Evolution of the Use of Fighter Aircraft from WWI to the Modern Day | A History of Air Combat
2024 ж. 13 Мам.
45 884 Рет қаралды
From triplanes to stealth jets, the Red Baron to Top Gun, fighters have seen enormous growth and change over the last hundred years, and as each era has brought about new technologies, pilots have developed radically different tactics and strategies for air to air combat. In today's video, we invite PilotPhotog to take us through a brief history of the evolution of fighter tactics.
═════════════════════════════════
◄► Support the channel on Patreon!
/ armorcast
═════════════════════════════════
◄► Tog's Channel
/ pilotphotog
◄► Twitter!
/ pilotphotog
◄► Merch!
teespring.com/stores/thearmory
Just imagine how the Red Baron might react to modern fifth generation fighters! Though I can only assume he'd despise the use of long-range missiles over close-in dogfighting! Tog's clearly better than I am at keeping the waffling to a minimum! All up, I think we've done a decent job of cramming over a hundred years of fighter history into a bit sized video here, but keep in mind that for time's sake, we've skimmed over MANY aspects of this hugely complex topic, and we could probably make fifty videos of this length without covering it all in perfect detail! So I guess what I'm saying is, subscribe for "an in depth look at fighter tactics during x era"!
Great working with you as always, and if you’re reading this and haven’t subscribed to ArmorCast yet, you should!
I was also thinking this, I think he would be amazed at what modern planes can do.
Wouldn’t that be a bit hypocritical? Is it really all that different from attacking from where the enemy can’t see you?
You sound like super manuveribility is inferior compared to stealth. Stealth has advantage in BVR fights but gives no additional benefits in close combat unlike supermanuveribility. Advantage of aircraft's agility is tried and tested during every war.
I think Red Baron will be proud that fighters have sorted to his philosophy of ambushing the opponent and get out instead of dogfighting. Red Baron was notorious for surprising inexperienced pilots from behind and going after weak opponents. It was despised at the time. One contemporary ace, upon hearing his death, said he wished Red Baron had burned on his way down.
I find it astounding that the first plane took flight in 1903 to the first jet aircraft was only 36 years. And the moon landing 30 years after the jet
Somewhat unfortunately, war seems to be technology's greatest accelerator
@@ArmorCast And that some of the most beautiful things in the world are those of war rather than of peace
If you think that is astounding....... in 50 years we have gone from computers made of cogs and gears to ones made from vacuum tubes to figuring out how to use UV light to etch electronic circuits into sillicon to creating artificial human level intelligence.
@@p7outdoors297 they show both sides of humanity half our inventions used to be used for killing another human
I agree
Then: "I literally saw his face in detail as my pistol bullet entered his head." Now: "Blip on my radar there." **presses button** "Blip obliterated."
This is the way
I prefer my "fighters" very large with heaps of turrets plastered all over them. Bonus points if those turrets have automated fire control systems. Looking at you, B-29 and B-36. What?
man of culture, more like airlandbattleship
AC-130 “spooky” enters the chat.
@@prepareuranus8097 (guns only on the left side)
Pilot Photog’s channel is one of my favorite places to go here on KZhead. Great call having him come visit here. You got yourself a new subscriber!
Great seeing you here Matthew and thanks!
Great video! I can’t wait for the CAS and bomber videos! Please be sure to mention the big cannon cas like the Beechcraft XA-38, the legendary :Duck,” or the B-25H with the 75.
Not really tactics more likely technological concepts. Tactics comes from formations and how they can bring fire to bare quickly and reacting to attacks from different directions. If anemy does this what do you do.
This roughly covered tactics/doctrine
This is pretty much just a brief history of American fighter generations, with them getting all the video time, and being "war-winning weapons" or the "most famous".
Yeah I thought that, he’s good at narration but unfortunately followed the standard American path of only listing American aircraft and how great they were…. Perhaps American aircraft is his area of expertise if we are giving him a chance but he didn’t mention that so we have to assume it’s just like any other American information video
Since WW2 Russia aircraft has not really improved, let alone be operational has it claims the aircraft can do/is. It's crazy expensive to maintain aircraft to have the aircraft be able to use all of its capabilities. Russia can't even afford to pay for the right tires for maintenance on its ground vehicles.....we really think Russia can afford to properly maintain its aircraft? Lol hell no. It's also why russias so called 5th Gen SU fighter has only built 3 or 4 operational versions. Let alone do you think they can maintain just the 3 or 4 they have? Lol. Just a little Crack or chip in paint and or panel, then needs to be completely replaced and repainted. Russia can't afford that. It's why the F22 and F35 is so damn expensive to maintain. The USA spends the money in maintenance to maintain 100% Stealth capabilities of its 5th Gen aircraft. Poor Russia, literally and figuratively lol.
