quote:

Originally posted by JtD:
Now you shouldn't think I'm a selfish ****

I never said you were a selfish bunch of asterisks

quote:

I once evaluated a session counting how often each player in that session cleared a teammates 6, I did it 16 times. Next best player was 4. I consider a saved teammate more valuable than a kill and know that planes chasing others are easier to bounce and thus easier to kill.

I agree. Most of my kills (I'd estimate 90%) are bounces on people that didn't know I was there initially (not paying attention while climbing to alt, on someone's 6, target fixation, etc).

Counting the number of times everyone cleared someone else's 6 must have been quite a daunting task. You'd have to run through an ntrk once per player in the game. Hope it was a small server, lol.

quote:

So whenever I can, I help.

quote:

If things get risky, I'm leaving.

Those are some contractory statements, in that case.

Not if you consider that I can only help when I'm not at risk.

quote:

Originally posted by JtD:
A pilot who scored a kill in a mission and brought the plane home to fight another day was considered a most valuable asset. Because he was there to fight another day, while his fellow who killed three wasn't.

But the fellow whom he killed may have been a less important target than the one he abandoned due to not taking risks. To the overall war effort, the pilots who delivered the mission objectives in consitent manner, were the most valuable, not necessarily the highest scorers.

quote:

It's not about taking no risks, it's about minimizing the risks. As a matter of fact, you're taking a risk when you start the engine.

Understood, and very well put. What you also need to consider as well, is the alternative risk of not fulfilling the mission objhectives (if there is one). To win a war, you have to minimize the overall risk (e.g. your own risk plus the risk to ground forces), not just your own.

IL-2 itself gives very little support for objective oriented mission simulations, so in that context, of course minimzing your own risk is the only logical thing to do (the risk of failing a mission is practically nothing). However, calling this attitude realistic simulation of the real combat scenarios is wrong. You can immediately notice the difference when some external software provides team scores and tracks losses all all kinds. If you fly a SEOW mission, where all troops, all pilots, all planes count, the dilemmas of minimizing own risks vs. total risks for my side becomes very obvious.

it would be interesting to hear the comments of some of our forum members who were combat pilots irl.

i know air combat has changed alot since ww2, but their views on taking risks would be interesting to hear.



in my uninformed opinion alot of posters in this thread have a very kamikaze attitude to taking risks. the IJN or IJA would of been happy to have them.

quote:

After reading a lot of manouvering combat descriptions (both horizontal & vertical) in various memoirs, I think you are just repeating a favourite internet myth.

theres a reason those stories made it into memoirs, its because they are much more interesting than saying,,, "i saw a me109 who didnt see me, and i shot him down".

which is the way the majority of shootdowns accured.

btw i read that the above was the way most shootdowns happened long before al gore invented the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by rnzoli:

quote:

Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Eric Hartmann.

His name is mentioned a lot, but the majority of pilots did not have his excellent capabilities. I believe he could see an exit where other could not, so others had to take risks instead. I also believe that in case he REALLY never attacked in unfavourable positions, then he scored only the safest kills for himself, instead of scoring the ones that would have been the biggest contribution to the overall war effort. (NB. I don't believe he never took any calculated risk - probably he did, although he was exceptionally careful.)

quote:

Germans flew hit and run tactics MOST of the time on the channel front in 1941-43.

So how do you rate the Luftwaffe's effectiveness in destroying the RAF and preparing the invasion of Britain?

With the hit-and-run attacks, they didn't do a good job in covering their bombers.

Thats why I missed out 1940 mate

In 1940 they HAD to protect the bombers, and therfore could not fly hit and run tactics.

When the RAF went onto the offensive in 1941, and the German air force went over to the defensive, the Germans had great success inflicting losses on the RAF plnaes who had hard lessons to learn about moving onto the attack.

Now the tables were turned and the Germans were over their own territory. They chose the time and place of the fight, and made sure that they had the advantage.

