PDA

View Full Version : The myth of the dofight.



Whirlin_merlin
10-10-2006, 04:51 AM
Like many (I suspect) when I hear the expression dogfight I think of two noble warriors pitting their wits and machines against each other. Plenty of movment in the horizontal as one tries to get on the others tail until the best man/machine combo wins.

However the more I read the accounts of WW2 pilots the more I realise that the truth was closer to:

1) A formation of aircraft spots another formation of aircraft and atempts to get the drop on them.
2) It all goes to rats' after the first pass with aircraft milling about squirting bursts at anything hostile (hopefully) that crosses their sights.
3) Some planes blow up others start trailing glycol, fuel, oil or smoke.
4) One side brakes running for home or into the clouds.
5) The survivors attempt to relocate their wingman, formation etc. Whilst working out if the damp sensation in their pants is sweat, urine or blood.

The above is not an attemp to degrade the achievments of these men, more to remind us of the brutal chaos that was air combat.

I do think it's important we remember this as I feel the 'myth' of the dogfight influences many of the x was the best or x vs y threads we see.

Kernow
10-10-2006, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
I do think it's important we remember this as I feel the 'myth' of the dogfight influences many of the x was the best or x vs y threads we see.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

p-11.cAce
10-10-2006, 05:32 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Low_Flyer_MkVb
10-10-2006, 05:42 AM
Good points to consider. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

HuninMunin
10-10-2006, 05:47 AM
100 % agreed.
There is only one knightly duel in air warfare I know about; Udet vs Guynemer.

IIJG69_Kartofe
10-10-2006, 05:49 AM
Yep, Oleg must model Urine!


=====> Ok ok, I leave !

F6_Ace
10-10-2006, 05:59 AM
You forgot the one where those that are damaged are ruthlessly hunted down by many because it's always easier to nail the weakest.

rnzoli
10-10-2006, 06:06 AM
worth to clarify that air combat had more evidence of "noble" and "fair" actions in World War 1

while not "noble" and "fair", air combat in WW 2 wasn't that hectic and unprofessional as you describe, for example don't forget coordination via radio, or the wingmen protecting their leaders, or the flight leaders doing an ID pass on the unidentified aircraft and asking their wingman to shoot only when it was positively identified as enemy, or the bravery to sneak up on enemy formation and shooting down poor tail end charlie before running home - those are all described in original pilot encounter reports

Xiolablu3
10-10-2006, 06:38 AM
I htink the statistic is that 80% of planes shot down never saw their attacker.

I am sure I read that the P51D did have its own 'F6' key tho, didnt they have a tail warning system?

leitmotiv
10-10-2006, 06:48 AM
Killing is killing. As one wit said: cavalry existed only to give tone to a crude slaughter. When I was a boy, I was shocked by Robert Johnson's admission in his autobiography, THUNDERBOLT!, that he blew a German fighter pilot to pieces as he was bailing out of his fighter. Johnson cold-bloodedly stated that the pilot was so good he wanted to make sure he never had another chance to shoot somebody down. Years later I re-read the book and saw that shortly before Johnson killed that German he had witnessed German fighter pilots shooting American bomber crewmen in their 'chutes. I've never read a German fighter pilot autobiography which didn't portray the author as a sportsman and a gentleman. Perhaps, for the most part this was true. Someone once said the Germans make sport out of war (see the extraordinary Ernst Junger, for example) and Americans make war out of sport.

Whirlin_merlin
10-10-2006, 06:55 AM
F6_ace: Good point, so that makes the IL2 online scramle for the the smoker one of its most realistic features.

rnzoli: Everything you say is true However was it not the case that a small minority of pilots scored the majority of the kills, most pilots never shot anything down. Not that I'm criticising I can't really start to imagine how fast and confusing a furball must have been. I was not trying to detract from these brave, often too young, men, quite the opposite.

p1ngu666
10-10-2006, 08:09 AM
the myth of flying knight was much more romantic than the thought of men getting mowed down in mud, getting blown up, shell shock etc http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
10-10-2006, 08:19 AM
The points listed in the original post seem quite accurate by most accounts and let's not forget also that most dogfights (especially WWII and later) are typically described as "1 second the sky was full of twisting, aggressive aircraft and the next second the sky was clear...couldn't even see my wingman...all was quiet"

A hard-maneuvering aircraft is never the ideal target whereas a totally unsuspecting victim is just that...a victim. There's not a single veteran that will say spotting the enemy first wasn't one of the most important aspects of success.


TB

leitmotiv
10-10-2006, 08:51 AM
The most successful killers in the West, the Germans, generally abjured maneuver battles for one swift destructive pass and beat it home to fight again another day. These tactics would, of course, kill the combat flight sim hobby.

ppontius
10-10-2006, 08:59 AM
problem is: we want to have fun, they wanted to survive.

Xiolablu3
10-10-2006, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The most successful killers in the West, the Germans, generally abjured maneuver battles for one swift destructive pass and beat it home to fight again another day. These tactics would, of course, kill the combat flight sim hobby.

Arent these FW190 tactics?

They sure come close to how I use the FW190 in the game, but rather than running home, I gain some height, find someone below, and attack again.

WWSensei
10-10-2006, 09:14 AM
Air combat is not about a fair fight between two "knights jousting" while riding their mighty steeds.

It's much more accurate to describe it as assasination and ambush. The best kills are when your opponent never you knew you were there. If my victim sees me I generally consider the initial phase a failure. It's especially satisfying to nail someone when they are taking off or landing and focused on something else but their vulnerable 6. Nothing like finding the enemy unawares, low SA and low energy. The feeling is nearly orgasmic.

Aerobatics are for unarmed aircraft doing stunts at an airshow to make the crowds ooh and ahh and have no place in air combat.

rnzoli
10-10-2006, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The most successful killers in the West, the Germans, generally abjured maneuver battles for one swift destructive pass and beat it home to fight again another day. These tactics would, of course, kill the combat flight sim hobby.

in '44 and '45, the Germans didn't really have the choice to pick their fights on the Western Front

the encounters from P51 pilot reports contain numerous references when Germans (had to) engage in manouvering combat (luftberries), and sometimes they did this successfully (and yes, this comes across even from the encounter reports with claims...)

those repors mention repetitively that the most typical way Germans lost to a P51 was by trying to split-S out of fight and dive, or straighten out from the circling and try to run away. The reoports mention a few cases when experienced German pilots were able to outturn and outmanouver them

conclusion: my combat flight sim hobby is not in danger http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
10-10-2006, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
It's much more accurate to describe it as assasination and ambush.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Saburo_0
10-10-2006, 09:26 AM
rnzoli,
Good point. Reading the combat reports in Carson's "pursue & Destroy" I noticed almost all of his kills were made in a dive where the Luftwaffe pilots were trying to dive for the deck. Might have worked against Spits and Hurricanes but was a fatal tactic against P51s and P47s especially once the fighters were freed from having to stick with the bombers.

Waldo.Pepper
10-10-2006, 09:39 AM
Great thread.

Good first post. I would have added something to point three.


3) Some planes blow up others start trailing glycol, fuel, oil or smoke. or for reasons unknown loose control and spin in.

-----


There is only one knightly duel in air warfare I know about; Udet vs Guynemer.

I may have thought of another one ... Sakai vs 'Pug'.

-----


don't forget coordination via radio

Unless a formation is EXTREMELY disciplined I think that the radio will soon become clogged and useless. (I am sure we all know how Teamspeak goes to sheeeeet! And we are only playing. However, that being said we all do know I think that having a good quality radio made a significant difference.



I am sure I read that the P51D did have its own 'F6' key tho, didn't they have a tail warning system?


