Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Lies, Darned Lies, and Statistics (or) I Think I Over Thought This One, But I'm Too Far To Stop Now

Yeah, this one's kinda long.  Sometimes having access to a blog is a dangerous thing.  So, if you like tangental discussions of aircraft, military history, and Star Wars, stick around.  Otherwise, maybe I'll be back tomorrow with something "normal."

Well, normal for me, at least.

There are a few things that I like that have no real usage in the profession I seek.  I am a fan of Star Wars. ("oh really?" you snark say)  I like World War 2 aircraft (well, actually, any aircraft, but 1939-45 had a lot of great planes).

What?  You're surprised I'm a nerd?  Clearly you've not been paying attention if this comes as a shock.

Anyway, being a nerd, I enjoy kibitzing the discussion regarding the ships of SW, and the aircraft from whenever.  So I was happy to have found a number of people on the interwebs who make videos about such things.  One is EckhartsLadder, who compares sci fi ships, most notably Star Wars.

What EL does is a "who would win" scenario, comparing two craft in "firepower," "defenses," and "intangibles" in a 1v1 with equal skilled pilots without mods or backup.  Best out of 10 wins.

The one that caught my attention was the Incom T-65 X-Wing vs. Incom/Subpro ARC-170. (here if you are interested)

Before I say anything else, I think if fair to say his method is flawed and shortsighted, but not a bad start.  Why?  Eric "Winkle" Brown and the Wildcat.

(insert Tim "the Toolman" Taylor questioning grunt here)

Captain Eric Brown, Fleet Air Arm, served during WW2 as a pilot.  Most notably he served with N. 1426 Flight: the RAF enemy aircraft testing squadron.  This mean that Brown got the opportunity to fly a lot of types of aircraft.  487 types.

Let that sink in a moment.  487 types.  Not 487 aircraft, but aircraft types.  This is a record that will never be broken.  Especially if you count the individual marks, not just types.  For example: Brown flew 14 versions of the Spitfire during his career, yet the record only lists Spitfire once.

Brown also has the most carrier landings ever: 2,407, in 20 different types.  Including the first tricycle undercarriage and first jet.

And he was the only Allied pilot to ever fly the Me 163 Komet rocket interceptor.  You know, the one with the corrosive fuel that would melt pilots, and if the plane hit a bump during takeoff it might explode.

He was a fan of the de Havilland Hornet and the F-86E Sabre, thinking both to be exceptional aircraft and his favorite regarding their engines.

Because of this vast experience, Brown was able to quantify what made for a good fighter plane.  He came up with six characteristics that an effective fighter should have.  They were:
  1. Speed
  2. Rate of climb
  3. Firepower
  4. Armor protection
  5. Pilot visibility
  6. Maneuverability (though he would stress "don't dogfight")
Corky Meyer, test pilot for Grumman during WW2 and beyond, listed four missions any "best" fighter should be able to perform.  These were:
  1. Fighter vs. fighter
  2. Bomber escort
  3. Ground attack
  4. Photoreconnaissance
Add on "easy to fly" (200-flight hour pilots can handle it) and built in numbers above 10,000 for a long duration.  Now, Corky claimed the P-47 Thunderbolt was best in Europe, and the F6F Hellcat was tops in Pacific.

What does any of this have to do with Star Wars?  Well, unless you were asleep in history class, or are not a nerd (even a little), it will come as no surprise that Mr. Lucas used a lot of inspiration from WW2.  Hey, if you've got good material, use it.

So, the Incom T-65B X-Wing vs. the Incom/Subpro ARC-170... who would win?  The X-Wing.

How frequently?  About 90+%, assuming we have a trained pilot in the seat.

So, to break it down, the X-Wing meets Brown's criteria better than the ARC.  It has the speed, and climb, sufficient firepower and armor/shields, and maneuverability.  All it lacks is an advantage in visibility.  Based on Corky's mission lineup, the X-Win does it all.  Perhaps not as well as a dedicated craft, but it is a "swing role" fighter.

Usually "jack of all trades" don't come out on top frequently.  But, bear with me a second while I take and replace the Star Wars craft with their 1940s doppelgängers.  (This is where EL missed some important items in his 1v1.)

The X-Wing is comparable to the P-38 Lightning, while the ARC-170 is the P-61 Black Widow.

If you're still wondering who wins, just look at the to planes for a second.


the Lockheed P-38G Lightning


the Northrop P-61 Black Widow
Any questions?

Oh, still aren't sure.  Well, consider, one is a twin engine single seat interceptor, the other is a twin engine three place night fighter... that is the size of a medium bomber.

Now, I ain't knocking the P-61.  She was designed as a purpose build radar equipped night fighter.  Heavily armed with 4x 20 mm cannon and 4x .50 cal machine guns in a turret.  Powered by two R-2800s, and able to tote around 3 tons of bombs, she was a powerful plane.  Very agile for how big she was, too, thanks to Northrop's clever spoilers.  A little late to prove itself, but, that's not the point.

The Lightning's a bit of an oddball.  Designed as a heavily armed interceptor, found to have great range, respectable agility, decent armor, and ridiculer versatility.  Four .50 cal machine guns and a 20 mm cannon, backed by up to a ton of bombs.  And her twin V-1710s made her one of the fastest planes of the early portion of the war.