@@nexpro6118 1 word, American. That about explains what you claim. The Russians haven't improved since ww2 meanwhile sold panes to over 60 nations says a lot of what Americans think.
I love that you collaborated with Pilotphotog! Yall are some of my favorite aviation youtubers. Keep up the great work!
Love that bit at 5:15. Not much talked about by laymen when discussing the F4 and its AIM missiles, was how politics and Rules of Engagement did more to inform how the pilots would fight then what they were actually tasked to do.
Vietnam really should've been a crushing American victory.
"The F-8 made effective use of it's 4 20mm cannons..." You mean the cannons that jammed constantly, and were considered "generally unreliable" compared to sidewinders? EDIT: Ah, nevermind, there's Koala to set us right.
Ok, i need to address this because this is my biggest pet peeve when somebody talks about modern BVR weapons Active Radar Homing Missiles, are not. Let me say it again. *Are not* "Fire and Forget" missiles. They still require midcourse updates from the launching aircraft all the way up to the missiles own radar in the nosecone goes active. In the case of the Aim-120 it is roughly 10 miles from the target, or roughly 10 seconds Time to Impact for the Aim-54
True, we wanted to skim over the whole "guided until pitbull" spiel for this video, and I'm sure we'll go into that in its own video later on, but the purpose of that section was more to convey that aircraft using AMRAAM's can either turn more than 90 degrees away from their target or engage multiple other targets while the AMRAAM retains a lock, very different to how the AIM-7's on the F-4 Phantoms worked for instance
While this video's content is very similar to the one made by PilotPhotog, it does have many differences. Please don't accuse Koala of steeling.
No worries, we worked on this video together hence the similarities, thanks for commenting!
My father flew the F4U Corsair with the USMC, Pacific Theatre during WWII. I've got a few old photos of him that he sent home to my Mom. Plus, his leather bound log books and notebooks.
great video Koala and PP, it was very fun to watch, and i also learned many things
Thank you and glad you liked it!
@@PilotPhotog I have, and it's also funny how I found you and Koala on the same day, and about 2 months later you started doing collabs (operation bolo). It's so great to see you 2 doing this stuff, keep it on!
@@baruchratz512 thank you much appreciated and more on the way!
Great video!
I really love the sukhoi , their maneuverability is amazing , even tho maneuverability isn't the most important thing anymore
Since WW2 Russia aircraft has not really improved, let alone be operational has it claims the aircraft can do/is. It's crazy expensive to maintain aircraft to have the aircraft be able to use all of its capabilities. Russia can't even afford to pay for the right tires for maintenance on its ground vehicles.....we really think Russia can afford to properly maintain its aircraft? Lol hell no. It's also why russias so called 5th Gen SU fighter has only built 3 or 4 operational versions. Let alone do you think they can maintain just the 3 or 4 they have? Lol. Just a little Crack or chip in paint and or panel, then needs to be completely replaced and repainted. Russia can't afford that. It's why the F22 and F35 is so damn expensive to maintain. The USA spends the money in maintenance to maintain 100% Stealth capabilities of its 5th Gen aircraft. Poor Russia, literally and figuratively lol.russia can't even afford to maintain its 4th Gen to have all of its capabilities lol
So, after attacking with the sun behind them in WW1, there is no mention of what modern fighter tactics actually are...
Nice vid
You should change the title to American fighter generations. BTW the corsair and the hellcat were by no means "war winning design" they were descent aircraft that got the job done.
They were the best performing purpose-built carrier based fighters of WWII that saw service on carriers before the war's end. How exactly were they merely decent?
@@MalfosRanger best performing in what aspect. ofc the US would have the best carrier planes because the only other nation that massively used carrier planes was japan that had a crumbling navy near the wars end.
Since WW2 Russia aircraft has not really improved, let alone be operational has it claims the aircraft can do/is. It's crazy expensive to maintain aircraft to have the aircraft be able to use all of its capabilities. Russia can't even afford to pay for the right tires for maintenance on its ground vehicles.....we really think Russia can afford to properly maintain its aircraft? Lol hell no. It's also why russias so called 5th Gen SU fighter has only built 3 or 4 operational versions. Let alone do you think they can maintain just the 3 or 4 they have? Lol. Just a little Crack or chip in paint and or panel, then needs to be completely replaced and repainted. Russia can't afford that. It's why the F22 and F35 is so damn expensive to maintain. The USA spends the money in maintenance to maintain 100% Stealth capabilities of its 5th Gen aircraft. Poor Russia, literally and figuratively lol.russia can't even afford to maintain its 4th Gen to have all of its capabilities lol
@@nexpro6118 you do realize that US and Russia weren't the only nation that made planes, UK, France and Germany made a lot of advancements throughout ww1 to cold war. The vid is about advancements in fighters and the history that surrounds them. Russian planes were used in enormous numbers in many conflicts during the cold war. Modern day russia is in a pretty sad state rn but during the soviet Era their air force was pretty well sustained and money wasn't a problem.
@@sebastianfalcon948 I know....its just most always just compare those 2. So its why i went with that.
OH Heck yeah
Happy to see the TX ANG vipers.
I remember from a doc years ago that at the time missiles became a thing, someone in the military or pentagon claimed that it guns were waste on aircraft. So they were taken off or built without them. But they found that when they tried shooting missiles at MIGs they wouldn't hit the target. MIGs had cannons and would shoot down the missiles. They'd then engage the jets and shoot down a lot because missiles were useless up close and they had no guns on their own. So pretty quickly, cannons were mounted back on to aircraft.
Amazing… none of that is true. If anyone working in the pentagon during the 50’s DID claim that these new air to air missiles would replace guns on future fighters… they were laughed out of office immediately. Also keep in mind most of the MiG’s in Vietnam didn’t have guns either… and no aircraft has ever used guns to shoot down a missile. That’s some fantasy BS! 😂 Like many stories though, there is a small grain of truth to it - guns had been omitted on INTERCEPTOR type aircraft since the late 40’s with the F-86D and F-89D - they were dedicated bomber-killers that would never have to meet enemy fighters, and removing the guns let them stay lighter and faster, and mount better radar systems. Fighter types however have always retained guns. In 1962 the Air Force took a navy-designed interceptor, the F-4 Phantom, and turned it into a multirole air superiority fighter. Contrary to popular belief, they then strapped guns to it immediately, this wasn’t something they did only AFTER F-4’s started getting shot down in Vietnam. Those guns though..? They never scored even a dozen kills… the last time the US shot down another plane with guns was 1967 for the navy and 1972 for the Air Force. Since then, missiles HAVE replaced guns… but only in air to air. Fighters also have to shoot stuff on the ground very often, so they keep their guns for that purpose.
@ArmorCast I'm confused about the migs with no guns in Vietnam. I am no expert, but my bare minimum of research shows the mig-17 had 1x37mm and 2x23mm cannons, the mig-19 with 3x30mm cannons, and the mig-21 with a single 23mm. Again, this was a bare minimum of research, and I am no expert. I'm not trying to prove you on anything. Every video I watch of yours has been very well researched and informative.
I think a interesting video would be a machine gun vs cannon as plane armament! Really a 4 way of rifle calibre , .50 and 20mm cannon and larger than 20mm.
I know I'm waaaay late, but it tickles me that Koala "Well, actually"-ed his own video. lol
Wait, wait, wait. In a video about the evolution of fighter tactics from WW1 to the present, you made time to mention Robin Olds by name - but not Oswald Boelcke, the man universally acknowledged as The Father of Air Combat Tactics? YIKES.
A good video, but very light on actual tactics
What about tactics from other countries? As an American I’d like to know about everyone and not just my history(that I for the most part already knew)
Since WW2 Russia aircraft has not really improved, let alone be operational has it claims the aircraft can do/is. It's crazy expensive to maintain aircraft to have the aircraft be able to use all of its capabilities. Russia can't even afford to pay for the right tires for maintenance on its ground vehicles.....we really think Russia can afford to properly maintain its aircraft? Lol hell no. It's also why russias so called 5th Gen SU fighter has only built 3 or 4 operational versions. Let alone do you think they can maintain just the 3 or 4 they have? Lol. Just a little Crack or chip in paint and or panel, then needs to be completely replaced and repainted. Russia can't afford that. It's why the F22 and F35 is so damn expensive to maintain. The USA spends the money in maintenance to maintain 100% Stealth capabilities of its 5th Gen aircraft. Poor Russia, literally and figuratively lol.russia can't even afford to maintain its 4th Gen to have all of its capabilities lol
And then there's the people who apply WW2 tacticts to modern jet fighters.