Yes but it was useless, according to those who had experience with it, as it did not discriminate between friend and foe. By the time it saw action the Allies (I.E. P-51's) so out numbered the Germans that it was more often than not another P-51 on your six. If you were chasing down a German it would then distract you from the known enemy to the phantom on your tail.



Nothing like finding the enemy unawares, low SA and low energy. The feeling is nearly orgasmic.


Really!? I am much more satisfied when (rarelyhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) I engage in a long drawn out scrap where the (virtual) sweat is falling off me, and the enemy plane is fully aware of my presence, is extremely skillful, and just as motivated to prevail as I am.

rnzoli
10-10-2006, 09:45 AM
The feeling is nearly orgasmic.
Man, you have to to meet women more often http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

(sorry for bad joke, just wanted my 1300th today soooo badly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

On a more serious note, the P51 reports also bring a sobering light on the issue of killing pilots. Haven't found any reference to chute kills (understandable), but killing the pilot was an extra bonus in addition to downing the aircraft, always mentioned in the reports. In one case, the German pilot was killed by P51s strafing his belly-landed aircraft. No remourse whatsoever comes through the report, this was business as usual, nothing extraordinary.

Inadaze
10-10-2006, 09:46 AM
Good thread.
It made me think straight away of Goshawk Squadron, a book by Derek Robinson who wrote Piece of Cake, it's set in WW1 but the message of it is the same, Major Woolley, the squadron CO has seen too many pilots die, and it has slightly unhinged his mind and turned him into a bitter cynical killer, he has to try and turn well brought up idealistic young men into airborne assasins.

I'm giving up smoking, got time on my hands and need to keep occupied, so here's a portion from the book, it's just after three new pilots have been on combat practice and it hasn't gone very well for them...

Woolley was waiting for then when they landed. "A right old c0ck-up you all made of that," he said. "Not one of you got near me, and I could have pi$$ed into your c0ck-pits, all three of you, one after the other, and drowned you, which you might say is a wonderful way to go, but it's still a bloody awful waste of government money. What did you think you were doing at five thousand feet?" he asked Delaforce.
"Sir, I was patrolling," Delaforce said. "That was what you said. I was waiting for you. To intercept you, sir."
"Who told you to piss about at five thousand? I told you to get up there. What you did after that was up to you. You could have come back here and got me as I took off. You could have got me over Montdidier. You could have hung around and sneaked up on me as I came into land. Come to that, you could have walloped one past my nose while I was still on the ground. Couldn't you, you mental pygmy?"
"Yes sir," Delaforce said, white and blinking.
"But you didn't, did you? You did exactly what you thought I wanted you to do." He turned to Richards. "I said five thousand feet, so you all flew at five thousand feet, for ever. Combat practice, you horsemen, is practice for combat. It's not sodding pistols at dawn. Just now I was your enemy. En-em-y." Woolley screwed up his face and shut his eyes and took a little stamping, circular walk. "Oh Christ, what words do you understand? You wouldn't know an enemy if he bit you on the arse, you'd think he was a great big affectionate dog..." He heaved a deep breath. "An enemy, " he declared, speaking with tremendous clarity, "is a man... who is trying... to kill you... before you can... see... him." Woolley stared hard at Gabriel. "Has anyone ever tried to kill you, lawnmower?"
"Only drunkards," Gabriel replied.
"Why did they fail?"
"I suppose I saw them coming."
"You didn't see me coming, this afternoon."
"No, sir."
"Why not?"
" I'm afraid I was concentrating too much on Delaforce. Besides, I didn't expect you."
"Why not? You expected to attack him, but you weren't prepared to be attacked yourself?"
Gabriel said nothing.
"When nothing happened after an hour, sir" Richards said, "I rather assumed that combat practice had fallen through, you see, so I went home. That was when I was... well, dived upon."
"Do you expect the enemy to to stop fighting when you stop fighting?" Woolley asked.
Richards said nothing.
"Every second you are in the air," Woolley said, "someone is trying to kill you. If he does it properly you will never know. You must look for him, because he is always there." He stared at them, and his black, pouchy eyes were full of anger at their stupid humanitarianism. "God damn it," he said, "you're murderers turned loose against murderers! Some will come at you head-on with an axe. But the ones that think, the good ones, the professionals - they hide behind a tree and stick you through the ribs from behind. They are up there now. They go up every day and murder nice chaps like you," Woolley made nice chap sound like a genetic defect.
Gabriel studied him thoughtfully. "Speaking for myself, sir," he said, "I feel sure that I could have given a better account of myself if I had been aware of the true circumstances."
Woolley licked his narrow lips. When he spoke, it was in a harsh whisper. "There are no true circumstances in this war," he said. "There is only what happens."
"Well, exactly."
"No, not exactly," Woolley said, "there is no exactly, God blast you! You want me to tell you the rules of this tennis-club, don't you, and I'm trying to make you see that the first rule is to stop looking for any bloody rules. Up there you will live among murderers and victims. Now make up your decent, law-abiding little minds which you want to be."
Delaforce felt sick. All the excitement of the hunt had turned sour; Woolley made it seem squalid and callous, vicious and cold. Delaforce desperately wanted to rescue something from thisshabby summary. "I can see now, sir," he said, "that I could have gone after you when you were taking off, but I suppose I didn't think of that at the time because I sort of wanted it to be more of a fair fight, you see."
Woolley grabbed him by the lapels and slammed him hard against the side of Gabriel's plane. His twitching face was thrust so close that Delaforce could smell the ******ss on his breath. "You will never use that word again," Woolley said thickly. "That is a filthy, obscene, disgusting word and I will not have it used by any man on my squadron. That word disgusts me."
He let go and turned round and walked away.

bubiH
10-10-2006, 09:48 AM
Most fights were impersonal but in the combat diary of JG 26 you can read of a long (20 minutes, I believe) battle between the unit's top ace and a Mustang ace, who described the battle after his victory. One of the most intense accounts I have ever read.

The Mustang ace said the German went through every maneuver in the book, fast, slow, negative g, upside down, etc., but he always kept his advantage and finally got the kill.

TgD Thunderbolt56
10-10-2006, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by bubiH:
...The Mustang ace said the German went through every maneuver in the book, fast, slow, negative g, upside down, etc., but he always kept his advantage and finally got the kill.


GOT TRACK?!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

F19_Ob
10-10-2006, 11:32 AM
The most sane thing I've read a fighterpilot say is that luck was the most important thing he had in the war.
The luck to spot the enemy first, or the luck to come out unhurt from a clash with 60+ fighters when his more skilled friend did not, and so on.

---------------------------------

I've often wondered about my fellow simmers in the online arena and how they act, noting how easy it's to get heated emotions, and how easily a nice guy may turn into an @$$hat.
Even I can get pretty silly, although seldomly, wich still is remarkable indeed.

When it's so easy to be unfair and impolite against a fellow online one can imagine how one would feel about, and acts toward a real enemy.
Although the comparison with reality is a bit simple it still illustrates the idea quite well I think.


Just excersizing the greyish matter a bit.

waffen-79
10-10-2006, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by bubiH:
Most fights were impersonal but in the combat diary of JG 26 you can read of a long (20 minutes, I believe) battle between the unit's top ace and a Mustang ace, who described the battle after his victory. One of the most intense accounts I have ever read.

The Mustang ace said the German went through every maneuver in the book, fast, slow, negative g, upside down, etc., but he always kept his advantage and finally got the kill.

Care to post it? please?

I don't get it, it's from a German account right?, but then the mustang ace SAYS he got the kill, did the author interviewed the p-51 pilot?

WB_Outlaw
10-10-2006, 11:44 AM
A wise drunk once said, "I'd rather be lucky than good any day", or something close to that. It's true too. No matter how good you are, if you fly enough missions, you will eventually be in someone's sights simply becuase they were there and you were there. If he's on the ball, you is unlucky and dead.