So, who wins in a dogfight?  Well, first is the need to acknowledge the caveat to Brown's 6th characteristic: don't dogfight.  Why are speed and climb first?  Because the pilot who has the altitude and speed picks when the fight starts, and when it ends.  Diving attacks trump spinning and loops.  See the work of the Flying Tigers, or Red 2's interception over Yavin.

We have this notion that fighters are all about dogfighting and that goes back to the "romantic" depictions of the Great War.  Watching men like Ball, Bishop, Barker, Guynemer, Voss, and Richthofen dueling in chivalric arial joust makes for great stories.  Its not the truth.  Check out Oswald Boelcke's dicta:
  1. Try to secure advantages before attacking. If possible keep the sun behind you.
  2. Always carry through an attack when you started it.
  3. Fire only at close range and only when your opponent is properly in your sights.
  4. Always keep your eye on your opponent and never let yourself be deceived by ruses.
  5. In any form of attack it is essential to assail your opponent from behind.
  6. If your opponent dives on you, do not try to evade his onslaught but fly to meet him.
  7. When over the enemy's line never forget your own line of retreat.
  8. (For the Squadron) Attack on principle in groups of four or six. When the fight breaks up into a series of single combats take care that several do not go for one opponent.
Reading through the dicta it is clear that altitude and speed, employed in a slashing attack, are better than trying to "mix it up" with classic dogfights.

Okay, so performance is kinda the keystone factor.  If the fighter doesn't have enough get-up-and-go winning won't be likely.  But what about the other factors?

Firepower is self-evident.  You can have all the speed in the world, but without enough punch, it doesn't matter.  The MiG-3 found that out the hard way.

Armor protection should be obvious as well.  You need a strong, rugged craft to ride into battle.  There are plenty of stories of American planes shrugging off lots of hits.  Robert S. Johnson's P-47 taking all the ammo from an FW 190 is a paramount example.  But if your ship has the heft to shrug it off, it had better have the power to move.  Hence the order.  The A-4 Skyhawk is a great case study in how to correctly build a fighter.  First, find the limits of your size and weight, then pick a powerful engine, finally don't exceed the limits.

Pilot visibility is one that is easily forgotten and taken for granted.  The Bf 109 had a narrow canopy that made turning your head difficult.  The F-4 Phantom had heavy frames that limited view, especially for the rear canopy.  The F-8 Crusader had a lot of stuff in the windscreen, which made landings especially "fun."  Having visibility is majorly important for pilots, especially combat pilots.  The one who sees the target first wins.  Modern technologies, like radar, IR, long-range cameras, all improve situational awareness.

Lastly, again, is maneuverability.  If having the ability to "zoom-boom" is top, then agility isn't important, right?  Not at all.

The agility then is for defense, avoiding an attack, as seen in #6 of Dicta Boelcke.

So then, back to the P-38/P-61 debate.  In a straight up 1v1, who wins?

Answer: the pilot who sees his opponent first and has the altitude to start a diving attack, most likely.  But lets be "fair" for the argument.  In an equal level fight, where they meet at the merge, who wins . The P-38.  All the time.

Why?  Size is not the P-61's friend, and all that firepower is useless if you can't get it pointed at the target.  At this point some table-top gamer will be like "aha, what about the turret?"

You mean the turret that didn't work in the initial marks?  The turret that was there primarily for bomber interception?  The turret that added weight and complexity which degraded performance?  The turret that was a throwback to the turret fighters of the early 40s (the Defiant, Roc) and the two seat fighters of WW1?

Yes, in WW1 many of the early attempts at building a working fighter resulted in a pilot flying the plane, and the main armaments being manned by a gunner.  Care to guess how well it worked?  Well enough that one of the best fighters of the war, the Bristol F2A, was shot down a lot when flown like a two seater.

You see, the idea of the turret guns was a symptom of not paying attention to reality.  This exemplified itself in the phrase "the bombers will always get through."  Who needs escorts when the bombers are literal flying fortresses, bristling with guns?  The 8th Air Force, that's who.

What does any of this have to do with the X-Wing/ARC-170?  A lot.  EL assumed, like many do, that the numbers can lead to the answer.  This is what has lead to the X-Wing table top game.  People think that if you have a quantifiable amount more of speed, or agility, or aggression, you can win.  Which is where EL's idea of "intangibles" makes sense.

So, who wins, the X-Wing or the ARC-170?  With exceptional pilots in both, the X-Wing.  With average pilots in both, the X-Wing.

Why?  Well, four cannon is more weight-of-fire than two, meaning greater chance of hitting the target.  While the ARC does have more torpedoes, not enough to make a difference in a dogfight.  In an attack mission, different story.  The ARC is the better attack bomber.  (And, by the way, torpedoes are guided in the SW universe.)  Better acceleration, and the ability to keep that speed means the X-Wing determines when, and where, the fight starts and ends.  The X-Wing's smaller size means its harder to see, therefore harder to evade.

Of course the swing-role fighter beats the high-performance attacker in a dogfight.

Yeah, this one kinda got away from me.

No comments: