|
|
|
 |

January 31st, 2005, 08:21 PM
|
 |
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 251
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: OT: Archery in combat
geoschmo: You're confusing the Hurricane (a single-engine air-superiority fighter which fought alongside the Spitfire in the Battle of Britain) with the Mosquito (a twin-engine multi-role aircraft). The Mosquito was constructed entirely out of wood, and received more than its fair share of criticism because of it. It performed quite well in combat however and proved its critics wrong.
Quote:
Modern Jets vs WWII fighters would be an interesting fight...
|
More like lopsided  Despite the agility of the slower piston-driven fighters, the jets could quite easily cut them apart with guns, as they are easily capable of flying slow enough without stalling to get in some hits. With slashing, high speed (relatively) attacks from any angle they wish the jets would rule the day. The slower aircraft would simply have nowhere to go. This is not to say that there wouldn't be casualties among the Tomcats and Hornets, but they would be very few.
|

February 1st, 2005, 10:22 AM
|
 |
Brigadier General
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 1,994
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: OT: Archery in combat
Quote:
Sivran said:
More like lopsided Despite the agility of the slower piston-driven fighters, the jets could quite easily cut them apart with guns, as they are easily capable of flying slow enough without stalling to get in some hits. With slashing, high speed (relatively) attacks from any angle they wish the jets would rule the day. The slower aircraft would simply have nowhere to go. This is not to say that there wouldn't be casualties among the Tomcats and Hornets, but they would be very few.
|
In the Korean war the first jet planes had major difficulties with the old piston-driven planes as they were flying to fast to score a hit with guns easily. If they would reduce speed they were in constant danger of a stall made worse but the recoil of their guns.
__________________
For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's futures. And we are all mortal. - JFK
|

February 1st, 2005, 11:02 AM
|
 |
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,450
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 1 Post
|
|
Re: OT: Archery in combat
Quote:
Mephisto said:
Quote:
Sivran said:
More like lopsided Despite the agility of the slower piston-driven fighters, the jets could quite easily cut them apart with guns, as they are easily capable of flying slow enough without stalling to get in some hits. With slashing, high speed (relatively) attacks from any angle they wish the jets would rule the day. The slower aircraft would simply have nowhere to go. This is not to say that there wouldn't be casualties among the Tomcats and Hornets, but they would be very few.
|
In the Korean war the first jet planes had major difficulties with the old piston-driven planes as they were flying to fast to score a hit with guns easily. If they would reduce speed they were in constant danger of a stall made worse but the recoil of their guns.
|
That is what I was thinking about when I made my original post. But I think Sirvan is correct. I think that modern jets like the F-14 are much more capable at slow speed combat then the Korean war combat jets were. With the variable sweep wings and full flaps they could probably fly slow enough to be able to target the slow flying japanese zeros so one on one it would probably be no contest. I still think that the Zeros would have a manuverabilty advantage at those speeds though and IIRC they would have the Nimitz fighters pretty heavily outnumbered. I'm not sure how many F-14's it carries, but the Japanese had hundreds of planes in the air that day. They'd probably do better taking out a few with sidewinders and scaring the rest off with a few highspeed passes then mixing it up in a real dogfight. And then sinking the Japanese carriers before they could get back of course.
__________________
I used to be somebody but now I am somebody else
Who I'll be tomorrow is anybody's guess
|

February 1st, 2005, 02:14 PM
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 253
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: OT: Archery in combat
Something to consider is that in addition to the 14s 18s etc, you could use the A6Es which did carry guns and could carry sidewinders. While an intruder would not be considered front line fighter it is more then a match for a WWII fighter. The only problem the modern fighter craft would face is running out of bullets.
The Nimitz (or other super-carrier) could easily defeat the Japanese surface fleet but would be in danger from submarines. While not as quiet as todays submarines, electric motor subs are very quiet and could give the Nimtz fits if they could lie in wait.
Rasorow
|

February 1st, 2005, 02:46 PM
|
 |
Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 1,518
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: OT: Archery in combat
geoschmo said:
"They'd probably do better taking out a few with sidewinders and scaring the rest off with a few highspeed passes then mixing it up in a real dogfight."
Yeah, that's the angle I harp on that everyone seems to ignore. In the movie they capture one Japanese scout. They force him to land on the supercarrier, he's escorted to the brig, and he takes a long quizzical look at the parked jet, before he gets taken away, and pretty much nothing elese happens.
He should have gotten a sprained neck whipping his head around -- a supercarrier, jet fighters, a giant mast bristling with satellite dishes, guys with radios built into kevlar helmets -- all of that should make about as much sense to him as the engine room of the Enterprise would to us -- if you've never seen a scifi movie or tv show.
I still say, hit one city with Nimitz's guided missiles, then slowly steam a carrier group over to the European theater, and send them some newsreels of what we got and what it can do. I'd expect people would want to cut a deal to shorten the war.
But maybe tipping our hand so much is so uncertain, that keeping it a secret is the best plan.
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|