--Outlaw.

Worf101
10-10-2006, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
A wise drunk once said, "I'd rather be lucky than good any day", or something close to that. It's true too. No matter how good you are, if you fly enough missions, you will eventually be in someone's sights simply becuase they were there and you were there. If he's on the ball, you is unlucky and dead.

--Outlaw.
That "wise drunk" was my Daddy... he didn't leave me any money when he kicked at 91 years of age, but he left me some golden nuggets of wisdom.

My Faves:
"Boy, talk less and do more."

"Sun don't shine on the same dogs *** every day."

"Boy, if it ain't for ya... it just ain't for ya."

Da Worfster

F6_Ace
10-10-2006, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
F6_ace: Good point, so that makes the IL2 online scramle for the the smoker one of its most realistic features.

In some ways, yes. However, in reality, kills would be shared amongst pilots whereas in this game, it's whichever joker put a bullet in it last. These hunters also became the hunted as they offered a relatively easy, target fixated prey. Many pilots were lost 'following their kill' in such a manner.

general_kalle
10-10-2006, 01:32 PM
The feeling is nearly orgasmic.

Man, you have to to meet women more often

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif grow up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
shame on you
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif there might be small kids around
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif but not very passible

overall i dont think there were very many aktions that have the least thing to do with knightly ness

i once read a book about an american hellcat wing.
it was partly about an american pilot( dont remember his name) and a japanese ace(dont remember either)
at the first meeting the japanese run out of ammo(zeros http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif) and the american pilot allowed him to fly home becouse he wanted a fair fight

second engegement they met each other again(not very passible) and also there he ran out and were allowed to fly home

but on the their he was killed.

meeting the same ace 3 times times http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Viper2005_
10-10-2006, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
The points listed in the original post seem quite accurate by most accounts and let's not forget also that most dogfights (especially WWII and later) are typically described as "1 second the sky was full of twisting, aggressive aircraft and the next second the sky was clear...couldn't even see my wingman...all was quiet"

A hard-maneuvering aircraft is never the ideal target whereas a totally unsuspecting victim is just that...a victim. There's not a single veteran that will say spotting the enemy first wasn't one of the most important aspects of success.


TB

Air combat is a game of Situational Awareness. Everybody's SA is flawed to some degree. Almost all kills are based upon the exploitation of this fact.

If you were to go back in time and fill a WWII fighter with video cameras, you'd see that the sky doesn't ever instantly become empty. What happens is that the pilot loses the picture. More often than not this is the result of "overload" - too much information and too much workload. Our intrepid aviator sheds tasks in order to keep his head above water. Lookout is often one of the first tasks shed.

He lived to tell about it simply because nobody exploited his loss of SA.

BTW, I like my Spitfires to be engaged in tight turns. I can then position my 190 in order to blast them when they "unwind" in front of my guns. If your manoeuvre is predictable for more than 10-15 seconds, rest assured that somebody has predicted where you'll be next, and the rounds may already be in flight...

There's nothing wrong with flying straight and level, provided that you maintain SA. Straight and level usually means fast, and that means it'll probably take me an age to catch you if I'm working your low 6 blindspot. Straight and level also means that you're going places; if you're good then you're dragging me into a trap.

I much prefer to kill Spitfires as they play silly level turning games...

MB_Avro_UK
10-10-2006, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
Like many (I suspect) when I hear the expression dogfight I think of two noble warriors pitting their wits and machines against each other. Plenty of movment in the horizontal as one tries to get on the others tail until the best man/machine combo wins.

However the more I read the accounts of WW2 pilots the more I realise that the truth was closer to:

1) A formation of aircraft spots another formation of aircraft and atempts to get the drop on them.
2) It all goes to rats' after the first pass with aircraft milling about squirting bursts at anything hostile (hopefully) that crosses their sights.
3) Some planes blow up others start trailing glycol, fuel, oil or smoke.
4) One side brakes running for home or into the clouds.
5) The survivors attempt to relocate their wingman, formation etc. Whilst working out if the damp sensation in their pants is sweat, urine or blood.

The above is not an attemp to degrade the achievments of these men, more to remind us of the brutal chaos that was air combat.

I do think it's important we remember this as I feel the 'myth' of the dogfight influences many of the x was the best or x vs y threads we see.

Hi all,

This is probably the best post I've seen here in quite a long time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

The reality was to shoot your enemy in the back without him knowing. Not nice or sporting but the needs of war.

It seems that if you had the upperhand and ended up dogfighting then you had lost the initiative. The QMB situation whereby you meet the enemy head on is perhaps unrealistic.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Aaron_GT
10-10-2006, 03:13 PM
Kernow -

Were you flying with Dux Wing in Warbirds during the Battle of Britain scenarios many years ago. Dux was flying a full squadron of Hurricanes at about 20,000 feet. We were dropped on by a finger four of 109s (I think) that were upsun at about 25,000 feet. Shot down two Hurricanes on the first pass. We never saw them coming. A brief melee followed but as far as I remember the 109s bugged out pretty quickly. Classic stuff and what BOB:SOW should aim to emulate.

VW-IceFire
10-10-2006, 04:02 PM
This thread has it dead on. WWII air combat is a generally short, sharp affair that tends to be organized going into the battle but all sense of organization is lost on contact with the enemy.

I've also tended to note that shortly thereafter, the sky tends to empty of aircraft and pilots seem to often find themselves alone in an empty sky.

tigertalon
10-10-2006, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
It's especially satisfying to nail someone when they are taking off or landing and focused on something else but their vulnerable 6. Nothing like finding the enemy unawares, low SA and low energy. The feeling is nearly orgasmic.

Interesting.

For me, the feeling is nearly orgasmic when I manage to defeat an opponent against an overhelming odds. Killing an unsuspecting target, assasinating him (although that's how it should be and that's how 90% of my victims fall, and that's how I always try to kill) never gave me the immersion and feeling I get when dueling someone for 10 minutes before first shots are fired. Those were fights I remember, the assasinations (by me and of me) are forgotten. If you are assasinated (blown away without even knowing what hit you), just hit refly and that's it. But if you are defeated/victorious in a 10 minute long duel, you firstly salute the opponent, then type 'brb' and then go and wipe the sweat of your forehead, go change T-shirt, you tell your wife that everything is OK, you go pee and open yourself a can of beer before taking off again. At least that's almost how it's like for me. Knowing that such duels don't happen more than a couple of times a year.

p1ngu666
10-10-2006, 06:34 PM
depends how u fly really...

DF, forces are always trickling into a area, in coops u will tend to get rather lose formations of aircraft...

unless theres a good reason for aircraft tobe close, then they will spread out.

papotex
10-10-2006, 06:44 PM
tigertalon you are totally right.

my best memories of dog fightig on line were of
when i was on a internet ladder.

there you challenge someone for a one on one dogfight.

thats when you surely get the tipe of dogfight you are talking about these days.

tomtheyak
10-10-2006, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:

Interesting.

For me, the feeling is nearly orgasmic when I manage to defeat an opponent against an overhelming odds. Killing an unsuspecting target, assasinating him (although that's how it should be and that's how 90% of my victims fall, and that's how I always try to kill) never gave me the immersion and feeling I get when dueling someone for 10 minutes before first shots are fired. Those were fights I remember, the assasinations (by me and of me) are forgotten. If you are assasinated (blown away without even knowing what hit you), just hit refly and that's it. But if you are defeated/victorious in a 10 minute long duel, you firstly salute the opponent, then type 'brb' and then go and wipe the sweat of your forehead, go change T-shirt, you tell your wife that everything is OK, you go pee and open yourself a can of beer before taking off again. At least that's almost how it's like for me. Knowing that such duels don't happen more than a couple of times a year.

