Air fighting tactics, British vs. US, 1941-45.

[Muscateer]

Does anyone have any references to the above? I get the impression that

the British went in for the 'dogfight' whereas the Americans, due to the

heavier weight and better diving speed of their fighters, preferred a steep

fast attack and a zoom away from their target, given the circumstances of

course. I believe this was the method used in the Pacific where dogfighting

with Zero was not advisable!

[glider1]

You are looking at this as a national issue which isn't the case. Any fighter pilot would fight using the advantages of the aircraft that they are flying in compared to the enemy allowing for the technical situation.

For instance a Spitfire pilot would happily take on an Me109 in a turning battle but he wouldn't in a Tempest. Equally, the Spitfire wouldn't take on a Japanese fighter in turning fight as that would be a disaster.

Tactical situation is also important. A Zero pilot would take anyone on in a turn but wouldn't at over 250 mph, as above that speed the controls were nearly solid.

[Muscateer]

Yes, I don't think I'm indulging in national issues but rather looking for

comparisons in how disparate organisations dealt with similar questions.

The Luftwaffe came out of the Spanish Civil War with the 'pair' and the

'finger four'. In 1940 the RAF still used tactics derived from the Great War.

The USAAF arrived later on the scene, was it able to benefit from a

distillation of the others' experience as well as methods of its own?

I agree that plans go to pieces the minute the firing starts!

[glider1]

It is a little simplistic but the winner was often the one who due to better training, didn't let the plans go once the shooting starts. If your wingman left you as soon as the shooting started then you were wide open.

Its fair to say that the USA were able to use a lot of the lessons learnt from the RAF, but quite rightly it didn't mean that they followed the same path. Interestingly Japan didn't learn from the Luftwaffe despite the opportunity.