They hit hard and got out. Just like the RAF pilots did in 1940.

Just as the German losses were 2:1 in the BOB, once the RAF went onto the attck and the Germans defended, they too scored 2:1 kill ratio.

The RAF scored even higher over the Luftwaffe over Malta. Tiny numbers of RAF planes inflicted large losses on the German and Italian Air Forces.

As long as they are not massively outnumbered, and the pilot training is comparable, then the advantage is usually with the Defenders IMO. Although the attackers choose the general theatre, the defenders can afford to choose the time of place of the battle.

The Germans could also not afford to get dragged in to close-in dogfights (read turning contests) with the better turning SPitfire, so that was another big reason why they stuck to hit and run tactics.

quote:

Originally posted by Von_Rat:
theres a reason those stories made it into memoirs, its because they are much more interesting than saying,,, "i saw a me109 who didnt see me, and i shot him down". :

This is also the reason why I gave the link to the original AARs. They were official documents written immediately after the action, often verified by other eye-witnesses (other pilots). Still, the word "Luftberry" is so frequent in them...

quote:

Originally posted by Von_Rat:
in my uninformed opinion alot of posters in this thread have a very kamikaze attitude to taking risks. the IJN or IJA would of been happy to have them.

Sorry, but just because I am exposing the weaknesses of one extreme end of the "risk taking" measurement scale, it doesn't mean I am on the other end of that scale. Flying carefully or flying in a selfish manner (and then disquising it as the "ww2 experts" way or the "dominant way of ww2 flying") are not the same.

quote:

Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Thats why I missed out 1940 mate

In 1940 they HAD to protect the bombers, and therfore could not fly hit and run tactics.

I see, and agree. Although IIRC there was a time during BoB when Goering had to order the fighters to stay close to bombers, and it wasn't a popular decision among the fighter pilots.

From the time RAF started to make attacks over France, eg., V1 hunting, yes, it became a totally different ballgame indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by rnzoli:

quote:

Originally posted by Von_Rat:
theres a reason those stories made it into memoirs, its because they are much more interesting than saying,,, "i saw a me109 who didnt see me, and i shot him down". :

This is also the reason why I gave the link to the original AARs. They were official documents written immediately after the action, often verified by other eye-witnesses (other pilots). Still, the word "Luftberry" is so frequent in them...

posting a link to aars still dont disprove what you call a myth, that most kills were hit n run.

or did you go through every aar and have the percentage that were hit n run and how many were dogfights in a classical sense. if you did id like your findings.

quote:

Originally posted by rnzoli:

quote:

Originally posted by Von_Rat:
in my uninformed opinion alot of posters in this thread have a very kamikaze attitude to taking risks. the IJN or IJA would of been happy to have them.

Sorry, but just because I am exposing the weaknesses of one extreme end of the "risk taking" measurement scale, it doesn't mean I am on the other end of that scale. Flying carefully or flying in a selfish manner (and then disquising it as the "ww2 experts" way or the "dominant way of ww2 flying") are not the same.

who's to judge? you?

i can make the same argument in reverse, about those who fly imo, in a unrealistically risky manner (but disguse it by saying orders are orders they are completing the mission).

rnzoli, I think we have blown this totally out of proportion. The advice "Always keep your speed up" is an advice for survival. The faster you go, the more options you have, the harder to attack you are, the harder to hit you are. It keeps you alive. And as such, I claim it is one of the best advices that can be given to beginners.

It is no rule for scoring kills, for dogfighting, for winning battles or even wars. It sure is fun to discuss the strategic impact of individual risks, but it doesn't really have anything to do with this topic.

quote:

Originally posted by Von_Rat:

quote:

Originally posted by rnzoli:

quote:

Originally posted by Von_Rat:
in my uninformed opinion alot of posters in this thread have a very kamikaze attitude to taking risks. the IJN or IJA would of been happy to have them.

