Anyone else interested in Aviation history?

Aerial warfare rendered naval and land warfare useless.

Air can clean ground targets, but it can't control ground.

You need boots to control land.

>dogfighting becoming obsolete

Yeah fucking love it desu, but mostly WW1 and WW2 never cared much for jets

>vietnamn war
>"dogfighting is no more lets skip equipping any cannon"
>get btfo'd when out of rockets
>"nvm equip cannon"

Discuss the last good plane to come out of britain
>looked sexy
>went up against american planes and did well
>had a lot of dakka

I love aviation in general. I mean what can be cooler? If you've ever been up there, thousands of feet above the ground, able to see for miles, able to defy gravity and move in a way that no man was ever meant to, at speeds that were unimaginable just 100 years ago, over any obstacle in your path... If you don't fall in love with it, then you're either afraid of heights or completely desensitized to the wonders of life. What could be more freeing?

The history of it is awesome. You get to watch a technology that started essentially during the same era as the steam engine and evolved and developed into what we know today; some of the most advanced stuff out there.

>>>>>
Dogfighting became obsolete in aerial warfare like physical strength and fighting ability became obsolete in ground warfare with the advent of the gun.
i.e. not at all

All of the early cold war British planes are pretty damn cool. They had a really unique look that their soviet and American counterparts didn't come close to. It's like they took the 1950s/F-100 series aesthetic to its extreme, and it looks pretty badass.

by that logic a 5-year-old is cucked because he hasn't been around as long as us

>has to listen to his dad
>weak as shit
>doesn't know anything
>gets spankings from mommy

cucked alright

>like physical strength and fighting ability became obsolete in ground warfare with the advent of the gun.
>i.e. not at all
Do people unironically believe this

It might not be the primary method of fighting, sure. And 1 on 1 a man with a gun will beat a man with a knife in most cases. But not always. And war isn't 1 on 1. War is chaos. You are a fucking idiot.

This. You'd be better off posting this on /k/.

Check out Fighting the Flying Circus by Eddie Rickenbacker. Great firsthand account of the war in the air.

Britten Norman Islanders are still produced and are very commonly used, so probably that.

Not a book from the world wars, but Sled Driver by Brian Shul is a good book written by an ex SR71 pilot. Even if you for some reason don't want to read first hand stories from piloting it, it has very good photos in it.

>dude missiles did jack shit in vietnam lmao
why the fuck does this meme still survive?
the reason the airforce got shrekt was because they didn't train the pilots in air to air fights against other fighter aircraft. the navy did perfectly fine with missile only phantoms.

It depends on the missile honestly, AIM-4 missiles were shit due to the lack of a proximity fuse. The AIM-7 wouldn't hardly allow BVR engagements but they did well enough

True, but I really hate this perception that 60's era missiles were the equivalent of nerf darts.
In the right hands, they were lethal as fuck.
I think the whole Vietnam thing was also the reason the Top Gun training program was created, because they realized pilots still had to fight other fighters instead of intercepting Bears or what have you.

Also, if I recall, something like 90% of air to air kills in the last 20 years were accomplished via missiles. I wouldn't say dogfights are never ever happening again, but its certainly playing second fiddle to BVR combat.

Also there was strict ROE that required visual identification of targets before they could engage them. So the pilots were basically forced to close to closer ranges where the AIM-7s didn't work all that well.

As I recall about half of the F-15 Eagle's impressive history was mainly done with late-model AIM-7 too. The Sparrow was capable enough when the pilots were allowed to go weapons free. (so Israeli and Iranian pilots mainly)

I feel you they had evolved far beyond the LaGG-3s shooting RS-82 rockets but most people I imagine think if it's a missile hitting you it should be an instant kill. Also agree that's why Top Gun was created because of the lack of knowledge how to get behind aircraft to fire the short range AAM of the 60's and early 70's

I was referring to the AIM-7E's the AIM-7F had a way better range and warhead and the one's you see today are AIM-7M which have the inverse monopulse seeker, active radar, and digital controls which the sparrows in Vietnam did not have

Who /thud/ here?

Of course. Who wouldn't love the Thunderchief with it's payload larger than the B-24

Definitely a cute

Have some Window.

