1st Gen jets 1943-1953

[DmitriKozlowsky]

Flyable

 

Vampire and Naval Vampire

Gloster Meteor

F9F Panther

P-80 Shooting Star

F-84 C/F

F-2J Fury Naval Sabre expansion to F-86 module.

A-1 Skyraider , USAF and USN/Marine variants.

 

AI and static

 

B-29/50

B-47

B-36

C-119 Boxcar

C-123 Provider

S-2 Tracker

C-47/DC-3

CH-54

Piasecki Flying Banana

Lockheed Constellation early AWACS

 

Naval units

 

WWII and Korean War straight deck carriers, small CVA attack carriers. and U.S.S. Forestall

 

 

AI + Static ground units.

T-34

M-48

D-30 towed artillery with prime mover

M-101 towed howitzer with prime mover

Armored Combat Engineering Vehicles

WWII and 1950's era Soviet, PLA, and DPRK infantry

 

Korean Peninsula UN Police Mission. AKA Korean War theater.

Ground forces in Korea were more or less WWII era equipped. So everything from WWII Asset Pack fits into Korean theater.

[Kev2go]

title of the thread should be changed as there countless aircraft listed that are not even jets.

[TotenDead]

Vampire and Naval Vampire

Gloster Meteor

F9F Panther

P-80 Shooting Star

F-84 C/F

F-2J Fury Naval Sabre expansion to F-86 module.

A-1 Skyraider , USAF and USN/Marine variants.

 

Most are too weak for MiG-15bis

Too strong for Me-262

 

But P-80 and meteor would actually be great to see though

[DmitriKozlowsky]

F-9F, P-80 and F-84 met Mig-15 over Korea. Not always with good results. But that is a historical record. Mig-15 was not the only Soviet aircaft in Korea. WWII Migs, Yaks, and Lavochkins provided to PLA-AF and DPRK made up most of the Red air forces. Just as US Navy.USMC used F-4U Corsair of WWII over Korea alongside 1st gen jets.

 

Direct analogue combat is kind of unusual in real wars. Claire Chennault Tigers fought in P-40 Warhawks with Japanese Zero's prior to Pearl and for some time after it. Zero was superior to P-40, except in dive speed and armament. P-40 dove through Zero formation, one pass, then they hauled ass out of fight.

 

Given a choice between Vampire/Sea Vamp hifi sim, and Gloster Meteor, I'd opt for Vamp.

 

Mig-15 was 2nd gen jet. As was F-86.

[TotenDead]

Direct analogue combat is kind of unusual in real wars.

 

It's a game we're playing, not fighting a real war .Check online, most people want to fly a better plane, not a realistic one.

 

Mig-15 was 2nd gen jet. As was F-86.

 

Both are 1st gen. Don't know why some sources put them into the second one, but they just not different enough from other 1st gen aircraft

[DD_fruitbat]

.

 

 

 

Both are 1st gen. Don't know why some sources put them into the second one, but they just not different enough from other 1st gen aircraft

 

Yes they are, they're a massive step up from the WWII jets.

[Baco]

It's a game we're playing, not fighting a real war .Check online, most people want to fly a better plane, not a realistic one.

 

Then most people al playing the wrong game...

 

DCS is a simulation, it simulates aircrafts. How you want to pit those aircrafts against each other is the mission builder problem...

[Kev2go]

Yes they are, they're a massive step up from the WWII jets.

 

 

It really depends on the definition.

 

most jets from ww2 to about korea are lumped as generation 1 due to falling under certain defining characteristics among various nations. Even though Mig15 or F86 are no doubt better than say a Me262.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2020 by Kev2go

[Kang]

The thing with this 'generations' business is that there is no perfectly set definition. How haywire it goes should be quite obvious when looking at current state-of-the-art fighter planes and the rather bizarre 4.5th generation. At least part of that odd numbering is down to the fact that planes like Gripen, Rafale or Typhoon came around with everything that made them distinct from the general 4th generation, yet some people were rather upset that their own air forces had temporarily fallen behind in the development of all-new aircraft und thus not among the first to reach that 'milestone'. Hence, make up some specific extra-rule you have been side-tracked working on and invent the 4.5th.

 

You don't have to agree on that view on the latter, the point is: these categories are rather sketchy at all times.

[Kev2go]

The thing with this 'generations' business is that there is no perfectly set definition. How haywire it goes should be quite obvious when looking at current state-of-the-art fighter planes and the rather bizarre 4.5th generation. At least part of that odd numbering is down to the fact that planes like Gripen, Rafale or Typhoon came around with everything that made them distinct from the general 4th generation, yet some people were rather upset that their own air forces had temporarily fallen behind in the development of all-new aircraft und thus not among the first to reach that 'milestone'. Hence, make up some specific extra-rule you have been side-tracked working on and invent the 4.5th.

 

You don't have to agree on that view on the latter, the point is: these categories are rather sketchy at all times.

 

 

I know there is no hard definition. BUt generally there are aircraft generations for the sake of generalization, so as too not spent countless of hours looking at specific aircraft, but simply a generalized comparison of a group of aircraft from a given time period. even if some aircaft are behind in certain areas, or ahead in others. There are certain categories that are universally agreed upon by various nations. So what the OP wants by gen 1 jets, IS simply looking at ww2- korean era aircraft. A time period in aviation where Jets are not able to break sound barrier in level flight, before any sort of guided missiles ( gun fighters ) and mostly are day fighters.

 

 

 

Gen 4.5 isnt sketchy. Its a fine midway point to make for non stealth aircraft designs in a post cold war era due to considerable improvements to the designs and level of modernization made in avionics technology from 70s-80s. I mean especially as of late you can essentially stick comparable level of avionics seen in gen 5 aircraft in a gen 4 airframe ( IE network centric capability, Modern displays , processing power, AESA radars etc etc.) the only thing older designs cant be made into are the very low RCS, because that essentially mandates designed a new airframe from scratch.

 

I mean even looking a design that isnt totally made from scratch, there is still quite a significant difference in capability between a F16V block 70 and a F16A. that even that sort of aircraft could be fairly lumped into such a generation.

Edited April 19, 2020 by Kev2go

[Xilon_x]

Italian aviation evolution:

 

FIAT G-59 first flight 1948

 

 

 

 

FIAT G-80 first fly 1951

 

 

 

FIAT G-91 first flight 1956

 

 

 

 

aerfer Ariete first flight 1958

 

 

 

de Havilland DH.100 Vampire first flight 1943

italian version