Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
In the Pacific the F6F Hellcat was the carrier fighter aircraft responsible for the most kills for the US.

Care to put up a source for that?? Literally all of the reading I've done echoes other users here: that it was the F4U series that holds the most kills, and one of the best kill:loss ratios in aviation history, on top of being one of the top 3 most beautiful aircraft ever to see the skies.

The Corsair was a fighter-bomber, no? Can't argue over the looks though; the Corsair is distinct as feth.

In WWII most US fighters were fighter/bombers. Some were better suited to that role though, and the Corsair was excellent at it.

Hellcats and Thunderbolts also had substantial bomb carrying capacity. I believe Mustangs could as well, but they were less reliable given their engines etc.

 Frazzled wrote:
In WWII most US fighters were fighter/bombers.

Pretty much all fighters were in the sense they almost all had some bomb carrying capacity, just some were better suited to it than others.

Exactly. As time went on they were increasingly designed with that capacity as well.

Even today if you exclude the F-22 most US air craft (Navy and Air Force) have some to extensive bombing capacity. The 80s variants: Strike Eagle, Falcon, and Hornet had impressive bomb capacity-both dumb and guided.

 Frazzled wrote:
The Corsair initially had problems with its wheel struts on landing...which could be a problem.

Initially it was a prop balance issue. Something to do with weight distribution caused the bird to want to turn of its own accord on landing, which is a big problem on a boat. The initial attempts to fix it were an air scoop on one side and, because it was designed with 3 blades on the prop, someone decided to make one of those blades longer than the other 2. Later variants entered the war with a 4-blade prop and further balance improvements.

Fun fact, the Corsair was the last prop driven aircraft to see combat action in the world, as it was used in 1969 by both Honduras and El Salvador in the "Football War"

Fun fact, the Corsair was the last prop driven aircraft to see combat action in the world, as it was used in 1969 by both Honduras and El Salvador in the "Football War"

I knew Latin America took soccer seriously, but using aircraft to score goals...wow...

 Frazzled wrote:

Fun fact, the Corsair was the last prop driven aircraft to see combat action in the world, as it was used in 1969 by both Honduras and El Salvador in the "Football War"

I knew Latin America took soccer seriously, but using aircraft to score goals...wow...

According to wiki, the war was sparked over a football match between the two, but was actually caused by other, more political tensions (like border disputes or something).

Yea but I used to know a bunch of ElS alvadorans. It probably was just the soccer match.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The Corsair initially had problems with its wheel struts on landing...which could be a problem.

Initially it was a prop balance issue. Something to do with weight distribution caused the bird to want to turn of its own accord on landing, which is a big problem on a boat. The initial attempts to fix it were an air scoop on one side and, because it was designed with 3 blades on the prop, someone decided to make one of those blades longer than the other 2. Later variants entered the war with a 4-blade prop and further balance improvements.

The Corsair had a lot of problems with landing on a carrier. One was bounce, one was the prop torque, one was terrible visibility, another was glide angle and approach speed.

The Royal Navy somewhat solved the visibility issue by training pilots to use a curved approach to a carrier, so the pilot could see the deck for most of the approach. They also wired shut some of the cowl flaps to get better visibility over the nose and the wings were slightly modified which improved the glide slope. It might have also been the Brits who started fitting more bubble like canopies to give better visibility, can't remember. But because of all that the Royal Navy was using the Corsair in a carrier based role long before the US Navy.

 Witzkatz wrote:
It has been a while, but there was some serious considerations by a few people in the military loop to get a few small, cheap, durable propeller engine attack planes, roughly fulfilling the same role as the A-10 Thunderbolt, especially for low-intensity conflicts with a great divide in tech levels. Has anybody else heard more about that?

Yeah I have heard about this and actually saw a plane that was being considered for such a thing on theaviationist.com but I forget the make and model (maybe the Super Tucano but that is in production). There are a lot of advantages... they can use dirt runways, loiter for awhile, and move slow enough to visually track small ground targets, but move faster than a helicopter.

