PDA

View Full Version : Worst misleading expert advices for air combat in IL-2



rnzoli
06-13-2008, 04:21 AM
Wrong: "If you think you are close, get closer."
Consequences of the wrong advice: collision with the E/A, or in more nible fighters (e.g., Zero) comsumed by the sudden explosion of the E/A
Correct advice: open fire from a distance of your convergence range, not sooner. However, do not get closer than 50 meters.

Wrong: "Never let anyone get on your six"
Consequence: unnecessary turning and twising in situations when extending would be a better option against a slower E/A.
Correct: never let anyone get on your six within effective firing range (500-600m)

Wrong: "Lose the sight, lose the fight"
Consequence: unnecessary manouvers to keep track the E/A in sight, leading to energy bleeding
Correct: always know where the E/A is - mostly by visual tracking, however when that is impossible for short times, you can track "mentally" without seeing, simply by knowing what manouvers the E/A can do according to its flight envelope, energy state, pilot skill etc.

Wrong: "As a beginner, always take double amount of deflection than you would do"
Consequence: consistently shooting in front of the E/A
Correct: as a beginner, experiment with moving your aim along the flight path of the E/A and watch for impacts

Wrong: "Always keep your speed up".
Consequence: inability to finish off the E/A
Correct: always keep sufficient manouvering speed in combat, this is higher for modern high-speed aircraft, and lower for older type biplanes.

Wrong: "Never turn".
Consequence: you imitate a V-1 and fly off the map in a straight line
Correct: do not make hard turns or strong manouvers at high speed, but you can turn hard for example on the top of your high yo-yo, where your speed is lower (energy is stored in your height).


Do you know more of these? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

TinyTim
06-13-2008, 04:26 AM
BnZ = Energy fighting

Couldn't be more away from the truth.

SeaFireLIV
06-13-2008, 05:08 AM
rnzoli knows all about air combat - wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

DKoor
06-13-2008, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
BnZ = Energy fighting

Couldn't be more away from the truth. +1

DKoor
06-13-2008, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
Wrong: "If you think you are close, get closer."
Consequences of the wrong advice: collision with the E/A, or in more nible fighters (e.g., Zero) comsumed by the sudden explosion of the E/A
Correct advice: open fire from a distance of your convergence range, not sooner. However, do not get closer than 50 meters.

Wrong: "Never let anyone get on your six"
Consequence: unnecessary turning and twising in situations when extending would be a better option against a slower E/A.
Correct: never let anyone get on your six within effective firing range (500-600m)

Wrong: "Lose the sight, lose the fight"
Consequence: unnecessary manouvers to keep track the E/A in sight, leading to energy bleeding
Correct: always know where the E/A is - mostly by visual tracking, however when that is impossible for short times, you can track "mentally" without seeing, simply by knowing what manouvers the E/A can do according to its flight envelope, energy state, pilot skill etc.

Wrong: "As a beginner, always take double amount of deflection than you would do"
Consequence: consistently shooting in front of the E/A
Correct: as a beginner, experiment with moving your aim along the flight path of the E/A and watch for impacts

Wrong: "Always keep your speed up".
Consequence: inability to finish off the E/A
Correct: always keep sufficient manouvering speed in combat, this is higher for modern high-speed aircraft, and lower for older type biplanes.

Wrong: "Never turn".
Consequence: you imitate a V-1 and fly off the map in a straight line
Correct: do not make hard turns or strong manouvers at high speed, but you can turn hard for example on the top of your high yo-yo, where your speed is lower (energy is stored in your height).


Do you know more of these? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif +1

Funny in many ways, but true, nevertheless for a great part of it.

stalkervision
06-13-2008, 05:20 AM
Best real advice on air combat. Learn the manauvers and then learn for yourself. Don't count on "expert advice". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
06-13-2008, 06:04 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
Best real advice on air combat. Learn the manauvers and then learn for yourself. Don't count on "expert advice". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

In a dogfight there's never a situation just like the other and while these advices can be true at some point, they can be totally wrong at another point.

Be flexible, don't boresight and practice. Only keys you need to survive.

tragentsmith
06-13-2008, 06:39 AM
As I heard in Porco Rosso (Crimson skies in English I think...) :

"The best quality of a pilot is not experience, it's inspiration."

You are facing so many different situations in air combat that you can't just rely on experience to get out of every situation. For example, I know a really skilled Spit pilot that kept shooting me down in my 110 on Warclouds. Lately, I got him twice at high altitude flying with a good deflection because his experience taught him one way to come out of the range of my guns. But this time I countered that manouevre and got him. What I did twice again already....

There's always an adaptation from the enemy, because while offline, we are not flying against bots but against other humans.

Except for people who like getting shot down all the times, the rookies will try new ways of survival.

Monterey13
06-13-2008, 06:41 AM
Altitude and energy are your two best friends.

Capt.LoneRanger
06-13-2008, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by Monterey13:
Altitude and energy are your two best friends.

I think these are the weirdest names ever given to "your two best friends".

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

rnzoli
06-13-2008, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
rnzoli knows all about air combat - wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif rnzoli truly sucks at air combat, but has enough experience to recognize bullsh!tting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

rnzoli
06-13-2008, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
BnZ = Energy fighting

Couldn't be more away from the truth. +1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
How would you describe their relationship in a correct way?

LovroSL
06-13-2008, 07:06 AM
Double lead rule costed me a lot of kills since I gave too much lead that way.
An even better advide than double lead would be- anticipate you E/A movement and position yourself so you will have a low deflection shot- high offangle shots are the not real kill situatons since you will miss 80% of them.

The only real way to get better is to fly. Eventualy you get a lot calmer, things seem to happen slower, you barely move the stick at all and eventualy RTB more and more.