Right on TT. I've had a few of these, and thats the primary reason I prefer a good TnB dogfight rather than ZnB; I know its less than realistic and generally is a bad idea but the few times its happened you come away from the action trembling slightly and taking a few deep breaths.

A good 190 pilot scissoring or keeping up his E and a 109 pilot whos in charge of his aeroplane gives a committed Spit flyer like me a VERY hard time. It becomes a battle, less of individual skill or aircraft merit but who's gonna balls-up first; u both can drag the max from ur a/c, its tactics that become the deciding factor.

On a side note I find it very interesting how many engagements in WW2 resulted in neither side losing a/c - oh, maybe some picked up a few holes or were forced to disengage due to battle damage, but thats something I rarely find online.

leitmotiv
10-10-2006, 07:07 PM
Generally, when you had Germans engaging in maneuver fights at the end of the war, this had nothing to do with tactics, and everything to do with military decadence---the pilots were not trained sufficiently to use the standard hit-and-run tactics the Germans adopted against the RAF in 1941 over France.

A QMB challenge I set myself is to take a pair of 109Fs with an altitude advantage and dive on twelve Spitfire Vs and three Blenheim IVs (a fragment of a 1941-era Circus formation) with the intention of destroying one Blenheim, streaking through, and getting away. This was a typical German challenge in the period except they faced even greater odds.

WWSensei gave us the truest, distilled essence of air combat---of course, because he did it for real, not virtually. As Manfred von Richthofen wrote, it is killing, and everything else is nonsense. What is hilarious about the eternal parroting of the bromide "boom and zoom" by virtual pilots is that the real items were opportunists who used speed and deception to destroy and get away---this is the essence of warfare. Correct tank tactics are to "shoot and scoot"---not hang around---and that is exactly what the great fighter pilots did most of the time. Rip roaring brawls were the specialty of blithering idiots or a very rare type of pilot with extraordinary skills, like Wener Voss, but he tried it once too often.

TheGozr
10-10-2006, 07:23 PM
THEY WATCHED THE FIRST DOGFIGHT

First the French soldiers, then the German soldiers climbed out of their trenches to stare up at a most unusual sight. On this morning of October 5, 1914, they watched two airplanes in mortal combat €" the first dogfight in the history of aerial warfare.

The French craft, a Voisin bombing plane, was returning from a mission. Sixty-five hundred feet over the village of Jamoigne, near Rheims, Sergeant Joseph Frantz spotted a German Aviatik far below him. It was heading East toward enemy lines.

With a nod to Corporal Quenault, his observer and machine gunner, Frantz banked into a steep dive, cut off the German€s flight path, and forced him to turn back. Then the shooting started. Quenault began firing point blank at the surprised Aviatik. But because his Hotchkiss machine gun was of the semi-automatic type and often jammed, he could only get off one shot at a time. From the beginning, the Voisin had the advantage. Its machine gun was mounted in front of the pusher engine, so it could fire straight ahead at the enemy. But since synchronized firing through the propeller was not yet developed, the Aviatek could fire only to the sides and to the rear above its tail. Round after round went into the German€s fuselage. By now, the two planes were a mere 600 feet above the rolling French hills.

All this time, French soldiers, covered with the mud of the trenches, cheered on their countrymen. Quenault had responded with a total of 47 rounds €" most of them hits. Then, all of a sudden, the Hotchkiss jammed. It looked like the war€s first dogfight had fizzled. But seconds later, the Aviatek flipped upside down, spurted out a cloud of burning gasoline, flamed and dropped like a dead weight straight to the ground.

In less than 10 minutes, the war€s first dogfight was over, and a whole new chapter in aerial warfare had begun.

Joseph Frantz was decorated with the Knight€s Cross of the Legion of Honor, and Quenault was awarded the Military Medal. (Throughout World War I, the pilot of a two-seater aircraft nearly always got the higher honor even when his observer made the kill.)

Joseph Frantz learned to fly in 1908 when he was 20 years old. He became France€s 363rd licensed pilot in February 1911, and set a world record for sustained flight (4 hours, 27 minutes) in a two-passenger plane. He joined the French Air Service in 1912. He was a member of Squadron 24 at the time of his historic exploit.

The plane he was flying on that fateful october morning also held a sustained flying record. The Voisin could travel at 7,000 feet for five hours. It was powered by a 135-hp Salmson pusher engine mounted between the wings and facing the rear. Machine gunners used cloth bags to keep spent cartridges from flying back into the propeller blades.

leitmotiv
10-10-2006, 07:29 PM
Mike Spick in his very instructive book on fighter aces, THE ACE FACTOR, noted the typical characteristic of the most successful fighter pilots was that they took a perch above their quarry or above a brawl, waited for the perfect moment, struck like lightning, and went back to the perch. This was the way to keep near perfect control of the situation---"situational awareness"---never sacrifice your view of the sky for the complete loss of awareness in a melee.

Waldo.Pepper
10-10-2006, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Mike Spick in his very instructive book on fighter aces, THE ACE FACTOR, noted the typical characteristic of the most successful fighter pilots was that they took a perch above their quarry or above a brawl, waited for the perfect moment, struck like lightning, and went back to the perch. This was the way to keep near perfect control of the situation---"situational awareness"---never sacrifice your view of the sky for the complete loss of awareness in a melee.
Indeed an excellent book. (I just wish it were longer!)

leitmotiv
10-10-2006, 09:53 PM
Yeah, well---there's more---he has two more books---one on Allied WWII aces and another on Luftwaffe aces, and a brand new critique of the Luftwaffe which maintains they blew it by emphasizing scoring above everything which, he believes, resulted in a herd-like scramble to be top dog rather than fighting a war---I can hear the shrieks now! Title: ACES OF THE REICH: THE MAKING OF A LUFTWAFFE FIGHTER PILOT.

WWSensei
10-10-2006, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
It's especially satisfying to nail someone when they are taking off or landing and focused on something else but their vulnerable 6. Nothing like finding the enemy unawares, low SA and low energy. The feeling is nearly orgasmic.

Interesting.

For me, the feeling is nearly orgasmic when I manage to defeat an opponent against an overhelming odds. Killing an unsuspecting target, assasinating him (although that's how it should be and that's how 90% of my victims fall, and that's how I always try to kill) never gave me the immersion and feeling I get when dueling someone for 10 minutes before first shots are fired. Those were fights I remember, the assasinations (by me and of me) are forgotten. If you are assasinated (blown away without even knowing what hit you), just hit refly and that's it. But if you are defeated/victorious in a 10 minute long duel, you firstly salute the opponent, then type 'brb' and then go and wipe the sweat of your forehead, go change T-shirt, you tell your wife that everything is OK, you go pee and open yourself a can of beer before taking off again. At least that's almost how it's like for me. Knowing that such duels don't happen more than a couple of times a year. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I play it as I was trained. From UPT to ACM tactics the 10 minute dogfight is everything I was trained to avoid. When I find myself in them all I can think of how I screwed up to get into this mess. It would be like playing chess and being happy that my opponent took both rooks, my queen a knight and bishop and has me in check while all I got was a pawn.

leitmotiv
10-10-2006, 11:36 PM
It's necessity and it's in the nature of the species---we love bushwhacking in the real world. To take down your enemy unexpectedly is the biggest rush there is. The one thing this game doesn't model at all is the literal energy expenditure in a real maneuvre battle. Thashing a fighter around the sky is physically exhausting, especially in a WWII beast. Muscles ache and lose strength and G forces do things which I couldn't imagine to heart, lungs, and guts. This kind of physical toll is a luxury unless you have been ambushed and are fighting for your life. Game fun should always be harshly distinguished from the way things really are. To draw moral lessons from a toy beggars the imagination.

