How many of you guys getting the Hurricane (4 Viewers)

[Spitfrnd]

Oz hit it on the nose, guys. The Zero was THE deciding weapon in the early Pacific War for what it brought to the table, ie., great range, speed, maneuverability, and the highly trained, veteran pilots. A dogfighting mentality still existed and the Allied aircraft weren't up to the Zero's capabilities in this area. It is probably safe to say a better monoplane dogfighter has never existed (unless you count the Zeros predecessor, the Type 96 "Claude", which was slower, shorter ranged, and underarmed), for it's time and place. Low and slow dogfighting was ruled by the Zero. Tactics evolved, aircraft improved, and the Zero was left behind. Such is the fate of any weapon of war as they are always surpassed by the next generation. To top it off, IMHO, the Zero is the best looking aircraft ever made. -- lancer

Ah well it is interesting to note that the definition of dogfighting I learned and used with my USAF, RCAF and RAF mates is wrong; perhaps I should ask for a refund for my training. No wait they paid me I guess. Lancer I don't disagree in the least with your observations on the Zero's early PTO superiority but as you noted, that was a limited time.

I have tried to explain the relative types and advantages of different fighter aircraft in the terms currently used but perhaps that was a waste of time. The term dogfighting was sometimes also used to mean what we now call angles fighting and has also been called turn or stall fighting. In that, we all agree the Zero was unmatched. However whatever you call it, it is but one type of tactics in a dogfight or fighter combat and if that is all you have, you will not live long against well trained opponents. For example, a Mark V can marginally out turn a Mark IX or Mark XIV but it would not survive against either with equal skilled pilots. There were reasons why they didn't use Gladiators in the BoB and replaced the earlier Marks as the war progressed.

BTW, the Spitfire was initially designed and fought as a low wing loaded aircraft but as I noted, it evolved, as most WW II fighters did with increased armament, armor, horsepower and fuel, to more of a high wing loaded aircraft that remained at home with either set of tactics against nearly all opponents. Some of us even think IT is the best looking aircraft of all time.

 

[The Templar]

I might!

But i honestly! Think that the crusaders and Berlin 38 takes enough money. And a silver anniversary comming up october 2010. Mrs. Templar won´t be pleased!

 

[debrito]

I might!

But i honestly! Think that the crusaders and Berlin 38 takes enough money. And a silver anniversary comming up october 2010. Mrs. Templar won´t be pleased!

Mr. Templar, how many years together for a Silver anniversary?

 

[lancer]

Ah well it is interesting to note that the definition of dogfighting I learned and used with my USAF, RCAF and RAF mates is wrong; perhaps I should ask for a refund for my training. No wait they paid me I guess.

I have tried to explain the relative types and advantages of different fighter aircraft in the terms currently used but perhaps that was a waste of time. The term dogfighting was sometimes also used to mean what we now call angles fighting and has also been called turn or stall fighting. Whatever you call it, it is but one type of tactics in a dogfight or fighter combat and if that is all you have, you will not live long against well trained opponents. For example, a Mark V can marginally out turn a Mark IX or Mark XIV but it would not survive against either with equal skilled pilots. There were reasons why they didn't use Gladiators in the BoB and replaced the earlier Marks as the war progressed.

BTW, the Spitfire was initially designed and fought as a low wing loaded aircraft but as I noted, it evolved, as most WW II fighters did with increased armament, armor, horsepower and fuel, to more of a high wing loaded aircraft that remained at home with either set of tactics against nearly all opponents. Some of us even think IT is the best looking aircraft of all time.

I have been following this discussion with great interest. All I have to go on is what I have read over many years. I have NO flying or combat experience and wouldn't presume to question someone who does. I do not see where your definitions have been questioned or why you would want a refund. I simply argue that the Zero was the superior dogfighter in it's time and place (first months of the Pacific War) and that it is the "looker" of the war. -- Al

 

[OzDigger]

Ah well it is interesting to note that the definition of dogfighting I learned and used with my USAF, RCAF and RAF mates is wrong; perhaps I should ask for a refund for my training. No wait they paid me I guess. Lancer I don't disagree in the least with your observations on the Zero's early PTO superiority but as you noted, that was a limited time.

I have tried to explain the relative types and advantages of different fighter aircraft in the terms currently used but perhaps that was a waste of time. The term dogfighting was sometimes also used to mean what we now call angles fighting and has also been called turn or stall fighting. In that, we all agree the Zero was unmatched. However whatever you call it, it is but one type of tactics in a dogfight or fighter combat and if that is all you have, you will not live long against well trained opponents. For example, a Mark V can marginally out turn a Mark IX or Mark XIV but it would not survive against either with equal skilled pilots. There were reasons why they didn't use Gladiators in the BoB and replaced the earlier Marks as the war progressed.

BTW, the Spitfire was initially designed and fought as a low wing loaded aircraft but as I noted, it evolved, as most WW II fighters did with increased armament, armor, horsepower and fuel, to more of a high wing loaded aircraft that remained at home with either set of tactics against nearly all opponents. Some of us even think IT is the best looking aircraft of all time.