Xiolablu3
06-13-2008, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
BnZ = Energy fighting

Couldn't be more away from the truth. +1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could you guys explain this a bit more please? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)))

Monterey13
06-13-2008, 07:23 AM
BnZ

You normally start with an altitude advantage. Opponent is much lower than you. You dive on him, give him a burst, then you have the energy to climb right back up to where you were. If he tries to climb up to where you are, he will bleed off his speed. You are like a vulture, swooping down for the kill, then back up to your safe zone. If you have altitude, then you have stored energy, ready for when you need it.

K_Freddie
06-13-2008, 07:30 AM
With these threads I always say one word... 'Imagination'.
Without it, 'you hit the silk'... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TinyTim
06-13-2008, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
BnZ = Energy fighting

Couldn't be more away from the truth. +1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could you guys explain this a bit more please? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif))) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here we go again! Well, Boom and Zoom is a technique, which is allways best to employ in aerial combat. It has nothing to do with either stall (angles) or energy fighting. What separates the two? Simple, initial E state. You cannot BnZ without considerable initial energy advantage over opponent, while you can energy fight (just like you can stall fight) an opponent without initial E advantage. In short: if you have considerable E advantage, use BnZ, in any plane versus any opponent. Now that goes for every plane, without any relation to what is it believed to be, an energy or a stall fighter. You can effectively BnZ a 190A in a spitfire. You can BnZ a Thunderbolt in a 109 or even in a Zero for that matter! But, on the other side, stating that having sufficient E advantage is imperative to emerge from an aerial combat as victor, is nothing short of excusing a poor performing plane. You can BnZ a mustang in a Ki-27. BnZ is most effectively used against unwary, straight flying (or being busy with some other activities) opponents.

It is simply a flaw of this sim that the best stall fighters are also among the best energy fighters, forcing so called energy fighters to use BnZ to effectively dispatch stall fighter opponents, which leads to many virtual IL2 pilots having problems between distinguishing energy fighting from boom and zoom. It is by no means logical, that Spitfire or Yak3 being superb stall fighters, are not also the very best energy fighters in this sim, while so called "energy fighters" suck at both (but they do excel at BnZ, especially the 190).

In order to visualise what energy (dog)fighting is, take two IL2 veterans, sat one in an A6 or A8, the other one in a mustang or tempest, let them start head on, same alt with guns cold, and let them go loud when they pass eachother. They won't turn (in their sane mind, as DKoor would say http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif), instead, they'll zoom climb, trying to gain higher before stall, or trying to stall later than the opponent. That's energy fighting, it's like a pendulum. It was very nicely portrayed by Bud Anderson in his famous interview of how he fought the well flown 109 (posted here not long ago). Both planes were zoom climbing, and Bud managed to gain higher (and stalled later) than 109 (in their second zoom climb). When they stalled and tipped over, the 109 was doomed. And that was from roughly equal initial E state! (We have to consider here, that sustained climbing performance has very little or nothing to do with zoom climb.)

Or the link that you posted some time ago here about Eric Brown stating spitfireV pilots were trying to do everything to draw the 190s into a turning contest, while at the same time preventing them to fight in vertical. Why? Because historially 190 was way better in vertical (referring mostly to zoom climb and initial acceleration in a dive). This had nothing to do with 190s initial E advantage.

M_Gunz
06-13-2008, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
Wrong: "If you think you are close, get closer."
Consequences of the wrong advice: collision with the E/A, or in more nible fighters (e.g., Zero) comsumed by the sudden explosion of the E/A
Correct advice: open fire from a distance of your convergence range, not sooner. However, do not get closer than 50 meters.

That works if you are holding range or closing slowly on the target. If you are closing
fast then subtract a couple to a few 10's of meters from your range to get the effective
range and timing of your shots.


Do you know more of these? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Some of those are consequences of misinterpreting advice but they do show what happens when
you do and they do show the pitfalls of loose words in advice or reducing advice to few words.

There are ways to keep speed up and finish slow enemies off but for sure you want to stay
near maneuver speed which is in the 400kph range for most of these planes. Too much more
and your turn radius will be large, but that can be planned for.

M_Gunz
06-13-2008, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Monterey13:
BnZ

You normally start with an altitude advantage. Opponent is much lower than you. You dive on him, give him a burst, then you have the energy to climb right back up to where you were. If he tries to climb up to where you are, he will bleed off his speed. You are like a vulture, swooping down for the kill, then back up to your safe zone. If you have altitude, then you have stored energy, ready for when you need it.

No. BnZ is hit and run with -maybe- coming back.

Energy-fighting is closer to what you describe though it's much more besides yet what you
describe also includes BnZ as a working element.

With BnZ you may allow the target time to get his speed back up if he survives the firing pass
in such a state that lets him. Using energy tactics you do not since it's relative energy
that matters. Not the qualifying word 'may' in there.

Hartmann wrote of the hit and run approach, never mixing it up. Over 350 credited kills and
survived the war speaks well. He set his hits up to have un-followable exits behind the tail
of the target at large angle to the path of the target. He was the essence of BnZ!

M_Gunz
06-13-2008, 09:45 AM
TinyTim you might benefit much from reading a certain book by Robert Shaw.......

In energy fighting it is best to have the higher thrust to weight. With these prop planes,
unlike with jets (why even Shaw must be read and interpreted carefully, he writes mostly for
modern jet combat) the speed you are flying has a -huge- impact on your thrust.

At 400kph and less a SpitIX will out-accelerate most any FW. At 600kph and more the opposite
holds true. The speed of combat is critical to which holds the advantage. Sure the Spit
pilot can slow down and stall turn his speed away. If he can lure the FW pilot to play that
game then he pretty much holds the winning cards. If not then the FW pilot can dance all
over the Spit pilot's head and win the energy fight.

If you start the fight with an energy advantage then you can for a time at least negate a T/W
deficiency or equality between you and the target. That's how Spits can bounce FW's even at
high speed.

It should be noted that energy advantage does not require starting at higher altitude.
If you are moving faster than the target then you have an energy advantage as well.
It's just that with these prop planes, altitude is generally worth a good bit of speed.