Badsight-
10-10-2006, 11:53 PM
the thread starter is missing the point

plane performance matters when you are against other players who know what they are doing . the average dedicated FB player is MUCH MORE EXPERIENCED than the leading aces of WW2

ive made HUNDREDS more kills in this game than Eric Hartman ever dreamed of doing

so have hundreds of other FB players . & when your up against that level of experience , when you know your plane & the bandits perfomance capabilitys - having correct performing planes matters

leitmotiv
10-11-2006, 12:03 AM
I think that is the most unmitigated tosh I've ever read. We are toyland aces in toyland planes and our experience is rubbish because we never suffer from fear and the physical effects of air fighting (for example: many dive bomber pilots ruined their hearts due to the stresses they put on them in dive bombing). We do things no real war pilots would ever do and routinely take risks no war pilot would ever take, and, as for having the arrogance to compare our activities to real air combat scoring, well, I'll let that speak for itself. Our hours and experience are 90% meaningless because overcoming fear and exhaustion is the other half of being a war pilot (defeating the "inner Scheinhund" vR called it). Always best to remember what we have here is (1) a keen toy, and (2) what can be a useful tutor in some aspects of WWII air fighting, but never mistake gaming experience for genuine experience.

Whirlin_merlin
10-11-2006, 12:39 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Badsight-:
the thread starter is missing the point

plane performance matters when you are against other players who know what they are doing . the average dedicated FB player is MUCH MORE EXPERIENCED than the leading aces of WW2

ive made HUNDREDS more kills in this game than Eric Hartman ever dreamed of doing

so have hundreds of other FB players . & when your up against that level of experience , when you know your plane & the bandits perfomance capabilitys - having correct performing planes matters[/QUOTE

I'm sorry I don't understand your post I didn't think I was talking about in game but about what actually happened.
Also at no point did I say that plane performance didn't matter in the game or reality just wanted to put things in perspective.
I think you will find yourself to be a much more experienced player of a computer game than Hartman etc ever was, anything else is vanity.

Badsight-
10-11-2006, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I think that is the most unmitigated tosh I've ever read. why dont you take a minute to pull the carrot out of your a$$ & think about in the context

ive done more sorties than any WW2 pilot did during the war in FB . im more experienced & have been in more Dogfights than any WW2 pilot during the war . what i do compared to what they did is no comparison . im more experienced period

we fly to the maximum & push the envelop more on a per-sortie basis . to think otherwise is idiotic . i have no fear of dying - the only concern is beating the current foe .

plane performance to WW2 pilots was all about survivability . to me the perfomance of the plane that enables me to win is the concern . 2 totally different outlooks

i think you have the event (aircombat in ww2) on a pedestal in your mind . they were ordinary people operating machinery . sure theres going to be some better at it than others but how skillfull they individually were matters little compared to how lucky they individually were

Whirlin_merlin
10-11-2006, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:


well sorry - we dont fly like they did in WW2 . we push it to the limit much more than they did in a per encounter basis

we explore the advantages & disadvantages much more in-depth than they did during WW2 . because we have no fear of real repercussions



I quite agree which is why I wasn't refering to the game.

By the way I do put the pilots of ww2 on a pedestal precisly because they were ordinary human beings.

alert_1
10-11-2006, 01:36 AM
I'd bet if there were a server with ONE DEATH KICK FOR WHOLE NIGHT rule (still not even remotely close to REAL war), then, instead of never ending dogfiths, we will see only B&Zooming, slashing attacks and hiding in the clouds..and a lot of butts will be wett be sure..

stathem
10-11-2006, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by tomtheyak:
On a side note I find it very interesting how many engagements in WW2 resulted in neither side losing a/c - oh, maybe some picked up a few holes or were forced to disengage due to battle damage, but thats something I rarely find online.

It€s a statistical fact that the more planes that are involved in an engagement(of both sides), the lower the percentage chance of being shot down.

I don't think you see that online (at least in DF servers) because planes enter and leave furballs piecemeal; because planes have much more fuel to play with (no long patrols to fly before engagement); and because we can push bad positions or damaged planes more. (not that I'm of the opinion that no RL pilot ever fought on with a damaged plane). And of course the DM, whilst superb for what it is, cannot approach the complexity of real damage occurance.

I think in RL there was much more of a tendancy for everyone to run for home at a similar time; whether co-ordinated by RT or everyone reaching the same fuel state at a similar time.

rnzoli
10-11-2006, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
I'd bet if there were a server with ONE DEATH KICK FOR WHOLE NIGHT rule (still not even remotely close to REAL war), then, instead of never ending dogfiths, we will see only B&Zooming, slashing attacks and hiding in the clouds..and a lot of butts will be wett be sure..

Nope. You would see a totally empty server after 20 minutes, be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

rnzoli
10-11-2006, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
the typical characteristic of the most successful fighter pilots was that they took a perch above their quarry or above a brawl, waited for the perfect moment, struck like lightning, and went back to the perch. This was the way to keep near perfect control of the situation---"situational awareness"---never sacrifice your view of the sky for the complete loss of awareness in a melee.

this is all fine and dandy, but don't forget that it's not the pilot, who dictates all aspects of the engagement

if your mission objective is to escort low-flying close air support planes, or your task is to sweep at 3000 m, you cannot enjoy the luxury of chosing your fights

even when on the perch, let's say above the bomber stream, you had to go down and mingle in with the attacking LW 109s and 190s, by chopping throttle, deploying flaps, S-ing on the dive to avoid overshooting the e/a etc.

also if a friendly aircraft was in trouble, there was no way to say "hey, i am an ace, i must climb back now to my perch while you die alone with an e/a on your tail"

pilots don't dictate or control all aspects of the fight all the time, mostly the tactical situation does, which gives the mission objective

joeap
10-11-2006, 03:16 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif In fact those desk jockeys at HQ did play a role too.

leitmotiv
10-11-2006, 05:49 AM
The point was that the best avoided a scrum, and if they found themselves in one, they climbed out of it. Johnny Johnson writes a great deal about controlling fighter combat in WING LEADER, and the one thing he hated was a mixer upper. Of course, if you were ordered to fly on the wings of bombers, you were in for it.

Badsight, if you think playing a toy gives you comparable experience to real combat, you are delusional beyond recall. You have never "flown" or flown a mission and you write about pushing your machine to the limit? I have, literally, seen everything, and, typically for some on these forums, resorting to crudity proves your case is even weaker.

leitmotiv
10-11-2006, 06:12 AM
A good analogy for the difference between playing a game and real combat flying is the difference between making a mock stock stock buy and a real one. It is very easy to be cool, rational, and systematic when there is nothing at stake, but, if you have thousands riding on a stock bet, you sweat blood, have difficulty sleeping, and your nerves tear you to pieces. Remaining cool and collected is a masterpiece of self-control. There is absolutely no intersection between gaming and life---to believe so is either arrogance, simple-mindedness, or innocence.

Brain32
10-11-2006, 06:24 AM
There is absolutely no intersection between gaming and life---to believe so is either arrogance, simple-mindedness, or innocence.
Or misunderstanding http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Badsight-
10-11-2006, 06:33 AM
Or misunderstanding
tell me about it!

take a break from the internet leitmotiv - spend some time in "real life" . your taking events 65 years ago waaaaay too seriously

rnzoli
10-11-2006, 06:46 AM
Or too deep immersion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

On a side-note, this reminds me Al Hayes, captain of the troubled UAL 232 airlines that saved more than 100 souls by crash-landing in Sioux City without any aileron, elevator, flap or rudder control (only engine control)

A few years later, he sat into a professional simulator where the same problem was created for the crew during flight. During the emergency, Al unconciously reverted back to call his flight UAL 232 again in radio transmission, without noticing himself. When the sim crew told him about this, he didn't believe it until they replayed the cockpit tape for him.