*cough* Arabs *cough*
Dogfight maneuvers?
@@waffles4622 ?
@@AugmentedGravity yeah?
@@waffles4622 what did you mean?
"F-111 proves missile theory wrong" F-111: proceeds to be one of the best close air support weapons during the Gulf War with way more confirmed kills than the A-10
0:47 he's great
Thank you and good seeing you here!
I was a bit disappointed by this one. From the title, I'd hoped to learn more about the 'energy-maneuverability theory' based dogfighting taught by the US.
It went from trying to find planes to plane finding you
8:05 ha im wearing a top gun shirt
From what I have read over the years, the planes have gotten faster, but the physics haven't changed. Understanding and making maximum use of the physics is what makes a great pilot.
US has mainly spent its aircraft money on training and in reliability with its engines and fuel consumption. In my opinion because the US almost 100% of the time since even WW1 fight wars somewhere else,, so our aircraft needs more efficient engines and also fuel efficient engines since our pilots missions are long in time and distance. Having great trained pilots makes a "lesser" aircraft more effective against let's say, Russia SU fighters because Russia pilots are poorly trained and can't afford to maintain its aircraft properly to get all of the aircrafts capabilities, let alone the pilot knowing how to get full use of the aircrafts capabilities. It's also partly why the SU 5th Gen from Russia is crap. Lol. Its "stealth" isn't really that stealthy which is why India backed out on buying them. The fighter has rivets and gaps all over, which is bad for Stealth and the Stealth paint really isn't even Stealth paint lol. And it's incredibly expensive to maintain 5thGen. Also partly why Russia only has built 3 or 4 operational SU 5th Gen fighters.
The F4 did end up getting a gun pod. A lot like the VTOL Fat Amy.
Is the a-10 going to get it's own video
video idea: Philosophy behind russian aircraft desing from WWI to Modern day
Plz do “your favorite tank sucks”: Abrams
Yag not Jagdeschwader, Bf 109 not Me 109
When you're out of F-8s you're out of fighters
Funnily enough I've only ever heard of F-8 pilots saying that... Coincidence? I think not.
@@ArmorCast Can't be a coincidence if that's the case. ;)
Coles Notes history
History of bombers and attack planes
0:06 oh no the cross of demonetisation
4:43 didn't you lash out at Wikipedia for making that exact statement
Not so much "lash out", and it is true to a degree, it's just not the whole story and kind of misidentifies the situation. In a video like this however, it's more a case of its being the famous takeaway and being many peoples' initial understanding, which we then built upon to clarify a couple minutes later, and will definitely do so in its own video. The basic jist of it is that yes, fighters like the F-4 were indeed produced without a gun because it was seen as no longer necessary, but the REASON for this is that fighters were leaning more and more towards the interceptor role, for which the gun WAS unnecessary. This is why Vietnam's MiG-21's also lacked guns, which many people don't realize. The common misconception is that the US believed that fighters in general no longer needed guns for dogfighting, but that Vietnam proved otherwise. This is entirely false. Multirole fighters were always going to retain their guns... and Vietnam if anything proved how the gun WAS unnecessary for air to air engagements, at least later in the conflict when missile tactics and capabilities were more advanced
@@ArmorCast okay then thank you for clarifying this
@@ArmorCast "Vietnam's MiG-21s lacked guns"? What the hell are you on about?! Yes, the MiG-21 PF and PFM didn't have guns, but all other MiG-21s in vietnamese service either had the Nudelman-Richter NR-30, the GSch-23 or the GScha-23L.
where the ZERO
monoplanes really werent a new thing in 30s or in ww2, there was ww1 monoplanes. they just weren't as common as biplanes
rip koala
"F-22 to replace F-15" Hahahaha, no (im biased for sexy Eagles) "F-35 to replace F-16" .... Eehhh, well... Theres no other way to say any opinion without setting one comment section on fire, but I'd say its an ongoing process. But F-16 was already going on a reserve kind of units and usage to begin with
But there was absolutely no fighter tactics explained. Just a few tidbits from a few weapon systems. So, where is the history of fighter tactics you promised us?