"""""fighter""""" aircraft

That's half right, the F-105 was a fighter-bomber.

fun fact, the first female war pilot was a turk
her first combat mission was bombing against a kurdish uprising, known today as the "dersim massacre"

>her first combat mission was bombing against a kurdish uprising, known today as the "dersim massacre"
women pilots, am I right guys

You play War Thunder?

>War Thunder

It's been like 2 minutes since we learned how to fly.

What do you mean

PROTIP: Most pilots were scum.

Any pilot who took down many planes during WWII did so via picking out the shit flyers i.e. those on their first engagement and picking off them only.

Essentially good pilots would fly above everyone else, and pick out the ones they knew who could not fly and kill them first.

True cowards.

war isn't about being fair to the enemy famalam

Doesn't change the fact that pilots are cowards in armour.

planes are relatively unarmored

Pilots are still cowards.

no

mhm.

The only Pilot with any type of balls is a test pilot. Also my family are a family of pilots.

>i get my entire impression of pilots from the luftwaffe in the eastern front of ww2
hmmmmmmm

Aha. Just another self-hating German ashamed of the fact his ancestor was a manly Luftwaffe pilot instead of an edgy communist nonviolent resister during the war, so political correctness dictates that's not ok.

>communist
>ww2
>nonviolent

Are you okay?

>Also my family are a family of pilots.
What does this have to do with anything?
My dad is a carpenter, doesn't mean I know shit about woodworking.

>Just another self-hating German ashamed of the fact his ancestor was a manly Luftwaffe pilot instead of an edgy communist nonviolent resister during the war, so political correctness dictates that's not ok.

I wish man. My German side is pretty badass, pic related served in WWI also aboard a u-boat repair boat. My German grandmother is the self loathing person in this family, no matter how much we ask he about the war and our family she won't tell us, she is sadly going to take it to her grave.

My grandfather (other side) was a CIA helicopter pilot, that's where the family of pilot comes from. His son (dads brother) is an airline pilot.

All pilots are cowards.

>My dad is a carpenter, doesn't mean I know shit about woodworking.
Maybe you should ask your father about woodworking and then you will understand woodworking.

>All pilots are cowards.
repeating a shitpost isn't making it any less of a shitpost

>implying it's a shitpost
It's literally true. There is an interview I am struggling to find from a pilot who was awarded some sort of metal for killing a bunch of enemy pilots.

he literally says he is a coward and simply identified and killed experienced fighters.

Saying it's not true doesn't make it so, when all the evidence points against the fact.

>inexperienced fighters.

>Saying it's not true doesn't make it so, when all the evidence points against the fact.
A singular interview is suddenly evidence all pilots are cowards?
Its no myth that the germans massively inflated their killcounts by counting any hit against an enemy as a kill, and by preying on shitty soviet pilots flying vodkanigger rigged aircraft, but applying this to all fighter pilots ever is fucking retarded.

>but applying this to all fighter pilots ever is fucking retarded.
>a relativity new form of combat is constantly shifting it's meta
Yeah, no.

>all fighter pilots ever
All few thousand of them?

So are those very same inexperienced pilots who take to the air, knowing they have a high chance of being stomped, cowards?

>>a relativity new form of combat is constantly shifting it's meta
Yes?
From fucking biplanes made out of matchsticks and cloth, barely able to break 100mph, using rifles and machine guns, to composite material mach 2.5+
thrust vectoring passive stealth BVR assfuck machines, saying "nothing has changed since the advent of aerial combat" stupid.
You don't need to fly high above your enemy, then dive down from the sun to get a kill.
not to mention that surpise attacks were not what all aerial dogfights consisted of even back then.
>All few thousand of them?
>1 out of a couple thousand pilots=all pilots are cowards
Did your mom deprive you of oxygen when you were a baby?
Good job triggering me.

>implying it's a choice.
Eh.

> knowing they have a high chance of being stomped
Huh? Their chances of death were still relatively low.

~40k US pilots died when compared to the 200 thousand + planes that were in service, number is incredibly low.

>>implying it's a choice.
Those same experienced pilots you were calling cowards did not get born with experience in air combat. They were the rookie pilots who got good.

I don't know if those numbers are correct but I wouldn't call ~20% fatality rate for every aircraft "low". Anyone who fights with that risk of dying isn't a coward.