WWSensei
10-11-2006, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by Badsight
ive done more sorties than any WW2 pilot did during the war in FB . im more experienced & have been in more Dogfights than any WW2 pilot during the war .

And how many more virtual deaths have you suffered? 1000 hours with a 1000 deaths is no better than the 10 hour WW2 you died on his first sortie.



what i do compared to what they did is no comparison . im more experienced period

we fly to the maximum & push the envelop more on a per-sortie basis . to think otherwise is idiotic . i have no fear of dying - the only concern is beating the current foe .

plane performance to WW2 pilots was all about survivability . to me the perfomance of the plane that enables me to win is the concern . 2 totally different outlooks


Don't disagree one bit. It's an apples to oranges comparison. All your skill in playing this game will help you more in a game of checkers than it would in performing in an actual combat role. The lack of physical exertion alone in a game-sim makes 5 or 6 years of game flying equal to about 15 mintues of real flying.

Many people confuse a 1000 1-hour experiences with being equivalent to 1000 hours. It's not. Not even close.

ploughman
10-11-2006, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
Or too deep immersion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

On a side-note, this reminds me Al Hayes, captain of the troubled UAL 232 airlines that saved more than 100 souls by crash-landing in Sioux City without any aileron, elevator, flap or rudder control (only engine control)

A few years later, he sat into a professional simulator where the same problem was created for the crew during flight. During the emergency, Al unconciously reverted back to call his flight UAL 232 again in radio transmission, without noticing himself. When the sim crew told him about this, he didn't believe it until they replayed the cockpit tape for him.

I understand nobody's been able to repeat his feat of airmanship on a simulator.

rnzoli
10-11-2006, 08:18 AM
a DHL crew did this in Baghdad recently http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

leitmotiv
10-11-2006, 09:50 AM
I saw a report on the tube which claimed the US Air Force was finding new recruits to the flying program did better in elementary trainers after years of experience in complex flight sims like FS9, but they were not ready for anything beyond the elementary trainers. I've "flown" complex aircraft on FS9 like Lancasters, F-104s (the model I use even kills you with blow-outs if you don't get them off the asphalt before you reach a certain speed), and flight models of WWII fighters which put the Maddox models to shame, but if somebody gave me the yoke of a real plane I'd probably freeze. I have found my kill rate sinking dramatically since PF until now a kill is an event. My male proving ground test to see how hot I really am is to take on Il-2s the way Hartmann did by going below them out of the arc of the gunner and blowing out their unarmored radiators. In dozens of fights I've done it like H maybe two times---a straight kill shot right into the radiator. That doesn't mean I can't bring them down, but it is a struggle. To compare my dozens of often inelegant kills to the record of a real combat pilot who even shot down only one opponent is ridiculous.

ploughman
10-11-2006, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
a DHL crew did this in Baghdad recently http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

That one that got hit by a MANPAD? Did it lose virtually all it's controls too? Wow, not bad.

rnzoli
10-11-2006, 10:27 AM
yes, i think they had to use differential thrust as well... while their wing was burning through the main spar....

imagine that they decided to go around in the first approach because they didn't feel safe, and landed after the second approach

IIRC the crew - deservedly - got an excellence airmanship award for that year, for their teamwork achievement

Blutarski2004
10-11-2006, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
100 % agreed.
There is only one knightly duel in air warfare I know about; Udet vs Guynemer.


..... One other "knightly duel" which comes to mind is the fight between M von Richthofen and Lanoe Hawker - 1916, IIRC.

Slickun
10-11-2006, 01:49 PM
Duke Cunningham (and RIO) in his F-4 Phantom versus an unknown NVA pilot in his MiG-17

rnzoli
10-11-2006, 02:12 PM
more from WW 1



Josef Kiss
19 confirmed victories
Josef Kiss€ story is a perfect example of the romance that grew around the €œKnights of the Air€.
[...]
Kiss€ specialty seemed to be forcing bombers and reconnaissance craft to land behind enemy lines. At least 7 of his 19 victims were captured on the ground, including 4 large Capronis.
[...]
During the funeral a combined flight of British, French and Italian planes flew over the shocked Austrians and dropped an honor wreath.
[...]
Kiss€s girl friend never married and walked to Kiss€s grave every day for the next 52 years.

in other words, he made every possible attempt to demonstrate his combat skills with the aim to deter the enemy crew from further combat and convince them to surrender

http://www.swwisa.net/kuklft/aces.html

leitmotiv
10-11-2006, 06:51 PM
Manfred v Hawker was less a gentlemanly duel and more the attachment of the vastly superior Albatros D.II to the tail of Hawker's completely outclassed D.H.2 which ran down the inferior airplane and delivered the coup de grace to the pilot. No denying it required superior flying and judgment on the part of Manfred, but a "knightly duel"? I think not. Manfred had no time for that. He was a systematic hunter-killer.

Blutarski2004
10-11-2006, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Manfred v Hawker was less a gentlemanly duel and more the attachment of the vastly superior Albatros D.II to the tail of Hawker's completely outclassed D.H.2 which ran down the inferior airplane and delivered the coup de grace to the pilot. No denying it required superior flying and judgment on the part of Manfred, but a "knightly duel"? I think not. Manfred had no time for that. He was a systematic hunter-killer.


..... I understand what you are saying. But, from what I've read on the fight, the tactics were more complicated than Richthofen simply running down Hawker. Richthofen's D.II (IIRC) had a worse wing-loading but a better power to weight ratio than Hawker's DH.2. Consequently, Hawker's DH.2 was more maneuverable and could could turn a tighter radius, while MvR's D.II was faster and had a better climb rate. Richthofen maneuvered on a wider turn radius than Hawker, but was able to keep above him by virtue of his greater power, Neither pilot could get a good bead upon the other in the turning fight.

This lengthy duel was concluded when Hawker, fighting on the German side of the lines and low on fuel, was forced to make a break for friendly territory. It was only at that point that Richthofen was able to pursue, overtake Hawker from astern, and shoot him down.

But I suspect that you are already familiar with those details.....

Even though it was ninety years ago, this fight still offers lessons about the relative virtues of different fighter performance design emphases.

leitmotiv
10-11-2006, 07:38 PM
A running chase is not a duel!

The concept of a duel doesn't fit with air warfare because a duel is an artificial shooting match where both sides have had advantages removed as much as possible to leave the matter at hand to the coolest and most skilled marksman to settle. Air combat customarily starts with one party heavily disadvantaged. This is a street hit, not a clear playing field. Manfred had the speed and the firepower on the hapless Hawker and all the maneuvering ability of the D.H. was nullified. Manfred sat in his perch on Hawker's tail and waited for a clear shot. This was a case of a hunter waiting for his quarry to present itself.

Viper2005_
10-11-2006, 07:43 PM
One of the big differences between the game and R/L is that in the game I know very well what my enemy is capable of thanks to IL2C and the fact that I can test all of the aeroplanes in the QMB.

IRL fighter pilots never really know the capabilities of their enemy, especially at the start of a war, or when a new type is introduced.

This lack of knowledge results in the use of "incorrect" tactics.

The most realistic fights for me (as a western front 190 driver) are probably those when I fly my 190 on the eastern front. I know my aeroplane, but I know very little about my enemy. Tactics are therefore a matter of guesswork and instinct.