It seems for fighting the Taliban something like that would be fine, but then again, a lot of WWII fighters were shot down in strafing runs by small arms and machine guns too. I can just see a plane being shot down, and people asking "what the hell is the US military using WWII fighters for?!?"

But I agree, using F-22s or F-35s anywhere near Afghanistan or Iraq seems ridiculous. But then again, you have to use them to learn how to use them too.

KTG17 wrote:
It seems for fighting the Taliban something like that would be fine, but then again, a lot of WWII fighters were shot down in strafing runs by small arms and machine guns too. I can just see a plane being shot down, and people asking "what the hell is the US military using WWII fighters for?!?"

If you were designing a plane purely for ground attack it wouldn't be tremendously difficult to make it resilient against small arms. WW2 fighters that were designed for dogfighting but thrust in to the role of ground attack had to remain as light as possible so they could still dogfight and had delicate exposed cooling systems and whatnot.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Starting off, the idea that you understand an entire system because you've been in a country is pretty naïve. I've seen a moose, that doesn't mean I understand it. Capitalism is insane as a moral system because without regulation it creates incentives to lie, cheat, bully and fraud your way to profit. It's perfectly fine on a theoretical level for understanding how markets work, but not even the US bases its morals or ethics on capitalism, because that'd be completely insane. Externalities would blow such a system to pieces instantly.

Further, you're missing my point; I'm not saying that the market doesn't serve as an indicator of whether people want something or not, I'm saying it's completely crazy to act as though the market was the only such indicator. By your logic, a person who needs a heart transplant to live but can't afford it doesn't really want to live, which is patently absurd. Your reply didn't even reply to my point, but rather pointed out that the market reduces waste, which wasn't even what we were discussing in the first place.

<taking a deep breath here>

I can't even follow your logic, it makes no sense nor follows any of the discussion we're having. Nor did I ever bring it up as a moral system you did. And for every flaw you can point out in capitalism, I can point out in any other system if not more. If your a socialist I am not going to bother arguing either, you would have lost me right there.

At the end of the day, the US is the world's superpower in fiance, in economics, in science, in food production, in health, militarily, and just about every other sector. Its success, and the economic environment I am in, has allowed me to be successful and live the American dream as well. I would hate to be in any other.

Do people fall through the cracks? Of course, and they will no matter what system you use.

I'm saying it's completely crazy to act as though the market was the only such indicator. By your logic, a person who needs a heart transplant to live but can't afford it doesn't really want to live

Where the hell did this come from? Who said anything like this and where?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Because without the Spitfire and Hurricane maintaining aerial supremacy over the UK, the Germans could have invaded the UK and then you would have nowhere to base your aircraft, unless you plan on flying them all the way over the Atlantic ocean and back again.

Well, if you want to use the Battle of Brittan in your argument, then its the Hurricane over the Spitfire. The Hurricanes out-numbered the Spitfire like 2-1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
It seems for fighting the Taliban something like that would be fine, but then again, a lot of WWII fighters were shot down in strafing runs by small arms and machine guns too. I can just see a plane being shot down, and people asking "what the hell is the US military using WWII fighters for?!?"

If you were designing a plane purely for ground attack it wouldn't be tremendously difficult to make it resilient against small arms. WW2 fighters that were designed for dogfighting but thrust in to the role of ground attack had to remain as light as possible so they could still dogfight and had delicate exposed cooling systems and whatnot.

Well I agree, and then we'd end up with another A-10 (which I support), but a small prop plane can only carry so much. So there is going to be sacrifice, and we're focusing on cost here.

Well I agree, and then we'd end up with another A-10 (which I support), but a small prop plane can only carry so much. So there is going to be sacrifice, and we're focusing on cost here.

I think the P-47 Thunderbolt was able to carry 2x1000lbs and one 500lbs bomb, together with an assortment of HVAR rockets, where today you could probably use rocket pods with much more ammunition in them, in addition to 8x M2 machine guns. I'm pretty sure the A-10 can carry more, but if the task is to deal with infantry, trucks/technicals and sandbag emplacements, I'm not sure you NEED much more - especially when you might be able to get 2 or 3 or more planes like that for the price of one A-10, and probably a whole damn squadron for the price of a F22.