Try approaching a friend from behind at greater speed and going into a shallow climb
from 1km back. How much alt have you gained by the time you are at the same speed tells
about how much alt that extra speed might be equal to, if you dive and level off just as
cleanly.

TinyTim
06-13-2008, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
TinyTim you might benefit much from reading a certain book by Robert Shaw.......
Thanks a lot for the concern. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
At 400kph and less a SpitIX will out-accelerate most any FW. At 600kph and more the opposite
holds true. The speed of combat is critical to which holds the advantage. Sure the Spit
pilot can slow down and stall turn his speed away. If he can lure the FW pilot to play that
game then he pretty much holds the winning cards. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">If not then the FW pilot can dance all
over the Spit pilot's head and win the energy fight.</span>
You are not serious are you? M_Gunz you might benefit much from playing a certain sim by 1C....... (sry couldn't resist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ).


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
If you start the fight with an energy advantage then you can for a time at least negate a T/W
deficiency or equality between you and the target. That's how Spits can bounce FW's even at
high speed.

It should be noted that energy advantage does not require starting at higher altitude.
If you are moving faster than the target then you have an energy advantage as well.
It's just that with these prop planes, altitude is generally worth a good bit of speed.

Try approaching a friend from behind at greater speed and going into a shallow climb
from 1km back. How much alt have you gained by the time you are at the same speed tells
about how much alt that extra speed might be equal to, if you dive and level off just as
cleanly.
Agreed almost completely. In my post I was only trying to explain the difference between Boom'n'Zoom and energy fighting, two terms often mixed by many virtual pilots. Indeed, alt is more important than speed, but in the last example (your last sentence) you are forgetting the engine power (let's say force to be accurate). Your last sentence holds true only if both planes travel fast. If they fly slow, the second aircraft might never slow down to opponents velocity as his climbing speed might be higher than the horisontal speed of another plane! But I got the point anyway, don't want to nitpick.

rnzoli
06-13-2008, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
With these threads I always say one word... 'Imagination'.
So your only advice is NOT to take any advice.
Do you realize this is Catch 22? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

leitmotiv
06-13-2008, 03:54 PM
I always learned the most by reading the memoirs of the WWII aces. Some of their techniques I used---shooting at point-blank range (Hartmann and others), and some I didn't use---never deviate from full throttle while in combat (Hub Zemke). Every player finds what is best for him.

Pirschjaeger
06-13-2008, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
BnZ = Energy fighting

Couldn't be more away from the truth. +1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
How would you describe their relationship in a correct way? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Platonic? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

cygfrain
06-13-2008, 05:21 PM
If you can get access to the two books detailed below I think you will find them useful resources for better virtual combat performance. I bought them because I have a particular interest in the P-38.

I also think that they back up a lot of what rnzoli is saying although I would say that the overwhelming message is height, speed and NEVER fly on your own, always fly in pairs or two pairs and if you get seperated join up with another friendly as soon as possible.

"Twelve to One: V Fighter Command Aces of the Pacific War (Aircraft of the Aces) (Paperback)"

Publisher: Osprey Publishing (30 April 2004)
ISBN-10: 1841767840

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Twelve-One-Fighter-Command-Airc...6&colid=QPLURREHI1VR (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Twelve-One-Fighter-Command-Aircraft/dp/1841767840/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3A7KWAQ0Q9XH6&colid=QPLURREHI1VR)

details the experiences of 107 elite American aces in combat against the Japanese

based on "A report presented by V Fighter Command combat pilots for the purpose of making available helpful hints for combat replacement pilots who are assigned...etc"

and

"VIII Fighter Command at War: Long Reach (Osprey Aircraft of the Aces Special)"

Michael O'Leary (Editor)

Publisher: Osprey Publishing; Special edition (16 Jan 2001)
ISBN-10: 1855329077

http://www.amazon.co.uk/VIII-Fighter-Command-War-Aircra...id=1213397910&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/VIII-Fighter-Command-War-Aircraft/dp/1855329077/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213397910&sr=1-1)

"Focuses on an official Army Air Force report commissioned by the Eighth Air Force's VIII Fighter Command in May 1944. It chronicled the experiences of 24 pilots in service escorting B-17s and B-24s on daylight raids deep into Germany"

Both books would be of particular interested to the virtual pilots of P38s, P47s and P51s (P40s and P39s are also mentioned). Both books deal with offensive and defencive tactics at the individual, flight and Squadron level and also talks about tactics for defending bombers from enemy a/cs.

chunkydora
06-19-2008, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Best real advice on air combat. Learn the manauvers and then learn for yourself. Don't count on "expert advice". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

In a dogfight there's never a situation just like the other and while these advices can be true at some point, they can be totally wrong at another point.

Be flexible, don't boresight and practice. Only keys you need to survive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Practice, practice, practice. So true that there is no set solution to any situation. Every situation is different, and changing differently. Use your head, and practice. Get the feel of the game.

R_Target
06-19-2008, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
rnzoli truly sucks at air combat, but has enough experience to recognize bullsh!tting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif In that case, you came to the right place. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DKoor
06-20-2008, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
rnzoli truly sucks at air combat, but has enough experience to recognize bullsh!tting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif In that case, you came to the right place. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

JtD
06-20-2008, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
Wrong: "Always keep your speed up".
Consequence: inability to finish off the E/A
Correct: always keep sufficient manouvering speed in combat, this is higher for modern high-speed aircraft, and lower for older type biplanes.

Always keep your speed up is absolutely right, unless you rank a single kill more important than your own life.

TinyTim
06-20-2008, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
Wrong: "Always keep your speed up".
Consequence: inability to finish off the E/A
Correct: always keep sufficient manouvering speed in combat, this is higher for modern high-speed aircraft, and lower for older type biplanes.