Clearly weren’t paying attention. Tactics like diving from the direction of the sun, used heavily by German pilots, the use of fighters in the bomber escort role, the evolution of BVR tactics and missile dogfighting, and eventually the use of stealth interdictors in the Gulf War or active radar homing missiles allowing fighters to turn away or engage other targets from long ranges. What we wanted to avoid was focusing on specific individual manoeuvres, and instead look at doctrinal tactics. An alternative title could have been “evolution of the USE of fighters”, but “fighter tactics” just had a nicer ring to it
@@ArmorCast Well, that makes sense. Good explanation. Thanks for clarifying.
@@ArmorCast more like "evolution of US fighters". I get your points, but it still seems like a video about technical developments and not so much about tactics.
Isn't it Germany who used jet engines Me 262 to counter those mustangs and US who stole the tech from them?
Nah, the US "stole" (in fact, bought) the tech from the UK, who at that time were neck and neck with the Germans in jet development.
@@Philistine47 show me any jet engine used by brits during WW2
@@bibinthomas5282 Are you seriously unaware of the Gloster Meteor, or are you just trying to troll? As far as that goes, even the USAAF - despite their late start with jet technology - managed to deploy a couple of jet-powered F-80s to Europe prior to V-E Day. (Not that there was much for them to do.)
@@bibinthomas5282The US was experimenting with jet engines before the Me-262 was put into service.
Boring. Almost only about usa, barely mentioned or at all british, russian/soviet or french development.
They're talking about the most impactful air to air engagements since WW1. Ofc it's going to be the USAF. The first 4th gen fighter was American (F-14) and they did set the standards for the generations. Also, the US was involved in the most impactful wars involving aircraft. Korea with the first widespread use of jets, Vietnam with the widespread use of missiles, the Gulf War with the use of BVR, and now with the extreme versatility of the F-35. It just makes sense to talk about the US more in this case.
Unfortunately nations like Britain, Russia, China or France have generally not been at the forefront of aircraft development and doctrine. America actually had the first 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th gen jets. They demonstrate the heaviest focus on naval vs Air Force fighters, the earliest defined missile doctrine, first stealth fighters, and of course the heaviest development overall
Since WW2 Russia aircraft has not really improved, let alone be operational has it claims the aircraft can do/is. It's crazy expensive to maintain aircraft to have the aircraft be able to use all of its capabilities. Russia can't even afford to pay for the right tires for maintenance on its ground vehicles.....we really think Russia can afford to properly maintain its aircraft? Lol hell no. It's also why russias so called 5th Gen SU fighter has only built 3 or 4 operational versions. Let alone do you think they can maintain just the 3 or 4 they have? Lol. Just a little Crack or chip in paint and or panel, then needs to be completely replaced and repainted. Russia can't afford that. It's why the F22 and F35 is so damn expensive to maintain. The USA spends the money in maintenance to maintain 100% Stealth capabilities of its 5th Gen aircraft. Poor Russia, literally and figuratively lol.russia can't even afford to maintain its 4th Gen to have all of its capabilities lol so mentioning Russia in this video would not matter to anything. Lol Russias aircraft are just pretty looking aircraft and that's about 99.9% of its capabilities lol
no real actual tactics are discussed in this video
Since WW2 Russia aircraft has not really improved, let alone be operational has it claims the aircraft can do/is. It's crazy expensive to maintain aircraft to have the aircraft be able to use all of its capabilities. Russia can't even afford to pay for the right tires for maintenance on its ground vehicles.....we really think Russia can afford to properly maintain its aircraft? Lol hell no. It's also why russias so called 5th Gen SU fighter has only built 3 or 4 operational versions. Let alone do you think they can maintain just the 3 or 4 they have? Lol. Just a little Crack or chip in paint and or panel, then needs to be completely replaced and repainted. Russia can't afford that. It's why the F22 and F35 is so damn expensive to maintain. The USA spends the money in maintenance to maintain 100% Stealth capabilities of its 5th Gen aircraft. Poor Russia, literally and figuratively lol.
I'm here for religious reasons.
2:13 Adopters of Finger four or Vic formation. These were different concepts. You seemed to have heard these phrases without doing research. I will stop watching this channel.
Please never use this guy again for anything but American aircraft. His pronunciation is painful and he uses terms that haven't been used by anyone with any degree of competency in this field
Great video!
Thanks glad you enjoyed it!