 Witzkatz wrote:

Well I agree, and then we'd end up with another A-10 (which I support), but a small prop plane can only carry so much. So there is going to be sacrifice, and we're focusing on cost here.

I think the P-47 Thunderbolt was able to carry 2x1000lbs and one 500lbs bomb, together with an assortment of HVAR rockets, where today you could probably use rocket pods with much more ammunition in them, in addition to 8x M2 machine guns. I'm pretty sure the A-10 can carry more, but if the task is to deal with infantry, trucks/technicals and sandbag emplacements, I'm not sure you NEED much more - especially when you might be able to get 2 or 3 or more planes like that for the price of one A-10, and probably a whole damn squadron for the price of a F22.

Small prop planes like the Super Tacanos we bought for Afghanistan have very limited flight legs and ability to stay overhead. Even if you build them with inflight refueling capability you incur a huge tanker cost to keep them in the air or to fly them from one theater to another. Planes like the F22 or F35, when coupled with tanker support, have global reach. That decreases in theater basing costs (securing airfields/getting fuel, parts and munitions into theater/required ramp space and so on). Makes their utility very limited, even if they are cheaper you STILL need to spend the money on the power projection capabilities afforded by the more costly jets.

 Witzkatz wrote:

Well I agree, and then we'd end up with another A-10 (which I support), but a small prop plane can only carry so much. So there is going to be sacrifice, and we're focusing on cost here.

I think the P-47 Thunderbolt was able to carry 2x1000lbs and one 500lbs bomb, together with an assortment of HVAR rockets, where today you could probably use rocket pods with much more ammunition in them, in addition to 8x M2 machine guns. I'm pretty sure the A-10 can carry more, but if the task is to deal with infantry, trucks/technicals and sandbag emplacements, I'm not sure you NEED much more - especially when you might be able to get 2 or 3 or more planes like that for the price of one A-10, and probably a whole damn squadron for the price of a F22.

Skyraider pretty much had the same payload as a B-17 and was used extensively in VIetnam.

Armament

Guns: 4 × 20 mm (0.79 in) AN/M3 autocannon
Hardpoints: 15 external hardpoints with a capacity of 8,000 lb (3,600 kg) and provisions to carry combinations of:
Other: bombs, torpedoes, mine dispensers, unguided rockets, and gun pods.[24]

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:

Well I agree, and then we'd end up with another A-10 (which I support), but a small prop plane can only carry so much. So there is going to be sacrifice, and we're focusing on cost here.

I think the P-47 Thunderbolt was able to carry 2x1000lbs and one 500lbs bomb, together with an assortment of HVAR rockets, where today you could probably use rocket pods with much more ammunition in them, in addition to 8x M2 machine guns. I'm pretty sure the A-10 can carry more, but if the task is to deal with infantry, trucks/technicals and sandbag emplacements, I'm not sure you NEED much more - especially when you might be able to get 2 or 3 or more planes like that for the price of one A-10, and probably a whole damn squadron for the price of a F22.

Small prop planes like the Super Tacanos we bought for Afghanistan have very limited flight legs and ability to stay overhead. Even if you build them with inflight refueling capability you incur a huge tanker cost to keep them in the air or to fly them from one theater to another. Planes like the F22 or F35, when coupled with tanker support, have global reach. That decreases in theater basing costs (securing airfields/getting fuel, parts and munitions into theater/required ramp space and so on). Makes their utility very limited, even if they are cheaper you STILL need to spend the money on the power projection capabilities afforded by the more costly jets.

Afghanis can't fly F22s and anyone trying to give/sell them some should be arrested for treason.
How many Skyraiders could one buy for one F 22 plus support aircraft and crews? Lots and lots.

It also limits the amount of sorties they can run.