Always keep your speed up is absolutely right, unless you rank a single kill more important than your own life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Life in RL, or life in IL2 1946?

alert_1
06-20-2008, 11:12 AM
Wrong:"Practise, Practise, Practice"

Right:"Hop into Spit or La and go to kill something"

idonno
06-20-2008, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
Wrong: "Always keep your speed up".
Consequence: inability to finish off the E/A
Correct: always keep sufficient manouvering speed in combat, this is higher for modern high-speed aircraft, and lower for older type biplanes.

Always keep your speed up is absolutely right, unless you rank a single kill more important than your own life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately most people in IL2 don't care anything about their virtual life, and that's what keeps this an air combat <span class="ev_code_RED">game</span> instead of an air combat <span class="ev_code_RED">simulation</span>.

DKoor
06-20-2008, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
Wrong:"Practise, Practise, Practice"

Right:"Hop into Spit or La and go to kill something" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

rnzoli
06-20-2008, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
Wrong: "Always keep your speed up".
Consequence: inability to finish off the E/A
Correct: always keep sufficient manouvering speed in combat, this is higher for modern high-speed aircraft, and lower for older type biplanes.

Always keep your speed up is absolutely right, unless you rank a single kill more important than your own life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Smoking E/A with dying engine (cannot accelerate away), or numerical superiority over the E/A (someone will watch my back) are two typical situations where one is better off slowing down a bit, finishing the E/A in 2 minutes and gaining back the sacrificed altitude/speed in 3 more minutes, instead of constantly overshooting and missing the E/A for 10 minutes, only to let it make it to its home base, or help arrive on his side. Throttling back is a risk - a risk worth taking sometimes.

rnzoli
06-20-2008, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by idonno:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
Wrong: "Always keep your speed up".
Consequence: inability to finish off the E/A
Correct: always keep sufficient manouvering speed in combat, this is higher for modern high-speed aircraft, and lower for older type biplanes.

Always keep your speed up is absolutely right, unless you rank a single kill more important than your own life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately most people in IL2 don't care anything about their virtual life, and that's what keeps this an air combat <span class="ev_code_RED">game</span> instead of an air combat <span class="ev_code_RED">simulation</span>. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lets then add one more misleading advice to he list:

Wrong: always listen to the self-proclaimed experts, this is the only way to consider yourself in a high-level simulation, otherwise you are just a lowly gamer.
Consequences: by following simplified advices, you may lose initiative and imagination, or the element of surprise on your opponents
Correct: always listen to good advice, but in order to avoid following schematics all the time, avoid over-simplifications and know exactly in which context a specific advice is valid.

Ba5tard5word
06-20-2008, 04:10 PM
"Get closer?"

Man once I was attacking a He-111 that was carrying a torpedo, I was just below and behind it and firing at it, too close I guess, then it dropped its torpedo on me and I blew up.....

0__0

JG53_Valantine
06-20-2008, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Monterey13: You are like a vulture, swooping down for the kill, then back up to your safe zone

Vultures only eat carrion, IE. dead flesh etc. They will not attack or kill a living creature as that is not what they have evolved to do. They simply feed off the dead.

But abck on topic:

With flying, I think it is "each to their own" some things that work for me don;t work for others. Somethings that are recommended to me by others simply do not fit with my flying style. The best way to learn is to practice and find what you are comfortable doing whilst getting to know your aircraft!
V

general_kalle
06-21-2008, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
Wrong: "If you think you are close, get closer."
Consequences of the wrong advice: collision with the E/A, or in more nible fighters (e.g., Zero) comsumed by the sudden explosion of the E/A
Correct advice: open fire from a distance of your convergence range, not sooner. However, do not get closer than 50 meters.
<span class="ev_code_RED">Wrong! It is still a good Advice.</span>

Wrong: "Never let anyone get on your six"
Consequence: unnecessary turning and twising in situations when extending would be a better option against a slower E/A.
Correct: never let anyone get on your six within effective firing range (500-600m)

Wrong: "Lose the sight, lose the fight"
Consequence: unnecessary manouvers to keep track the E/A in sight, leading to energy bleeding
Correct: always know where the E/A is - mostly by visual tracking, however when that is impossible for short times, you can track "mentally" without seeing, simply by knowing what manouvers the E/A can do according to its flight envelope, energy state, pilot skill etc.
<span class="ev_code_RED">Wrong! It is still a good Advice.
if you loose sight you cannot be completly sure where it is and thus might end up with it on your low six where you cannot see it</span>

Wrong: "As a beginner, always take double amount of deflection than you would do"
Consequence: consistently shooting in front of the E/A
Correct: as a beginner, experiment with moving your aim along the flight path of the E/A and watch for impacts
<span class="ev_code_RED">Wrong! It is still a good Advice
its not meant to take Literally. Its just that rookies generally will use half the deflektion required.</span>

Wrong: "Always keep your speed up".
Consequence: inability to finish off the E/A
Correct: always keep sufficient manouvering speed in combat, this is higher for modern high-speed aircraft, and lower for older type biplanes.

Wrong: "Never turn".
Consequence: you imitate a V-1 and fly off the map in a straight line
Correct: do not make hard turns or strong manouvers at high speed, but you can turn hard for example on the top of your high yo-yo, where your speed is lower (energy is stored in your height).


Do you know more of these? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

idonno
06-21-2008, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:


Unfortunately most people in IL2 don't care anything about their virtual life, and that's what keeps this an air combat <span class="ev_code_RED">game</span> instead of an air combat <span class="ev_code_RED">simulation</span>.

Lets then add one more misleading advice to he list:

Wrong: always listen to the self-proclaimed experts, this is the only way to consider yourself in a high-level simulation, otherwise you are just a lowly gamer.
Consequences: by following simplified advices, you may lose initiative and imagination, or the element of surprise on your opponents
Correct: always listen to good advice, but in order to avoid following schematics all the time, avoid over-simplifications and know exactly in which context a specific advice is valid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My statement has nothing to do with advise of any kind. Keep your speed up, don't keep your speed up. Let people get on your six, don't let them get there. I don't care.

