PDA

View Full Version : the different fightertactics of countries in WWII



XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 01:38 AM
FIGHTER TACTICS



This is more important than the aircraft you fly.
Wich has been proven over and over in history,
by brave fighter pilots.

this thread is meant to discuss different countries
fighting tactics from 1939-1945.

if you have any good info about any country,
please post it here.

something to get it starting:

about US tactics


If the P40 was so brilliant, how come the Zeros and Oscars shot them
>out of the sky in the Pacific and SE Asia war zones in 1941/2?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pilot quality and Training. The Japanese Pilots had come through the
best flight school for dogfighting combats in the world while the US
pilots in 1940 were in a similar situation to the USAF pilots going into
Vietnam. Basically good pilots trained in formation and basic flying
but with little or no tactical combat doctrine. The Flying Tigers, like
Ed Schilling were drawn from this group of pilots but were trained in a
realistic combat doctrine to get the best out of their aircraft vs the
Japanese (i.e. Dive and Zoom Vertical, high speed tactics vs the Japanese
horizontal turning fight.


-----------------------------------------------------------


If the ...... was so brilliant, how come the ..... and ..... shot them
>out of the sky in the Pacific and SE Asia war zones in 1941/2?

Answer:
I will answer this question with an analogy. If I give you a high
powered rifle and tell you it is a club, and you foolishly use it as a
club, and I give another person a 45 cal. pistol, and he knows how to
use it. Who do you think will be the victor.

The same applies to fighters.

If you don't use your equipment properly, you are going to lose the
fight. The Americans unfortunately had been taught the antiquated
dogfighting technic that had been used in WW I, and wasn't successful
against the Zero.

The answer to your question. In the early stages of the war the allied
pilots were not using their equipment correctly. (For your
information, the Allies never built an airplane that could turn inside
the Zero below 200 mph.) So how do you think we eventually outfought
them at every engagement. CHANGE OF TACTICS

In 1943, when the P-38 was first used in the Pacific, the Zero pilots
were shooting them down in large numbers. (See Subro Sakai's book
Zero.)

Isn't this amazing when you consider that the P-38's top speed was 100
mph faster than the Zero, and pilots were still trying to dogfight the
Zero.

Chennault had written a manual on fighter tactics, which discouraged
dogfighting as outdated. The military brass disagreed with Chennault,
and as a result Chennault was given an early retirement from the Army
Air Corps. Unfortunately the American military took Chennault for a
Fool. The same as the court martial board had taken Billy Mitchell as
a fool, when he claimed that bombers could sink any battle ship afloat.
Even though he proved it by sinking a German WW I battleship he was
court martialed.

Erik Shilling Author; Destiny: A Flying Tiger's
Flight Leader Rendezvous With Fate.
3rd Squadron AVG
Flying Tigers



how about thathttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

dont forget we are talking tactics,not plane performance.







We may be hard on the outside,but inside, we are soft as cotton.
<ceter>http://www.funnypictureswebsite.com/funnypictures/funny-pictures213.jpg </center>
WESTCOAST FOREVER!


Message Edited on 10/29/03 01:03AM by fjuff79

Message Edited on 10/29/0301:06AM by fjuff79

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 01:38 AM
FIGHTER TACTICS



This is more important than the aircraft you fly.
Wich has been proven over and over in history,
by brave fighter pilots.

this thread is meant to discuss different countries
fighting tactics from 1939-1945.

if you have any good info about any country,
please post it here.

something to get it starting:

about US tactics


If the P40 was so brilliant, how come the Zeros and Oscars shot them
>out of the sky in the Pacific and SE Asia war zones in 1941/2?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pilot quality and Training. The Japanese Pilots had come through the
best flight school for dogfighting combats in the world while the US
pilots in 1940 were in a similar situation to the USAF pilots going into
Vietnam. Basically good pilots trained in formation and basic flying
but with little or no tactical combat doctrine. The Flying Tigers, like
Ed Schilling were drawn from this group of pilots but were trained in a
realistic combat doctrine to get the best out of their aircraft vs the
Japanese (i.e. Dive and Zoom Vertical, high speed tactics vs the Japanese
horizontal turning fight.


-----------------------------------------------------------


If the ...... was so brilliant, how come the ..... and ..... shot them
>out of the sky in the Pacific and SE Asia war zones in 1941/2?

Answer:
I will answer this question with an analogy. If I give you a high
powered rifle and tell you it is a club, and you foolishly use it as a
club, and I give another person a 45 cal. pistol, and he knows how to
use it. Who do you think will be the victor.

The same applies to fighters.

If you don't use your equipment properly, you are going to lose the
fight. The Americans unfortunately had been taught the antiquated
dogfighting technic that had been used in WW I, and wasn't successful
against the Zero.

The answer to your question. In the early stages of the war the allied
pilots were not using their equipment correctly. (For your
information, the Allies never built an airplane that could turn inside
the Zero below 200 mph.) So how do you think we eventually outfought
them at every engagement. CHANGE OF TACTICS

In 1943, when the P-38 was first used in the Pacific, the Zero pilots
were shooting them down in large numbers. (See Subro Sakai's book
Zero.)

Isn't this amazing when you consider that the P-38's top speed was 100
mph faster than the Zero, and pilots were still trying to dogfight the
Zero.

Chennault had written a manual on fighter tactics, which discouraged
dogfighting as outdated. The military brass disagreed with Chennault,
and as a result Chennault was given an early retirement from the Army
Air Corps. Unfortunately the American military took Chennault for a
Fool. The same as the court martial board had taken Billy Mitchell as
a fool, when he claimed that bombers could sink any battle ship afloat.
Even though he proved it by sinking a German WW I battleship he was
court martialed.

Erik Shilling Author; Destiny: A Flying Tiger's
Flight Leader Rendezvous With Fate.
3rd Squadron AVG
Flying Tigers



how about thathttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

dont forget we are talking tactics,not plane performance.







We may be hard on the outside,but inside, we are soft as cotton.
<ceter>http://www.funnypictureswebsite.com/funnypictures/funny-pictures213.jpg </center>
WESTCOAST FOREVER!


Message Edited on 10/29/03 01:03AM by fjuff79

Message Edited on 10/29/0301:06AM by fjuff79

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 02:27 AM
I always rather liked the Thatch Weave, developed by Lt. Cmdr. John Thatch (USN).

This is a great example of how cleaver tactics were devised to offset your own technical disadvantages (in this case the F4 Wildcat when pitted against the A6 Zero) which at the same time exploited the tactical short comings of your opponent (the essentially lone hunting approach to combat of the IJN pilots).

This is a good example of a force multiplier- alone the Wildcats were at a big disadvantage to the Zero's, but as two pairs they could take on a larger number of Zero's with some success.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 05:37 PM
thanks good info



We may be hard on the outside,but inside, we are soft as cotton.
<ceter>http://www.funnypictureswebsite.com/funnypictures/funny-pictures213.jpg </center>
WESTCOAST FOREVER!

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 09:22 PM
Erich Hartmanns preferred method was to get in close to an aircraft and then attack the target, the words i think he used, .."until it fills the canopy". Furthermore his preferred method for downing Shturmoviks was to attack from beneath, targeting the radiator, it was apparently an effective means of bypassing the Il2's armour. Reading Black Cross Red Star volume 2, recently it suggests that the overall preferred method was to come from behind and above to position yourself before the attack, though some pilots preferred the low and behind approach.

Standard Luftwaffe tactics though nothing special, and i believe was used (or at least taught) for all Luftwaffe fighter pilots.