Best Pacific Fighter?

[evangilder]

That was my opinion as well, if I had to take a WWII vintage airplane into ground attack, that is what I would prefer. I wasn't saying that is what they should have done in Korea, obviously finance and immediate needs take precedent.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

although at the time only very few select jets were capable of ground attack............

[evangilder]

Ground attack really requires an aircraft that is relatively slow and can loiter over the area. The AD-1 used in Vietnam is a good example. They also used the T-28s for ground attack and FAC duties. I saw a great program on the T-28s in Vietnam on the Discovery channel a while back.

[Lightning Guy]

Don't forget that the A-26/B-26 Invader was used long after it was designed for CAS missions.

[evangilder]

True, LG. I often forget about that one.

Originally Posted by evangilder

Ground attack really requires an aircraft that is relatively slow and can loiter over the area. The AD-1 used in Vietnam is a good example. They also used the T-28s for ground attack and FAC duties. I saw a great program on the T-28s in Vietnam on the Discovery channel a while back.

That is not entirely true. There is a place for fast attack planes and their is a place for loiterers. Ideally you want a mix of planes that can provide quick response strike capability and those that can supply tactical ground support. The Skyhawk in Vietnam was extemely effective.

It was the AH-1 in Vietnam, the Skyraider was re-designated. In Korea it was the AD-2/4 Skyraider. Skyraiders and Corsairs served side by side off carriers through most of Korea. My Dad flew about a hundred sorties in them. F-86's were also used as fast attack planes in Korea, along with F-84's and even F-80's. The F-51 mostly served at the start of the conflict.

=S=

Lunatic

[evangilder]

It has been proven that slower aircraft are better for ground attack roles, that is why they did not retire the A-10. Fast aircraft often fly past the target before they see it. With the right FAC on the ground, high speed aircraft are effective, but for a plane that is going to see out and destroy, you need a slow one.

The AH-1 is a Cobra attack helicopter. The Skyraiders in Vietnam were the A-1E, A-1H and A-1J. They also used the AD-1 in Korea.

Originally Posted by evangilder

It has been proven that slower aircraft are better for ground attack roles, that is why they did not retire the A-10. Fast aircraft often fly past the target before they see it. With the right FAC on the ground, high speed aircraft are effective, but for a plane that is going to see out and destroy, you need a slow one.

The AH-1 is a Cobra attack helicopter. The Skyraiders in Vietnam were the A-1E, A-1H and A-1J. They also used the AD-1 in Korea.

You are right, I meant A-1H.

The AD-2 through AD-4 were used in Korea. The AD-2 had 2 x 20mm guns, the AD-4 had 4 x 20mm guns.

As I said, there is a place for both kinds of attack planes. It depends on the mission. Jets are fine for attacking fixed emplacements, in fact they are probably better as they are so much harder to hit with flak and small arms. They also can reach a point of contention much faster to deliver napalm or cluster bombs to stop an enemy advance and they can make more round trips in a shorter period of time. Slower attack planes like the Skyraider are better for close infantry support over an active battlefield. It's very situatational.

=S=

Lunatic

[evangilder]

The AD-1 was also used in Korea, flown by VA-35 and VA-195 of the Navy and VMAT-20 of the USMC. These numbers are from the Skyraider association. They ought to know, they flew them.

You will also find that jets are not that much harder to hit when making an attack run. I have see footage of an A-6 bombing a ground target by dive-bombing, commonly used in Vietnam, He got hit twice by groundfire on the way in. But you stated not too long ago that flak was ineffective anyway, so it doesn't matter what you were flying with flak, right?

[plan_D]

I saw footage of A-4 Skyhawks attacking a bridge in Vietnam, one got brought down by FlaK.

[evangilder]

Yep, it's just a question of how much you lead the airplane, that's all.

Originally Posted by evangilder

The AD-1 was also used in Korea, flown by VA-35 and VA-195 of the Navy and VMAT-20 of the USMC. These numbers are from the Skyraider association. They ought to know, they flew them.

You will also find that jets are not that much harder to hit when making an attack run. I have see footage of an A-6 bombing a ground target by dive-bombing, commonly used in Vietnam, He got hit twice by groundfire on the way in. But you stated not too long ago that flak was ineffective anyway, so it doesn't matter what you were flying with flak, right?

AD-1's may well have flown too, earlier in the conflict. I just know for a fact my Dad flew the AD-2 on his first tour, and the AD-4 thereafter.

Let's make a distinction between "Flak", as in German flak against high altitude bombers, and AAA relatively near the ground okay? Also, by Vietnam, eveyone had proximity fuses, and they also had radar targeting systems only dreamt of in WWII.

A-6's were sometimes shot down by AAA at low altitudes, but it was not all that common and they were not nearly so vulnerable as a prop would have been. Jets are generally tougher targets to start with and they are moving much faster. Also, most of the A-6's shot down in VN were shot down by SAM's, not AAA.

=S=

Lunatic

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but remember some early jets couldn't take allot of punishment........

[plan_D]

And the A-4 I saw went down through AAA fire.

[evangilder]

If you are using a radar targetting system for your AAA, then it would have essentially been no different shooting down a jet versus a prop, it's a question of lead time.

The reason prop aircraft are better for it is because they are slower and when you are going slower, you have a better chance of spotting what you are after, hence a better chance to hit it. Plus you can't spot artillery or call in additional FBs from a jet, you are just going to fast over the terrain to effectively spot targets. The exception being the A-10, which they nearly retired until they realized they needed a SLOW aircraft to sopt and go after ground targets.