The point was simply that in real life, in the vast majority of cases, people flew like they gave a rat's rear end about whether they lived or died. This will never be a realistic simulation of air combat as long as nobody cares about losing their virtual life.

I'm haven't claimed to be an expert about anything. On the other hand, I believe it was you who started a thread to tell everybody what advise was, in your opinion, worth listening to. hmmmmm...

DKoor
06-21-2008, 11:59 AM
Hey this is a game that simulates flying, guys.
It's not a military simulator or something that prepares you for a real thing.

So get over it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

JtD
06-21-2008, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:

Smoking E/A with dying engine (cannot accelerate away), or numerical superiority over the E/A (someone will watch my back) are two typical situations where one is better off slowing down a bit, finishing the E/A in 2 minutes and gaining back the sacrificed altitude/speed in 3 more minutes, instead of constantly overshooting and missing the E/A for 10 minutes, only to let it make it to its home base, or help arrive on his side. Throttling back is a risk - a risk worth taking sometimes.

This is your opinion, I prefer to always stay fast and alive, even if it means that the enemy ac will make it home to base. If things get risky, I'm leaving. This also means that I won't spend 10 minutes fighting a single aircraft. I do value most of my virtual lives.

idonno
06-21-2008, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Hey this is a game that simulates flying, guys.
It's not a military simulator or something that prepares you for a real thing.

So get over it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. You're thinking of Microsoft Flight Simulator.

On the other hand, IL2 was designed to simulate air combat. Notice all the guns and bombs and stuff? However all the guns and bombs, and accurate 3D modeling, and somewhat realistic flight modeling, and everything else that goes into making it an air combat simulation is for naught when everybody treats it as just a game.

As far as the way it's approached by most people, you are right that it is a game, but that's so much less than it can (and was intended) to be.

It's like hanging a masterpiece painting facing the wall just to cover a stain. Sure you get something out of it. You don't have to look at that ugly stain, but you're missing out on so much more.


P.S. JtD, you wouldn't be looking for a squad would you?

DKoor
06-21-2008, 01:26 PM
Ok if you say so http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .
You are entitled to your opinion.

rnzoli
06-21-2008, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
If things get risky, I'm leaving. [...]I do value most of my virtual lives.
I hope you are aware that this is a luxury you can only enjoy due to playing a game. In reality, especially in regular armed forces, this attitude is bordering on cowardice, as no mission, no combat order can be refused becase it's risky. You can do a lot to minimize the risk, of course, but taking away all risk-taking from a combat simulation is ... well, flame me, is rather gamey.

rnzoli
06-21-2008, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by idonno:
I'm haven't claimed to be an expert about anything. On the other hand, I believe it was you who started a thread to tell everybody what advise was, in your opinion, worth listening to. hmmmmm... I also clarified quite quickly that I am no expert either. However, I have definitely seen the downside of taking some "common wisdom proverbs" too literally. A lot of newbee questions get boxed with such proverbs being thrown at them. So with my alternative suggestions, I am trying to give people the benefit of doubt towards those "proverbs" (or those who throw them around most).

mortoma
06-21-2008, 07:23 PM
I think B-n-Z is a type of energy fighting. Because doing hit and run you are bound to keep a lot of energy, most of the time. But not all energy fighting is B-n-Z.

JtD
06-21-2008, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
I hope you are aware that this is a luxury you can only enjoy due to playing a game. In reality, especially in regular armed forces, this attitude is bordering on cowardice, as no mission, no combat order can be refused becase it's risky. You can do a lot to minimize the risk, of course, but taking away all risk-taking from a combat simulation is ... well, flame me, is rather gamey.

Obviously one can't eliminate all risks, but it is one thing to take a minimized risk and another to ask for trouble.
Some WW2 pilots flew hit and run tactics almost exclusively, they hardly ever stayed in combat, just bounced an opponent and either succeeded or failed to shoot it down in a single attack and then left the scene. I'm sure that this tactic was not perceived as cowardice.

p.s. I'm not looking for a squad, but thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
06-22-2008, 01:06 AM
Eric Hartmann.


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

Von_Rat
06-22-2008, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
I hope you are aware that this is a luxury you can only enjoy due to playing a game. In reality, especially in regular armed forces, this attitude is bordering on cowardice, as no mission, no combat order can be refused becase it's risky. You can do a lot to minimize the risk, of course, but taking away all risk-taking from a combat simulation is ... well, flame me, is rather gamey.

Obviously one can't eliminate all risks, but it is one thing to take a minimized risk and another to ask for trouble.
Some WW2 pilots flew hit and run tactics almost exclusively, they hardly ever stayed in combat, just bounced an opponent and either succeeded or failed to shoot it down in a single attack and then left the scene. I'm sure that this tactic was not perceived as cowardice.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



agreed, but let me add,,,,

it wasnt just some ww2 pilots, the vast majority on both sides fought with hit and run tactics, dogfights as we see in game were the exception to the rule.

if real ww2 pilots saw the way most players constantly tnb or stall fight they would gag at what asses they were. comments about cowardice, when your using real life tactics, are imo laughable.



note: aerial warfare at its core is attritional warfare, its not about holding on to a piece of sky as most players seem to think. its about making the enemy pay a heavy price (at minimuin cost to yourself) if they intrude on that airspace. or conversly , its about invading the enemy airspace and completing your mission at minimum cost, then getting the fark out of there.



oh to answer thread title, the worst advice is imo,,, its the pilot not the plane.

if that was true why, as someone has in his sig, do they keep improving the planes.

joeap
06-22-2008, 04:47 AM
Originally posted by idonno:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Hey this is a game that simulates flying, guys.
It's not a military simulator or something that prepares you for a real thing.

So get over it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. You're thinking of Microsoft Flight Simulator.