Frazz, you missed the point. No one is trying to give the Afghans F-22s.


The point is Tacanos don't fill a role the US Air Force really needs filled. We have rotary wing aircraft that fill the role for the most part, and our fixed wing we use in that role are also suited for roles small prop planes like the Tacano cannot fill. Just because small prop planes are cheaper, does not make them a Must Buy for the US*


*We DO have small prop planes we use in several roles, my wife used to fly some for the Army. We don't use them for ground attack.

KTG17 wrote:

I'm saying it's completely crazy to act as though the market was the only such indicator. By your logic, a person who needs a heart transplant to live but can't afford it doesn't really want to live

Where the hell did this come from? Who said anything like this and where?

I read the statement that "the market place determines which goods consumers really want" as an absolute statement, as in "the market place is the indicator of what people wants". If that's not what you meant with that statement I must've misunderstood, which would explain why we're seemingly talking past each other.

 CptJake wrote:
Frazz, you missed the point. No one is trying to give the Afghans F-22s.


The point is Tacanos don't fill a role the US Air Force really needs filled. We have rotary wing aircraft that fill the role for the most part, and our fixed wing we use in that role are also suited for roles small prop planes like the Tacano cannot fill. Just because small prop planes are cheaper, does not make them a Must Buy for the US*


*We DO have small prop planes we use in several roles, my wife used to fly some for the Army. We don't use them for ground attack.

I think the issue is selling props to the Afghans.

However the Air Force has often been accused of trying to us e a $100mm airplane when a $1mm airplane (or drone) will do.

KTG17 wrote:


At the end of the day, the US is the world's superpower in fiance, in economics, in science, in food production, in health, militarily, and just about every other sector. Its success, and the economic environment I am in, has allowed me to be successful and live the American dream as well. I would hate to be in any other.

While I've always been a huge fan of the USA (with the exception of their most popular sports) some statements here are not exactly true.

Health? If you think about medical devices and related science sure, but a significant amount of US population is obese. In europe there's not a single nation with the same percentage of obesity, but we can say the same about any other civilized country. And a lot of US citizen don't have access to the part of healtcare that is really efficient, only those ones that can afford it

Military? I wouldn't underestimate russia and china. And the USA lost every single war since decades. In afghanistan the talibans are stronger and control more territories than in 2001.

We can also argue about finance and economics, as many US industries are bought by arabs and chinese.

 Blackie wrote:

KTG17 wrote:


At the end of the day, the US is the world's superpower in fiance, in economics, in science, in food production, in health, militarily, and just about every other sector. Its success, and the economic environment I am in, has allowed me to be successful and live the American dream as well. I would hate to be in any other.

While I've always been a huge fan of the USA (with the exception of their most popular sports) some statements here are not exactly true.

Heresy! Our Football is better than your Football.

Health? If you think about medical devices and related science sure, but a significant amount of US population is obese. In europe there's not a single nation with the same percentage of obesity, but we can say the same about any other civilized country. And a lot of US citizen don't have access to the part of healtcare that is really efficient, only those ones that can afford it

That has nothing to do with the quality of healthcare. It correllates to the fact that, as a wealthy nation, we have access to cheap, fattening foods.

Military? I wouldn't underestimate russia and china. And the USA lost every single war since decades. In afghanistan the talibans are stronger and control more territories than in 2001.

I'm not sure that we're underestimating them... especially since their nuclear powers. We won't see a repeat of something like WW2 anytime soon. As for "USA lost every single war"... context is needed for many. Mostly they were lost due to political pressure at home, rather than actual militarily prowess. (also, we did go to War in Afghan and Iraq... we kicked assed. It's the nation building that's the problem).

We can also argue about finance and economics, as many US industries are bought by arabs and chinese.

?? And?

 Blackie wrote:

KTG17 wrote:


At the end of the day, the US is the world's superpower in fiance, in economics, in science, in food production, in health, militarily, and just about every other sector. Its success, and the economic environment I am in, has allowed me to be successful and live the American dream as well. I would hate to be in any other.

