Fight's On! The origins of TOPGUN and dogfights back in the day/future prospects

[Pags]

And those old gyro stabilised sights would tumble under too many Gs and typically used a dail setting for wingspan of expected target to allow solve the range component via stadimetric ranging. Agreed the challenge is getting the lead right and that is a function of range, deflection and G. It's interesting, but not surprising that a lot of top scoring aces in WW II were really good hunters or brought up with a varmit shooting rifle so they instinctively understood the deflection problem. David McCampbell was the leading Navy ace in WWII and he was an Alabama boy brought up around firearms. He downed nine aircraft in a single mission, which a testimony to his superb shooting eye and efficient shooting technique (most other pilots would have run out of ammo after a few victories): http://www.acepilots.com/usn_mccampbell.html

I've read McCampbell's engagement policy to his squadron, as I'm sure many of you have, and if I remember correctly he heavily stresses aggressive tactics. I guess it makes the shooting that much easier if the enemy is filling up your windscreen.

Didn't one of the german ace of aces (galland?) say seomthing to the effect that most of his kills didn't even know he was there?

 

[eddie]

I've read McCampbell's engagement policy to his squadron, as I'm sure many of you have, and if I remember correctly he heavily stresses aggressive tactics. I guess it makes the shooting that much easier if the enemy is filling up your windscreen.

Didn't one of the german ace of aces (galland?) say seomthing to the effect that most of his kills didn't even know he was there?

I know that Hartmann used to get so close to the planes he was shooting that he was forced to bail out, I think at least twice, because his quarry exploded in his face, wrecking his own plane.

 

[nittany03]

T-2C didn't --- and the VT-4 Pensacola gun pattern i.e., air-to-air gunnery, was a BIG deal as we still had lots of F-8 influence and instructors around. Air-to-air gunnery was thought to make you a "man", a believer, and conversely --- if you didn't "get it" --- it kept you from getting "good" grades overall and a "good" seat later on (?).

You'll be disappointed to know, then, that the Guns pattern has been yanked from the TS syllabus. I think the T-2 guys were the last to do it, although the T-45 NATOPS does have provisions for banner towing.

 

[HeyJoe]

I've read McCampbell's engagement policy to his squadron, as I'm sure many of you have, and if I remember correctly he heavily stresses aggressive tactics. I guess it makes the shooting that much easier if the enemy is filling up your windscreen.

Didn't one of the german ace of aces (galland?) say seomthing to the effect that most of his kills didn't even know he was there?

That would be Erich Hartmann (http://www.acepilots.com/misc_hartmann.html) who is the all-time ace of aces with 352 victories. He claimed to be a poor shot and simply went to the opponent's deep six for a zero deflection shot with the opponent filling his windscreen. He was happy to pick out one opponent and dive away (much like the Flying Tigers). He disdained "dogfighting" and told a Topgun instructor who interviewed him in late seventies "No, never Dogfight". So, his philosphy was to go to the merge unseen and not dally there at all.



True, that most air-to-air victims never saw their assailant. American Fighter Aces Assn did a survey once and came back with about 85% victories in that category (as best could be determined). My personal belief is that this is likely valid because many aircraft are unawares they are targeted or are in a hostile area, but are fixated on something else.

@A4sforever....what's your view on this?

 

[Pags]

Hartmann, that's right. I neglected to do any research and I confused him with Galland, who was the only german pilot I could come up with by name as I was writing.

I know the dive attack was pretty heavily used by the Americans in the early years of the war as a way to negate the zero's superior manuverability with the superior diving performance of the american a/c.

 

[HeyJoe]

Hartmann, that's right. I neglected to do any research and I confused him with Galland, who was the only german pilot I could come up with by name as I was writing.

I know the dive attack was pretty heavily used by the Americans in the early years of the war as a way to negate the zero's superior manuverability with the superior diving performance of the american a/c.

Hartmann was a novice when he started flying the 109 and was lucky to survive long enough to mature his skills. Worth reading his story.

Galland http://acepilots.com/german/galland.html was a seasoned vet before the Battle of Britain, He rose to be the General of the Fighters reporting directly to Goering at age of 30. He was dashing and might have rivaled Hartmann's score if they were in same theatre. Both flew right up to end of war. Galland went to staff position as a general, but when he fell out of favor, he took over fledgling Me-262 jet group and stuffed it with top aces (experten), He's known best for coining the phrase: "Only the spirit of attack born in a brave heart will bring success to a fighter aircraft, no matter how advanced it is". He should know.

 

[Flash]

Hartmann, that's right. I neglected to do any research and I confused him with Galland, who was the only german pilot I could come up with by name as I was writing.

I know the dive attack was pretty heavily used by the Americans in the early years of the war as a way to negate the zero's superior manuverability with the superior diving performance of the american a/c.