On the other hand, IL2 was designed to simulate air combat. Notice all the guns and bombs and stuff? However all the guns and bombs, and accurate 3D modeling, and somewhat realistic flight modeling, and everything else that goes into making it an air combat simulation is for naught when everybody treats it as just a game.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummmm how many air forces use Il-2s, Me-109s or Mustangs today? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

Jaws2002
06-22-2008, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:

I hope you are aware that this is a luxury you can only enjoy due to playing a game. In reality, especially in regular armed forces, this attitude is bordering on cowardice, as no mission, no combat order can be refused becase it's risky. You can do a lot to minimize the risk, of course, but taking away all risk-taking from a combat simulation is ... well, flame me, is rather gamey.

I agree with Zoli on this one. Is true that many airforces used a more safe aproach to aircombat but the vast majority of ww2 pilots followed orders or were in deep troble.
Just read those interviews with Russian pilots.
Nobody cared much about their survival chances, they were told to do a certain task and they had to do it.
In those acounts I saw a lot of rigid planed missions where they had to cover a certain area over the front line. They would tell how they were watching the germans take off, climb above them and could not leave the area to bounce them. Those were the orders and they had to follow them.
A lot of those acounts show the frustration of the Il-2 escorting pilots. They had to stay slow and low with the Il-2s.
You couldn't get back to the unit and tel your superiors that you lost half the il-2's, before they drop the bombs, because you wanted to get to a safe tactical position above the Germans.
Your safety and your individual tactics meant nothing on the overall war plan.
That's why the Germans had such huge scores on eastern front. They were there to shoot down planes, while the Russians were there to fight and win a war. Ground war in the most part.

rnzoli
06-22-2008, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Some WW2 pilots flew hit and run tactics almost exclusively, they hardly ever stayed in combat, just bounced an opponent and either succeeded or failed to shoot it down in a single attack and then left the scene. I'm sure that this tactic was not perceived as cowardice.
Don't be so sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

#1. Irregardless what we call it, this no-personal-risk-taken combat tactic may have saved the pilot's life and his planes throughout the entire war, but it may have cost hundreds or thousands of lives on the ground, due to abandoning the mission objectives far too easily.

#2. Maybe such tactics weren't considered cowardice in the "aristocratic" circles of the Luftwaffe ("knights of the sky", etc.) I also don't consider that cowardice in the late '44-'45 period, when greatly overwhelmed by numbers. However, Allied forces, with their more "labour class" attitude, did consider such tactics from the Luftwaffe as cowardice. The P-51 encounter reports specifically mention that the German pilots very often split-S-ed and dove out of combat when the Allied fighters were getting the upper hand. It was so common, that some P-51s were circling below the cloud base, waiting for such German plans dive out from the cloud, so that they can not get away so easily. The problem was not diving out from combat - the problem was leaving your fellow pilots in a much more difficult situation, at a much higher risk of being shot down.

rnzoli
06-22-2008, 01:05 PM
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.)


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? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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

rnzoli
06-22-2008, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
it wasnt just some ww2 pilots, the vast majority on both sides fought with hit and run tactics, dogfights as we see in game were the exception to the rule.
After reading a lot of manouvering combat descriptions (both horizontal & vertical) in various memoirs, I think you are just repeating a favourite internet myth. P-51s were described both in PTO and ETO in manouvers that relate to turn-fighting, not to mention Spitfires, and the russian wonders (I-16, Yaks, La-5s). See for example http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html, section "Turn".

Even in the Luftwaffe, not everybody was as risk-averse as you guys try to pretend. Norbert Hannig writes about how he heard a call for help from another Fw-190A-6, he spotted the plane being chased by 4 P-51s. He decided to help, and instead of just makeing a single hit-and-run, he went down, scared 3 of them away, then saddled in behind the one chasing the other Anton, and then shot it down, while co-ordintating the moves over the radio with the other pilot. He was definitely at risk due to being outnumbered and down low, but he took it - for saving his fellow pilot's life.

Once again, I believe the "refly-button" mentality produces unrealistic combat scenarios. On the other hand, the "I value my virtual life above all" attitude is also unrealistic.

rnzoli
06-22-2008, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by general_kalle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
Wrong: "Lose the sight, lose the fight"
Consequence: unnecessary manouvers to keep track the E/A in sight, leading to energy bleeding
Correct: always know where the E/A is - mostly by visual tracking, however when that is impossible for short times, you can track "mentally" without seeing, simply by knowing what manouvers the E/A can do according to its flight envelope, energy state, pilot skill etc.
<span class="ev_code_RED">Wrong! It is still a good Advice.
if you loose sight you cannot be completly sure where it is and thus might end up with it on your low six where you cannot see it</span>
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I can give you 2 examples then:
a) sometimes my B&Z attempts are carefuly monitored by a skilled pilot, who always turn into me, risking a head on shoot-out. In such cases, I sometimes try to dive down not exactly on the E/A, but about 1 km aways and level out. Normally, the E/A turns into me again, but then I start a 45% angle zoom climb. This can be tempting for the other pilot to start pulling his nose, and climb as well, but since I have higher E, I will be climbing faster, always out of of his guns range. During this climb, I don't see his plane from my plane's nose, but I can see if he turns left or right. In order to be precise, I usuall count aloud (a useful habit in exiting combat situations) to estimate the point when I arrive above him, so that I can wing over just when he runs out of speed under me. Due to the nose of the aircraft, I can't see him, but knowing the limited options he has, that's not a problem.

#2. When a slower aircraft gives chase on my tail, I don't need to twist and turn to see him. Flying stright with max throttle is much better, from the flight envelope of an I-153 I can be 100% sure, the he will never catch up to my FW-190A in level flight, in case we had co-energy status.

JtD
06-22-2008, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:

#1. Irregardless what we call it, this no-personal-risk-taken combat tactic may have saved the pilot's life and his planes throughout the entire war, but it may have cost hundreds or thousands of lives on the ground, due to abandoning the mission objectives far too easily.