Many modern day pilots and most of the general public do indeed think of dogfighting as being aerial combat, rather than an earlier style of aerial combat.

Most WWI and WWII pilots defined dogfighting as remaining in close range aerial combat for extended periods until the other dog (pilot) in the fight was dead. Or until you ran out of ammunition or got low on fuel etc and had to disengage. Extended dogfighting resulted in progressively reduced air-speeds favoring aircraft with good low air-speed agility like the Zero.

With that in mind the recommendation was that allied pilots do not engage the Zero in dogfights. They didn't say to avoid fighting the Zero, just use other aerial combat tactics rather than the old dogfighting style.

The Flying Tigers figured this out when they fought the Zero and recommended the regular US Airforce use hit and run tactics rather than stay and dogfight. The US regulars didn't listen and had to learn that lesson the hard way.

Subsequently when the Aussies were using the Spitfire against the Zero the US pilots recommended they use hit and run tactics rather than dogfight the Zero. But of course the Aussie pilots thought 'their' Spitfires were better than the US aircraft and took on the Zeros dogfight style. They soon learned the American pilots were correct and switched to hit and run and other tactics that made the Zero less and less effective as the war progressed.

However the Zero still retained its slow speed agility right to the end of the war. And it was a brave (or foolish) allied pilot that took on the few remaining experienced Japanese Zero pilots dogfight style.

 

[Spitfrnd]

I have been following this discussion with great interest. All I have to go on is what I have read over many years. I have NO flying or combat experience and wouldn't presume to question someone who does. I do not see where your definitions have been questioned or why you would want a refund. I simply argue that the Zero was the superior dogfighter in it's time and place (first months of the Pacific War) and that it is the "looker" of the war. -- Al

I think you and I are on the same page Al and as I said, I didn't disagree with your observations, except as to the looker part; the page of the person you quoted before is a bit of another matter, hense the reference. That is why I may need a refund.

 

[lancer]

I think you and I are on the same page Al and as I said, I didn't disagree with your observations, except as to the looker part; the page of the person you quoted before is a bit of another matter, hense the reference. That is why I may need a refund.

Gotta admit, I like the Spit, too, but I can't rate it higher than third on the looker scale, behind the Zero and the P-40B. I really like the late war Mk.XIV Spit. Any recommendations on Spitfire histories for the Pacific? I know something of Hurricane and Buffalo history in the Pacific, but all I know of the Spit is the defense of Darwin with the 3 squadrons of 1 Wing (Caldwell's, I think), with the Mk.5C. -- Al

 

[OzDigger]

Gotta admit, I like the Spit, too, but I can't rate it higher than third on the looker scale, behind the Zero and the P-40B. I really like the late war Mk.XIV Spit. Any recommendations on Spitfire histories for the Pacific? I know something of Hurricane and Buffalo history in the Pacific, but all I know of the Spit is the defense of Darwin with the 3 squadrons of 1 Wing (Caldwell's, I think), with the Mk.5C. -- Al

Sorry Lancer, personally I'd have to rank the Spit above those two in the looker list

 

[The Templar]

Mr. Templar, how many years together for a Silver anniversary?

25 years!

 

[Rob]

Ah well it is interesting to note that the definition of dogfighting I learned and used with my USAF, RCAF and RAF mates is wrong; perhaps I should ask for a refund for my training. No wait they paid me I guess. Lancer I don't disagree in the least with your observations on the Zero's early PTO superiority but as you noted, that was a limited time.

I have tried to explain the relative types and advantages of different fighter aircraft in the terms currently used but perhaps that was a waste of time. The term dogfighting was sometimes also used to mean what we now call angles fighting and has also been called turn or stall fighting. In that, we all agree the Zero was unmatched. However whatever you call it, it is but one type of tactics in a dogfight or fighter combat and if that is all you have, you will not live long against well trained opponents. For example, a Mark V can marginally out turn a Mark IX or Mark XIV but it would not survive against either with equal skilled pilots. There were reasons why they didn't use Gladiators in the BoB and replaced the earlier Marks as the war progressed.

BTW, the Spitfire was initially designed and fought as a low wing loaded aircraft but as I noted, it evolved, as most WW II fighters did with increased armament, armor, horsepower and fuel, to more of a high wing loaded aircraft that remained at home with either set of tactics against nearly all opponents. Some of us even think IT is the best looking aircraft of all time.

We sure do!

Rob

 

[wayne556517]

Might have to cancel my Hurricane order,now that there,s "luftwaffe" planes being released,but then again i could use it as a downed plane over Europe with a few modifications............

 

[Rob]

Might have to cancel my Hurricane order,now that there,s "luftwaffe" planes being released,but then again i could use it as a downed plane over Europe with a few modifications............

Bizzare!

Rob

 

[wayne556517]

Bizzare!

Rob

Would be a boring hobby if we all only collector the same stuff hey......

 

[Rob]

Would be a boring hobby if we all only collector the same stuff hey......

Very true Wayne.very true.

Rob