This of course further discourages the dogfight, since for all I know that pesky La5 might be better than my 190!

leitmotiv
10-11-2006, 07:52 PM
I think the Maddox series is one of the greatest learning tools in military or aviation history, bar none. You can spend years researching aspects of air warfare without really getting a grasp on its physics or tactics which will become obvious if you play Il-2 ETC. Oleg has my deepest admiration.

fighter_966
10-11-2006, 07:53 PM
In rl you could at least say by watching advesarys flying and estimate his skill ,in this
game its bit difficult say at least from AI.
Iam playing offline mostly so maybe onliners can lighten this aspect.

Badsight-
10-12-2006, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
And how many more virtual deaths have you suffered? 1000 hours with a 1000 deaths is no better than the 10 hour WW2 you died on his first sortie. dont know why your trying to use that to analyse

how many times ive been shot down doesnt negate all the experience i have with FB . if anything it boosts the players knowledge . something you dont have the luxury of IRL

remember im not comparing RL to FB here . im comparing what i do with FB to what the RL pilots got to do with their rides



in FB we can discuss plane performance with a view to having it correct with authority , this is because all the Real World failures & flaws & unreliabilitys dont affect us

what we do is based around performance out-right . almost a non-starter to the WW2 pilot in comparison to ease of use & reliability

& btw sensi , a hour in FB & youll be lucky to come away with 15 minutes of "being engaged" time . an hours actual combat time in FB would be the virtual equivalent of 50 hours training for the RL jockey - because thats the nature of video games - intense & back straight into action after the virtual loss/win

Genie-
01-21-2007, 04:54 AM
as one of ww2 pilots described, doghfight was

"hit, flash, run, after that not a single soul in the sky"

I was talking with one of ww2 aces and he told me that in most of the time it was pure luck.. you were flying around ad suddenly enemy aircraft would appear in your gunsight.. then you shoot. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

and that was it..

Polyperhon
01-22-2007, 04:03 PM
Thanks Genie for resurfacing this topic.

I didn't have the luck to talk to a ww2 ace but I will try to put briefly my conclusions about air battle in ww2.
A lot has been said lately about the "one swift destructive pass" that was the dogfight.That is not true.It was the tactic that was used in fighter sweeps, in "free hunting".In most other missions, like interception or bomber escort,such an approach was not an option.Specific targets had to be shot down.This meant that they had to be hunted and that meant by itself the possibility of a dogfight.



As I understood this free hunting approach was first applied by the Germans after their bad experience in the battle of Britain.Gradually they had developed it because this was their only means to survive in an overhelming allied superiority, in the Western and especially Eastern front.From a point onwards (especially after Kursk)the German army took it for granted that it will never have air support in specific calls.The Luftwaffe just tried to create attrition to the Soviets.The famous aces of JG52 all did free hunting for most of the time.That's the reason why they managed to do so many kills, and not what Mike Spick wrote.it is often stated this from the memories of veterans that "Germans had usually the height advantage and the initiative".However over Germany the Luftwaffe had to intercept , that means someone else had the height advantage and took the initiative.That's why the eastern front was "easier" not because of the quality of the soviet pilots or the planes;if the soviets flew p-51s under the same conditions the results probably would have been similar.

ViktorViktor
01-23-2007, 12:51 PM
Did the Luftwaffe have any recommended tactics for use in combat against the P51 or P47 ?

I have to think that most of these diving pilots were panicked, but -

Maybe the german pilots were told to avoid mixing it up with the P51 or P47 at high altitudes ?

WWMaxGunz
01-23-2007, 01:01 PM
They mixed it up as accounts from escort pilots in those planes have written.
Gunther Rall also did the same and ended up wounded, lucky to live.

When the enemy is bombig your people, you attack. The Taran (ramming) was done in Russia
under like circumstances, how much worse is that?

JG14_Josf
01-23-2007, 01:56 PM
Did the Luftwaffe have any recommended tactics for use in combat against the P51 or P47 ?

I have to think that most of these diving pilots were panicked, but -

Maybe the german pilots were told to avoid mixing it up with the P51 or P47 at high altitudes ?

VV,

Here is the last letter home written by Ofhr. Heinz Birkner 19 March 1945 from the book Green Hearts Dora 9


My Staffel mates are very patient with me, for I question all of them about their experiences. What I should and should not do against a Spitfire, a Mustang, a Thunderbolt, during strafing attacks and against Marauders. Each one of them shared his experiences and gave me advice in his own way. Ofw. Ungar was very calm in his explanations, Uffz. Rey, a cynic, said sarcastically, "You must always fly at full throttle and keep both hands on the stick." Fw. Hein was very casual, as if he were just going shopping, and Uffz Zessin was quite calm. The later was an especially likeable comrade who flew his missions without much fuss. There was no agitation, feverishness or nervousness in the Staffel.

That book is full of things like this:


We received Dortenmann's command; we hauled our machines around and were suddenly heading the other way. Firing everything we had, we roared through the enemy gaggle. The tricked worked, the enemy scattered. Nevertheless, there was still a terrific dogfight. Then came Dortenmann's order: "Break up!"

I think the topic title is ridiculous. A fighter pilot in WWII embroiled in a dog fight was not embroiled in a myth. The term Dog Fight has a specific meaning that may not have the same meaning to a WWII fighter pilot with hundreds of hours of combat experience as the player of a game interprets the meaning of the term.

The topic title could read: My myth of the dogfight.

If you construct a myth concerning the dogfight, then, you have one. Own it.

Dogfight letter home Nov 1944 (ibid):


You can't imagine how happy I was when I arrived here and received from the chief a brand-new aircraft which from now on I can call my own. My mechanic and I are busy polishing it to a high gloss so that I don't come out on the short end in a dogfight.

Same book on tactics:


This description by Hans Dortenmann makes clear how intensively 12. Staffel prepared for further airfield protection missions during the period of bad weather. The inexperienced pilots did their best to put into practice the suggestions and rules imparted to them by their experienced Staffel-kapitan. Not everyone embraced this intensity to the same degree, as the following account illustrates. Herman Rathje, a former member of 12./JG 54, recalled the following incident involving Staffel mate Ofw. Leo Klatt:

It also happened at this time that my friend "Leo" got himself a broomstick and, sitting on a stool, simulated evasive maneuvers. Half roll and dive, increase speed, fighter turn, vertical climb to more than 2,000 m and try hard to get on the enemy's tail. When I laughed at this he said: "If you continue to take your life so philosophically you won't be doing it in this outfit much longer!"


Tactics from the book
On Special Missions
The Luftwaffe's Research and Experimental Squadrons 1923-1945


When a fighter unit was transferred home for replacement of aircraft and flying personnel, the General der Jagdfleiger organized a date for my Zirkus as it was known among fighter pilots, to make an appearance to demonstrate and instruct the pilots of the unit. I flew on the agreed date with five or six [captured allied] aircraft to the unit chosen. The flight plan was filed and fighter protection was given (there were mistakes made). Our radio frequencies were the same as the unit we were to visit. After our arrival, the pilots of the unit assembled and I briefed them about the flying characteristics, the technical level and the strengths and weaknesses of each aircraft. We then discussed the best attack and defensive maneuvers to be used with the aircraft in question. The aircraft were then inspected and my pilots would answer any questions that was asked of them. Next day a mission was carefully planned. The fighter unit was to assemble in a particular area and I would then attack them with five to six aircraft out of the sun. The idea was to involve each pilot in individual combat. Since all aircraft were on the same radio frequency mock combat could easily be choreographed over the airwaves. The previously explained theoretical combat conditions were thus demonstrated in reality. The flying demonstration was followed up by a discussion in order to answer any questions that might have arisen during the mock combat. At times we invited highly qualified pilots of the unit to fly one of our aircraft in order for the pilot to pass on the experience gained to the pilots of his unit. I visited all fighter units including the Jagdfliegerfuhrerschule (Fighter pilot school) with my unit accompanied by a transport aircraft loaded with spare parts. We were to find that our approach to training pilots was very successful. This was emphasized over and over again by pilots who had successfully used their experience with us to shoot down enemy aircraft.