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.

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.

JtD
06-22-2008, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:

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

In fact they did a better job this way then when dogfighting. It weren't tactics that failed, it was strategy.

JtD
06-22-2008, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:

Even in the Luftwaffe, not everybody was as risk-averse as you guys try to pretend.

You just made that up. You're the first to say "everybody".

na85
06-22-2008, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:

Smoking E/A with dying engine (cannot accelerate away), or numerical superiority over the E/A (someone will watch my back) are two typical situations where one is better off slowing down a bit, finishing the E/A in 2 minutes and gaining back the sacrificed altitude/speed in 3 more minutes, instead of constantly overshooting and missing the E/A for 10 minutes, only to let it make it to its home base, or help arrive on his side. Throttling back is a risk - a risk worth taking sometimes.

This is your opinion, I prefer to always stay fast and alive, even if it means that the enemy ac will make it home to base. If things get risky, I'm leaving. This also means that I won't spend 10 minutes fighting a single aircraft. I do value most of my virtual lives. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're solo-hunting (which happens a lot on public df servers) then this is a good attitude to have, but in a team vs team situation, survival of the individual is not always paramount, nor should it be.

I've stayed and fought (and died) to clear e/a off of friendly bombers so they could hit ground targets and win the mission. Had I and others bugged out when things got dicey the bombers might not have survived.

JtD
06-22-2008, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by na85:

If you're solo-hunting (which happens a lot on public df servers) then this is a good attitude to have, but in a team vs team situation, survival of the individual is not always paramount, nor should it be.

I've stayed and fought (and died) to clear e/a off of friendly bombers so they could hit ground targets and win the mission. Had I and others bugged out when things got dicey the bombers might not have survived.

Yes, if I am hunting I am mostly solo hunting and I do leave people to die if they fly in a way that makes their rescue and my survival unlikely. Better to lose one than two.

Now you shouldn't think I'm a selfish ****, 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. So whenever I can, I help.

na85
06-22-2008, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Now you shouldn't think I'm a selfish ****

I never said you were a selfish bunch of asterisks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


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.


So whenever I can, I help.


If things get risky, I'm leaving.

Those are some contractory statements, in that case.

JtD
06-22-2008, 02:30 PM
Not if you consider that I can only help when I'm not at risk. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

rnzoli
06-22-2008, 03:03 PM
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.


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.

Von_Rat
06-22-2008, 03:58 PM
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.

Von_Rat
06-22-2008, 04:05 PM
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. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Xiolablu3
06-22-2008, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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.)


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? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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

Thats why I missed out 1940 mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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.

rnzoli
06-22-2008, 10:36 PM
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... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

rnzoli
06-22-2008, 10:39 PM
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.

rnzoli
06-22-2008, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Thats why I missed out 1940 mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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.

Von_Rat
06-22-2008, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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.

Von_Rat
06-22-2008, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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).

JtD
06-23-2008, 12:22 AM
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.

cmirko
06-23-2008, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, and a lot of good people die...., or burn in flames....

S!

Von_Rat
06-23-2008, 02:24 AM
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.

idonno
06-23-2008, 02:47 AM
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.

Von_Rat
06-23-2008, 03:24 AM
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.

idonno
06-23-2008, 10:29 AM
"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. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Zoom2136
06-23-2008, 11:18 AM
In a dogfight.... IMPROVISE...

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

rnzoli
06-23-2008, 02:50 PM
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.

rnzoli
06-23-2008, 02:57 PM
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 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

rnzoli
06-23-2008, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by idonno:
"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. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Why cowardly? When it was absolutely necessary, he DID turn and he also DID take some risk with it. Depending on the context of that quote (what mission objectives, against what opponents), this might have been the maximum risk worth taking.

rnzoli
06-23-2008, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
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). At the end of the day, it will be the mission results, which judge, whether the amount of risk taken was correct or wrong. It's often part of a learning process. Loss ratios and mission importances were highly influential on the adopted tactics.

rnzoli
06-23-2008, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
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.
I read about 50 of them, and at least 30-40% contained references to sustained manouvering combat (Luftberries, Chandelles). So there is no way you can deny, that those AARs paint a more balanced picture about the nature of air combat. There was "hit & run", and there was "mixing it up" as well. Whatever the situation allowed or demanded. Not exclusively one or the other. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

rnzoli
06-23-2008, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by idonno:
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.
If you speed away, the bombers remain unprotected immediately. Remember that with your agressive attack, at least you occupied the attackers from one more minute, buying time for the bombers. It's easy to think in hindsight, but maybe next time I would rather try to "occupy" the fighters instead of trying to shoot them down, e.g., swooping around and preventing them from concentraing on the bombers (also protecting yourself somewhat from being hit). Maybe that's the right balance of risk taking.

idonno
06-23-2008, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
"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. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Why cowardly? When it was absolutely necessary, he DID turn and he also DID take some risk with it. Depending on the context of that quote (what mission objectives, against what opponents), this might have been the maximum risk worth taking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um... my comment was, what we in the business call, sarcasm.

Why are you trying to convince me of a point that I previously made myself?

idonno
06-23-2008, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
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.
If you speed away, the bombers remain unprotected immediately. Remember that with your agressive attack, at least you occupied the attackers from one more minute, buying time for the bombers. It's easy to think in hindsight, but maybe next time I would rather try to "occupy" the fighters instead of trying to shoot them down, e.g., swooping around and preventing them from concentraing on the bombers (also protecting yourself somewhat from being hit). Maybe that's the right balance of risk taking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You just don't get it do you? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Von_Rat
06-24-2008, 01:48 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
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.
I read about 50 of them, and at least 30-40% contained references to sustained manouvering combat (Luftberries, Chandelles). So there is no way you can deny, that those AARs paint a more balanced picture about the nature of air combat. There was "hit & run", and there was "mixing it up" as well. Whatever the situation allowed or demanded. Not exclusively one or the other. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well nobody i ever flew ingame with, who was any good, (and its been alot of them over the years) flew hit n run exclusivly.

and that includes myself.

so i really dont understand what your beef is.
i never said hit n run was used exclusivly. i said it was used in most, and your findings bear me out. maybe not the same percentage i had in mind, but then your not really being exact either.