While I've always been a huge fan of the USA (with the exception of their most popular sports) some statements here are not exactly true.

Health? If you think about medical devices and related science sure, but a significant amount of US population is obese. In europe there's not a single nation with the same percentage of obesity, but we can say the same about any other civilized country. And a lot of US citizen don't have access to the part of healtcare that is really efficient, only those ones that can afford it

Military? I wouldn't underestimate russia and china. And the USA lost every single war since decades. In afghanistan the talibans are stronger and control more territories than in 2001.

We can also argue about finance and economics, as many US industries are bought by arabs and chinese.

Also, the US lead in science is now severely diminished to non-existent when you take into account the strength and impact of international collaborations rather than single country projects. The USA has been slow to adapt to this and so lags behind many countries in producing big findings as the majority of its research is domestic rather than international collaborations.

The EU put out 34% more scientific papers than the USA in 2015, a lead which had increased 4% over the past 6 years. The EU accounts for a third of all research papers published worldwide.

The USA is no longer the world leader in science.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
It correllates to the fact that, as a wealthy nation, we have access to cheap, fattening foods.

Actually it correlates to the fact that, despite being a wealthy nation, many of your people do not have access to nutritional food at affordable prices and so have to instead eat junk.

Um...(not in exact order)

Korea: draw
Panama-win
Vietnam-loss
Serbia-win
Iraq I-win (out of Kuwait)
Iraq II - win (Hussein regime literally hanged)
Afghan - win (Al Qaeda smashed, heads of AQ dead)
Libya - win. (dictator dead)

You may disagree with the war, the after effect of the war, or causes, but we're really good at kicking the crap out of dictators when we want to.

 Blackie wrote:


Military? I wouldn't underestimate russia and china. And the USA lost every single war since decades. In afghanistan the talibans are stronger and control more territories than in 2001.

This is false in almost every sense. The US does just fine militarily. Nobody is going to win a conventional war with the US, not Russia (who's first combat carrier deployment in decades was a farcical disaster and who cannot match the US for equipment levels, personnel numbers, or the depth of training for most positions) and not China (for the time being, in 30 or 50 years, who knows, that will probably change), and the US has "won" plenty of conflicts, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, etc. The problem is that not every problem can be solved militarily, and the US govt keeps wanting to hamfist itself into all those problems where it either doesnt need to or military force is not the answer. Those arent military defeats, they are policy failures.

Likewise, while the Taliban is not gone and certainly has its strengths, it does not wield the same power it once did and is playing the outsider element rather than that of a standing government as it was pre 2001. It no longer operates in conventional battles with large forces as it did against the northern alliance pre 2001, these have been shattered and destroyed, and now operates as rural militia and guerillas, they arent capable of driving to Kandahar and seizing it through conventional assault as they once did.

 CptJake wrote:
Small prop planes like the Super Tacanos we bought for Afghanistan have very limited flight legs and ability to stay overhead.

Didn't they have something like an 8hr endurance?

 Frazzled wrote:
Um...(not in exact order)

Korea: draw
Panama-win
Vietnam-loss
Serbia-win
Iraq I-win (out of Kuwait)
Iraq II - win (Hussein regime literally hanged)
Afghan - win (Al Qaeda smashed, heads of AQ dead)
Libya - win. (dictator dead)

You may disagree with the war, the after effect of the war, or causes, but we're really good at kicking the crap out of dictators when we want to.

Having killed a leader is not a win. In Iraq there's ISIS now, and USA never controlled anything there after their "wins", same as libya which is currently lacking a real government, in afghanistan the USA achieved nothing but killing a leader and yet the talibans are still there despite the USA have always had the power to annihilate them, how can you say these wars were won? WW2 was a really USA victory and actually the USA are controlling the majority of europe, including my country.

Not sure about the balcanic regions either.

Killing a leader is not a win, it's only a tool of propaganda which hides the fact that a lot of guys were killed with no reason.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:


That has nothing to do with the quality of healthcare. It correllates to the fact that, as a wealthy nation, we have access to cheap, fattening foods.