>Yes?
Kek, no. WWI and WWII both saw large amounts of planes shat onto the battlefield. The meta HAS shifted in the sense we no longer shit out so many raw planes to fight each other - it's pointless.

Yes?
From fucking biplanes made out of matchsticks and cloth, barely able to break 100mph, using rifles and machine guns, to composite material mach 2.5+
thrust vectoring passive stealth BVR assfuck machines, saying "nothing has changed since the advent of aerial combat" stupid.
You don't need to fly high above your enemy, then dive down from the sun to get a kill.
not to mention that surpise attacks were not what all aerial dogfights consisted of even back then.

Tactics =/= meta

I can guarantee you pilots will always look for those who are an easy target and kill them first. I mean it something which will appear in all forms of warfare - doesn't change the fact that they are cowards fighting in a cowardly style.

>doesn't change the fact that they are cowards fighting in a cowardly style.
I disagree.

The meta is always applied cause it's effective. If your definition of "cowardly" is anyone who eschews effective methods for honorable duels, well then the vast majority of humanity are cowards, and all military are cowardly, by your definition.

>I don't know if those numbers are correct but I wouldn't call ~20% fatality rate for every aircraft "low"

It's less than half a chance of dying. It's extremely negligible. Especially in such a new form of warfare.

For instance.

21,000 died in the first day of Somme and over 50% of those involved were wounded.

20% chance of dying over THE WHOLE of WWII is incredibly low, these are US stats by the way.

wwiifoundation.org/students/wwii-aircraft-facts/

>well then the vast majority of humanity are cowards, and all military are cowardly, by your definition.
Indeed they are. The day of great men and bravery is sadly, long gone.

>all military are cowardly
Not at all.

Guerrilla's
Rebel (whether or not you believe in their ideal is besides the point)
ISIS (See above, attacking America is brave as fuck)

...

Worse and more bloody forms of combat existing doesn't mean that less bloody forms of combat are "not courageous". This isn't a pissing match.

Rebels and insurgents have a long history of abusing captured prisoners and unarmed civilians. They are not above abusing power and bullying people weaker than them in a similar (and worse) manner to how you describe pilots.

He's trying to get replies by being an edgy shithead.

>modern warfare is full of bravery.
xD

Hell even the generals who lead these modern armies are cowards.

>This isn't a pissing match.
It literally is. Are you retarded?

>Rebels and insurgents have a long history of abusing captured prisoners and unarmed civilians. They are not above abusing power and bullying people weaker than them in a similar (and worse) manner to how you describe pilots.
Abuse of power =/= Coward. Kek, this is at all similar? Pilots also indulge in the atrocities you just listed.

>pilots regularly behead 11 year old boys on camera and upload it to liveleak
>pilots regularly dunk people into nitric acid tanks
>pilots regularly slit the necks of priests

>missed the part where I said their ideologies are besides the point
hehe.
nice.

>cherry picking one aspect of the argument
hoho
excellent

This could of been a mildly interesting thread, but then you had to come in here and shit it up with your "if you aren't a third-world nigger fighting against impossible odds you're a coward" posting. I fucking hate you. Kill yourself in the most painful way possible. If you don't then you're a coward.

Doesn't sound like the stories of female pilots I know - e.g. stuff like hiding a pregnancy, nearly stalling a 747, and having improper relations in the crew rest area. Just imagine the typical female driver and transplant it to an aircraft and you get the idea.

t.commercial pilot

Apparently a physical copy is outrageously expensive though

This is my recent favorite looking plane.

>If you don't then you're a coward.
While suicide is brace, living through the shit is much braver.

So rude.

Yes, and while it's good it probably doesn't justify the price. Only something like 140 pages long.

Speaking of female pilots, how can anyone forget these gals.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches

>I've been looking for a good book about military aviation, fighter pilots and aces from the World Wars.
"Fighter combat tactics and manoeuvring" by Robert L. Shaw is pretty much the standard. The book is more of a manual, written for actual pilots, but it also covers air combat history and development and it is filled with quotations and commentary from British, German and American flying aces from the world wars and later conflicts.

Hand coloured WWI photo of Royal Flying Corps chaps, or Led Zeppelin cover?