Von_Rat
06-24-2008, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
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). At the end of the day, it will be the mission results, which judge, whether the amount of risk taken was correct or wrong. It's often part of a learning process. Loss ratios and mission importances were highly influential on the adopted tactics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

true, but the loss ratios ive seen of even the best players, and who fly in the most careful manner, are well above what most airforces would be able to sustain for any length of time.

now im sure part of those high losses are due to the enviroment we play in. but ive seen great players, on realistic servers, who fly extremly carefully and always with wingmen. but who have loss ratios that would be considered unacceptable in almost any airforce.

infact ive never seen anybody who has kept their loss ratio (over a long period) within a realistic margin. even the best ive seen lose about 10 percent of the planes they fly. even if they dont die, its still a unsustainable rl loss rate. well maybe the ussr could sustain it.

in short i think even the most careful player isnt as careful as the average ww2 pilot. which makes sense, they had no refly button.



this has been a good discussion. i apologize to thread starter for being off topic.

Von_Rat
06-24-2008, 02:20 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

read jg26, theres at least one story in there from a lw ace who did very much what i stated.

his regular military commander wasnt happy either, he died. the lw flyer ace survived.

in the infrantry they often shoot "accidently" or frag such idiots. i guess in airforces they just abandon them to their fate.

rnzoli
06-24-2008, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by idonno:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
"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. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Why cowardly? When it was absolutely necessary, he DID turn and he also DID take some risk with it. Depending on the context of that quote (what mission objectives, against what opponents), this might have been the maximum risk worth taking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um... my comment was, what we in the business call, sarcasm.

Why are you trying to convince me of a point that I previously made myself? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, my reply was sarcasm, but you didn't realize, did you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Seriously, I think we agree on some things.
You said yourself, there is a difference between bravery and stupidity. Then there is covardice and discipline too, and I happen to know what sets them apart. One picture is worth of thousands words, so in a chart-obsessed place like this, enjoy! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://web.t-online.hu/rnzoli/risk-vs-importance.gif

My sarcarm was addressed to the fact that you placed a quote here, taken out of context, trying to impress everyone. But, the point is, there is no way to evaluate someone's actions without the risks and objectives he was flying under/for. So I just imagined the most probable situation and highlighted that the same action can be viewed as disciplined flying (which I think) as well as cowardice (which you believed I would think), depending on the circumstainces (which you didn't provide).

rnzoli
06-24-2008, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

read jg26, theres at least one story in there from a lw ace who did very much what i stated.

his regular military commander wasnt happy either, he died. the lw flyer ace survived.

in the infrantry they often shoot "accidently" or frag such idiots. i guess in airforces they just abandon them to their fate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you can link me to a more accurate source, I would be interested.

I can also recommend one interesting book on the same topic, worth reading: The Caine Mutiny: A Novel (http://www.amazon.com/Caine-Mutiny-Novel-Herman-Wouk/dp/0316955108/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214333361&sr=1-4)

There is an interesting twist at the end (I won't spoil http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif), which ought to make people think a bit differently.


Product Description
Upon its original publication in 1951, this Pulitzer Prize-winning novel was immediately embraced as one of the first serious works of fiction to help readers grapple with the human consequences of World War II. In the intervening half-century, Herman Wouk's boldly dramatic, brilliantly entertaining story of life-and mutiny-on a Navy warship in the Pacific theater has achieved the status of a modern classic.
edit*** Wow! I always loved this book for decades, but it's only now, that I realize that it won the Pulitzer prize! Respect to the author!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

toogame
06-24-2008, 08:29 PM
Yeah I see what your saying in the first post, though I do have to say allot of other things come into play which can change all the do's and dont's.
Such as:

Aircraft your flying and aircraft your flying against. If your flying a more TNB aircraft and the enemy has a energy fighter with an advantage you want to draw him into a turn fight, which means purposely burning E, tight and constant turns, maybe even flying straight to lure him in and getting him to commit.

Another thing with double lead shooting, if I find im on the 6 of a faster aircraft and I feel I wont catch him I will lead too much so he can see the bullets fly past and get him to turn to set my position.

Getting a bandit on your 6 is ok if your wingman knows about it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif and can drag n bag him.

IMO

Badsight-
06-25-2008, 05:38 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Could you guys explain this a bit more please? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)))
energy fighting involves hard turning

JtD
06-25-2008, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
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.

It will make you a "more-likely-dead" pilot. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I don't understand why you label the advice one of the "worst misleading" advices for air combat and now say that it is in fact a great advice for most of us.

rnzoli
06-25-2008, 01:27 PM
Yeah, maybe this "storm in the cup of tea" comes from my poor English. I didn't want to say "worst advice", I wanted to say "advice, which have the highest chance of misleading you one day, when you get more and more experienced". This is how I came up with "worst misleading advice" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

But M_Gunz nailed it quite well, I wanted to

Originally posted by M_Gunz:
show the pitfalls of loose words in advice or reducing advice to few words.

These advices are great, because they are short, to the point, easy to remember. Perhaps this makes too easy to take them as the absolute truth. But if we do, then from a certain point of time in ones career development, they can become problematic at times, so it's good to know, under what special conditions should you deviate from them.

JtD
06-25-2008, 01:58 PM
So it is the "even good advices can be bad sometimes" topic, eh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Maybe you should have given an explanation for each advice, not just say when they don't apply. Or we could do that now. Say "lose the sight, lose the fight" is to remind inexperienced pilots that oil temperature and fuel pressure are far less important than the enemy in a dogfight.