Sorry, but just because I am exposing the weaknesses of one extreme end of the "risk taking" measurement scale, it doesn't mean I am on the other end of that scale. Flying carefully or flying in a selfish manner (and then disquising it as the "ww2 experts" way or the "dominant way of ww2 flying") are not the same.

who's to judge? you?

i can make the same argument in reverse, about those who fly imo, in a unrealistically risky manner (but disguse it by saying orders are orders they are completing the mission).

no offense m8, but i would not be a happy wing commander if you decided not to follow "game plan" for certain mission/s. As Zoltan said, in SEW or other high fidelity il2 war simulations I expect all of my pilots to follow orders, as I planned them, just because each and every mission needs to accomplish a certain goal. Once pilots start not following orders mission goes to hell very quickly , and a lot of good people die...., or burn in flames....

S!

following orders are fine, its the execution that counts.

committing suicide is not good execution of orders in my book.

in the end thats all this discussion is about, do you follow some idiot who you know is doing somthing that almost guarantees your death, or do you try to carry out a mission in a way that at least gives you a chance to survive.

no offence but if you were my wing commander and gave me a idiot order to follow you to death (when i know theres a better way to carryout the mission) id have no problem leaving your to your fate.

it happened irl more than some here would like to admit.

You guys think that just because somebody won't be drawn into an unnecessarily risky situation just to get another score building kill, that they wouldn't take the reasonable risks involved in completing an objective that might actually effect the outcome of the larger mission. You need to get over yourselves.

Last night I extended away from a fight with two lower opponents on a dogfight server because I had lost sight of one of them for an uncomfortably long time. I didn't turn back until I was certain of where they both were.

On the other hand, Friday night, after clearing a Spit and two F4F's off of the bombers I was escorting, I looped back in to go after them again, knowing full well that it would only be a matter of time before one or more of them would get a shot at me. Can you see the difference between the two situations?

Actually, I would have been more effective in protecting the bombers if I had been a little more concerned with my own safety. I had the speed to keep out of reach of the enemy, but because I was too aggressive, one of them got hits on my engine and took me out of the fight, which left the bombers completely unprotected.

There is a difference between bravery and stupidity. There is a difference between doing what has to be done to complete a mission, and pointlessly throwing your life away.

good points.

its all about where do you draw the line beteewn bravery and stupidity.

some here claim that to use hit n run is cowardice and they claim its a myth that that tactic was wildly used in ww2. they also insinuate that if you use hit n run tactics you are in some way, violating some make believe order, thus you are a coward.

not all orders read "complete objective at any cost", which some here seem to believe.

imo they just dont like hit n run tactics so they come here to critize those who use them.

"I didn't turn with enemy pilots as a rule. I might make one turn - to see what the situation was - but not often. It was too risky."

General John C. Meyer
Vice-Chief of Staff, USAF
26 Victories, WW-II and Korean Conflict


Obviously this cowardly general doesn't know anything about the importance of following orders and completing your mission.

In a dogfight.... IMPROVISE...

Adjust to your enemy energy state... the rest well is all about gunnery...

quote:

Originally posted by JtD:
rnzoli, I think we have blown this totally out of proportion. The advice "Always keep your speed up" is an advice for survival. The faster you go, the more options you have, the harder to attack you are, the harder to hit you are. It keeps you alive. And as such, I claim it is one of the best advices that can be given to beginners.

Yeah, this subject starts to get out of hand. Funny, but I also think it is great advice for beginners. I only wanted to point out, that once you are not a beginner anymore, and can judge the risks appropriately, you can carefuly deviate from this rule, it won't make you a worse or less "simulation-oriented" pilot.

quote:

Originally posted by Von_Rat:
no offence but if you were my wing commander and gave me a idiot order to follow you to death (when i know theres a better way to carryout the mission) id have no problem leaving your to your fate.

I can't think of any regular military, which would be happy to have you on board with this free-lancer attitude