If a significant percentage of US citizens can't have access to the real super advanced healtcare or healthy food means that the USA are a not wealthy nation, but only the richest citizens are part of a wealthy nation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:


?? And?

And some other nations compete with USA about economic power and resources in general, if they're not superior.

 Blackie wrote:
[ ...WW2 was a really USA victory...

Yeah, no. Soviet Russia crushed the Nazis. We just made sure Hitler couldn't completley turn his back, shortening the war.

I mean, victory in Europe was a 3 legged table, comprising the USA, the British Commonwealth, and the Soviets, but the Soviets did most of the killing (and dying).

KTG17 wrote:

At the end of the day, the US is the world's superpower in fiance, in economics, in science, in food production, in health, militarily, and just about every other sector. Its success, and the economic environment I am in, has allowed me to be successful and live the American dream as well. I would hate to be in any other.

America isn't the world's leader in food production, not even close. You are top dog on chicken, beef, turkey, maize, cow's milk and soybean.
China's got you beat on pork, sheep, goat, duck and every vegetables but soybean, Russia owns the cereal game.

I'd like to know according to which piss-poor rating system the US ranks as a world superpower in health. You are solidly entrenched in the lower ranks of modern western countries, in this category.

America hasn't been great for a long while, and it sure doesn't look on it's way to greatness again.

 feeder wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
[ ...WW2 was a really USA victory...

Yeah, no. Soviet Russia crushed the Nazis. We just made sure Hitler couldn't completley turn his back, shortening the war.

I mean, victory in Europe was a 3 legged table, comprising the USA, the British Commonwealth, and the Soviets, but the Soviets did most of the killing (and dying).

Yeah, WWI was definitely an Allied victory. And we all helped each other too, the USSR got billions in lend-lease from the US until their production got rolling. Too often you see people going "The US won the war~" or "The Soviet Union won the war!", when the reality is that we won together.

@blackie,

Which of your previous statements am I misunderstanding?

You've always been a huge fan of the United States.

You don't think the United States has the largest economy.

You think the United States is controlling the majority of Europe, including your country (I assume Italy by the flag).

 Blackie wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Um...(not in exact order)

Korea: draw
Panama-win
Vietnam-loss
Serbia-win
Iraq I-win (out of Kuwait)
Iraq II - win (Hussein regime literally hanged)
Afghan - win (Al Qaeda smashed, heads of AQ dead)
Libya - win. (dictator dead)

You may disagree with the war, the after effect of the war, or causes, but we're really good at kicking the crap out of dictators when we want to.

Having killed a leader is not a win. In Iraq there's ISIS now, and USA never controlled anything there after their "wins", same as libya which is currently lacking a real government, in afghanistan the USA achieved nothing but killing a leader and yet the talibans are still there despite the USA have always had the power to annihilate them, how can you say these wars were won? WW2 was a really USA victory and actually the USA are controlling the majority of europe, including my country.

Not sure about the balcanic regions either.

Killing a leader is not a win, it's only a tool of propaganda which hides the fact that a lot of guys were killed with no reason.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:


That has nothing to do with the quality of healthcare. It correllates to the fact that, as a wealthy nation, we have access to cheap, fattening foods.

If a significant percentage of US citizens can't have access to the real super advanced healtcare or healthy food means that the USA are a not wealthy nation, but only the richest citizens are part of a wealthy nation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:


?? And?

And some other nations compete with USA about economic power and resources in general, if they're not superior.

Whats a Balcanic region?

also

And some other nations compete with USA about economic power and resources in general, if they're not superior.

Your country however, is not one of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
[ ...WW2 was a really USA victory...

Yeah, no. Soviet Russia crushed the Nazis. We just made sure Hitler couldn't completley turn his back, shortening the war.

I mean, victory in Europe was a 3 legged table, comprising the USA, the British Commonwealth, and the Soviets, but the Soviets did most of the killing (and dying).

ETO agreed.
PTO it was the US.