MGen Claire Chennault advocated and taught that technique to the Ameircan Volunteer Group, better known as the Flying Tigers. The P-40's they had were much heavier than the Japanese planes they were fighting against over Burma and China and could easily outrun them in a dive. Chennault advocated attacking from above and not to try and out-turn the Japanese, because they would shoot you down. It worked for the Flying Tigers, they had a pretty good kill ratio against the Japanese in their 6 months of existence.

LCDR Jimmy Thach came up with his own solution to defeat the more maneuverable Japanese, the Thach Weave http://www.airwarfare.com/tactics/tactics_fighter.htm

 

[Pags]

Yeah, I'm familiar with the weave, I just remember reading that if the thach weave failed, diving was a favorite escape tactic for most american pilots throughout most of the war. I think there were only a few japanese a/c that could dive with a hellcat or a corsair or an AAF pilot in a jug. The tony comes to mind.

i also remember reading that by the end of the war, it had become basically unnecesary to use the weave with the hellcat, and the corsair could outrun just about anything it couldn't tangle with.

 

[eddie]

i also remember reading that by the end of the war, it had become basically unnecesary to use the weave with the hellcat, and the corsair could outrun just about anything it couldn't tangle with.

Pags comment made me think of something.

I have gotten the impression that there is a tendency (very general, I suppose), beginning with WWII, and continuing into today, for our fighters to be faster than, heavier than, and not as manuverable as those of our opponents. I.E., the Japanese wanted the Zero weak and spindley so as not to compromise its turn-fighting ability in the slightest, while we specifically designed the Hellcat and Corsair to be fast, powerful, armored machines (energy fighters, not turn fighters).

If this impression is in fact correct (fact, imagination, and the arrogance of my sense of insightfulness may all bee at work here), has it been for a reason, tactical, political, or otherwise?

 

[Pags]

I know the corsair design was heavily influenced by british wartime experience in the battle of britian. it originally had a much different armament and this was changed out in favor of the 6 x .50 based on the british experience. also, i know BuAer put a lot of emphasis on survivability, such as self sealing tanks. i'm sure there are numerous reasons for why survivability was high on the list, one of which i'm sure was the safety of the pilot. anyone else have any more insight on the american design philosophy?

 

[eddie]

I know the corsair design was heavily influenced by british wartime experience in the battle of britian. it originally had a much different armament and this was changed out in favor of the 6 x .50 based on the british experience. also, i know BuAer put a lot of emphasis on survivability, such as self sealing tanks. i'm sure there are numerous reasons for why survivability was high on the list, one of which i'm sure was the safety of the pilot. anyone else have any more insight on the american design philosophy?

I'm curious for beyond WWII as well, if that wasn't clear. So yeah... what Pags said.

 

[HeyJoe]

Pags comment made me think of something.

I have gotten the impression that there is a tendency (very general, I suppose), beginning with WWII, and continuing into today, for our fighters to be faster than, heavier than, and not as manuverable as those of our opponents. I.E., the Japanese wanted the Zero weak and spindley so as not to compromise its turn-fighting ability in the slightest, while we specifically designed the Hellcat and Corsair to be fast, powerful, armored machines (energy fighters, not turn fighters).

If this impression is in fact correct (fact, imagination, and the arrogance of my sense of insightfulness may all bee at work here), has it been for a reason, tactical, political, or otherwise?

Check out this article: http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/store/viewissue.asp?IssueID=BSFG

Zero: Myth, Mystery, and Fact
A Test Pilot Compares the A6M-5 Zero to U.S. Fighters
Corky Meyer
Perhaps no plane used during WW II is better known than Japan's Zero. Starting out impressively swift and strong, the Zero, in one form or another, remained Japan's primary aircraft throughout the war, despite constant advances by the Allies that rendered the once-dominant Zeros nearly obsolete. Grumman test pilot Corky Meyer was given the opportunity to fly the vaunted Zero at the Joint Services Fighter Conference in 1944. Having additionally flown many of the U.S. fighters of the era, Meyer breaks down the similarities and differences between American and Japanese warplanes.

You'll have to get it from library or order it. We did get their hands on a Zero early in the war (a crash landed example found in the Aleutians was brought to CONUS and rebuilt and flown). See the report at: http://www.warbirdforum.com/diego.htm

The Zero was a true acrobatic work of art and a deadly instrument of war, but it had its "others". Above 300 kts, its controls were stiff and it could not absorb much damage (no self sealing tanks or armor). The Wildcats were hard pressed to deal with the Zero hence the need for the Thach Weave. The faster Hellcats and Corsairs that showed up in 1943 could dictate engagement terms to the Zero as could the Mustangs and Lightnings that arrived to relieve the First Team that had relatively pooper performing Wildcats and P-40s to fend off the marauding Zeroes in 1942. Even the Australians found that the vaunted Spitfire could not outturn the Zero.

 

[Schnugg]

Damn it looked so real....

http://www.milehirc.com/Omeara_Top_Gun/omeara_top_gun.htm

 

[Goober]

Holy s___...look at the size of those people...

 

[AllAmerican75]

Holy s___...look at the size of those people...

LOL!