to break into Russian laced with vulgatiries when things got hot.

Shooting down a well flown piston fighter with a jet is a hit and run thing.
Turnfighting with a prop plane could get you killed quickly.

Sergio