Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: JDO103@PSUVM.PSU.EDU (A Military Hist. Major)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Surprise in air combat
Message-ID: <9930@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 5 Oct 89 02:13:58 GMT
References: <9876@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 30
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: A Military Hist. Major <JDO103@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
I forgot who posted about the FW-190 being designed and produced during WWII,
but you are correct in saying that it was produced until the end of the war.
(Or as close to it as Germany could still produce.)  When the '190 appeared
on the scene, it outperformed nearly (if not all) every aircraft the allies
had.  It was later surpassed by our fighters, but it did have it's time of
superiority.  It could out-turn, climb, shoot, and run a Spitfire of the
same time period.  ( I say same time period because something like 24
different versions were created from pre- to post- WW2.)

  I have read accounts by pilots who have flown the '190 and the '109 and
nearly all said the '190 was the superior aircraft by far.

  To whoever wrote about the pilot training being as significant as the
aircraft being flown.  You are correct in this insight.  Take the Flying
Tigers for example.  The flew against the Japanese "Zero" in old P-40
Warhawks and Tomahawks  (I believe those are the types, I DO know they
were P-40's) and yet had an incredible kill ratio for the planes they flew.
The "Zero" was faster and more maneuverable, yet were knocked down more
often than the Tiger's.  (The fact that the P-40's were tough as hell,
helped a bit, too.)

  The same lessons were learned in Vietnam.  It is aircrew+aircraft to
make a winning team. You MUST have both.

               -Dave

[Sorry...No signature block!]