KaleunFreddie
01-23-2007, 02:05 PM
A lot of Luftwaffe tactics were flawed, as they were decreed from Goerings office. If one peruses the multitude of books on the WW2 Air War, filtering through all the garbage, certain things stand out..

-The Me109 was still more than a match for the P51/p47 at any altitude of importance.
-The FW190 performance dropped at higher altitude - they would dive after initial attack to regain the advantage at lower altitudes.
-The Allies had an overwhelming majority in the last years of the war.
-The Axis could not keep up with the attrition rate.

A lot of factors like these led to certain tactics being used to the advantage of the attacker. After all a dead hero is no good to himself or anybody else. There are many accounts when the allied fighter pilots were shocked by germans 'spoiling for a fight', and getting a hiding in the process.

Nope.. the dogfight is still there, and very much alive.
Many of the most succesful WW2 pilots have always noted that.. 'being aggressive is a key to survivability'.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Xiolablu3
01-23-2007, 02:06 PM
'The Myth Of the Dogfight' is a very good title. Especially if you are talking about German tactics on the Western Front.

Watching some old RAF Veterans discuss their experiences on a documentry the other day one said :-

'My experinece with the Germans was that they didnt want to stay and fight. They used to attack in a slashing dive, and then if you got anywhere near their tail, they dived for the deck and headed back to France at low level. They very rarely stuck around to fight it out.'



I will find his name for you Josf, so that you can tell him hes lying. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG14_Josf
01-23-2007, 02:38 PM
I will find his name for you Josf, so that you can tell him hes lying.

You can stuff your Straw-Man X. Discuss the topic and leave me out.

Hit and run tactics were used by the German pilots who flew 109s; as a rule.

That changed when the Fw190 hit the scene and dominated in DOG FIGHTS.

History records these facts.

Here for example:

Luftwaffe Fighter Aces
By Mike Spick


With the advent of the FW 190A, this was not as critical as it once had been. The aircraft was a superb dogfighter, and its pilots used it as such. The previous summer, faced with slashing attacks by the 109s, the constant complaint of the RAF pilots was that Jerry' didn't say and fight, totally ignoring the fact that in the 109 this was tactically correct. Now they were repaid in spades: in his new FW 190A, Jerry' stayed and fought as never before.

Mike Spick offers a quote from Al Deere leader of No 403 Canadian Squadron


I twisted and turned in an endeavor to avoid being jumped and a the same time to get myself into a favorable position for attack. Never had I seen the Huns stay and fight in out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing.

And then there is Eric Brown's analysis:


'The AFDU trials confirmed what the RAF already knew - that the Fw190 was a truly outstanding combat aircraft. They also produced vitally important information which went some way toward restoring the situation in so far as the RAF was concerned and in eradicating something of the awe in which the Focke-Wulf had come to be held by Allied pilots. It was concluded that the Fw190 trying to "mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - even below the German fighter's stalling speed - it would be out-turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on the Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up an down was usually the recipient of only difficult deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "Sinking"
Arnim Faber's Fw190A-3 was thoroughly wrung out and dispelled the mystique with which Focke-Wulf had been surrounded during the first year of its operational career; the fortuitous acquisition of this one warplane probably saving the lives of countless RAF pilots. But familiarity certainly did not breed contempt, for although conversant with both attributes and shortcomings of the fighter, we were equally conversant with the fact that it had to be treated with the utmost respect as an antagonist, despite its awesome reputation by now having been placed in perspective:

And as I posted earlier the German pilots knew how to fly in the vertical plane even while the Spitfire pilots did everything in the book to try to get the dogfighting 190s back into a horizontal fight:


It also happened at this time that my friend "Leo" got himself a broomstick and, sitting on a stool, simulated evasive maneuvers. Half roll and dive, increase speed, fighter turn, vertical climb to more than 2,000 m and try hard to get on the enemy's tail. When I laughed at this he said: "If you continue to take your life so philosophically you won't be doing it in this outfit much longer!"


Please do offer a quote proving the myth of your version of a dog fight. Quote yourself.

Bellator_1
01-23-2007, 02:51 PM
It is a common mistake made by people when assuming the FW-190 was a lousy turn-fighter, it was infact quite good at it - esp. above 400 km/h.

Eric Brown himself admitted that the FW-190 could stay on the Spitfire's tail in a horizontal turn fight for about 180 degree's before it had to break off and gain some speed - hence why FW-190 pilots were so eager to mix it up with the Spits over the Channel, they knew if they could place themselves behind the Spit they had an excellent chance of shooting it down.

PS: Ever wondered why after action reports by FW-190 pilots describe victories over Spitfires in "kurvenkampf" or turning fights ? - If the speed was kept above 400 km/h the FW-190 had the advantage.

hkg36sd
01-23-2007, 03:20 PM
It really depends on the state of the individual as well as the general state of the culture/society at the time.

Although i haven't read all the copious replies here, You might want to look into Lothar Von Richtofen (The Red Barons brother) He was the antithesis of what Manfred was and tended to more often than not, bring a gun to a knife fight, so to speak! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-23-2007, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
'My experinece with the Germans was that they didnt want to stay and fight. They used to attack in a slashing dive, and then if you got anywhere near their tail, they dived for the deck and headed back to France at low level. They very rarely stuck around to fight it out.'

That was true for a while, and then the Abbeville Boys got their FW's and it changed so much
that the Brits had to change doctrine.

Polyperhon
01-24-2007, 08:50 AM
The reason that the Germans adopted the hit and run tactics has to do also with the particular strengths of the Bf-109: Fast not just in a straight line but also on accerelation,climp, dive and the most able fighter in vertical climp on its day.After 1943 with the coming of american fighters made a lot of sense to change doctrine; this is another reason why the free hunting stop in the western front in the latter stages of the war

Philipscdrw
01-24-2007, 01:36 PM
I think what BadSight meant several pages and months ago is that we have all got much more experience at combat in FB than the WW2 pilots had experience in combat in WW2. We've all seen lots of combats (in FB) and shot down lots of aircraft (in FB) while real pilots didn't see as much action (in RL). You can't compare FB to real life, but you can compare an FB pilot's skill in FB with a real pilot's skill in real life - trust me, apparently I've learned "Dimensionless Analysis" this semester.

WWMaxGunz
01-24-2007, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
I think what BadSight meant several pages and months ago is that we have all got much more experience at combat in FB than the WW2 pilots had experience in combat in WW2. We've all seen lots of combats (in FB) and shot down lots of aircraft (in FB) while real pilots didn't see as much action (in RL). You can't compare FB to real life, but you can compare an FB pilot's skill in FB with a real pilot's skill in real life - trust me, apparently I've learned "Dimensionless Analysis" this semester.

If you think that combats in FB teaches even 10% of what combats in real life then you should
stay inside the classroom and don't come out. I can get you to a forum with a real combat
pilot if you want to hear it from someone with both kinds of experience.

Take some business courses while you are there and then go out in that world and see what is.

JSG72
01-24-2007, 04:30 PM
Very good Topic.

And agree with. Nice to see it hasn't degenerated into a My planes better than yours thread.

The JG54 Grunhertz first with the Dora9 book mentioned earlier is a very good boook on thoughts and Tactics on survival against overwhelming odds. But not a good book on what makes an ACE!
Ace books are ten a penny and will always have a glowing account of one particular fight with every detail recalled.

Turn the next page and you get the "And the next few days He shot down another four taking his total to" Whatever? No discription just a figure. We read these accounts because we like to hear the gallant/Tactical side. We don't get to interested in the four unarmed Transports or the School pilots shot down

Also remember Western front pilots were rotated.

You were a German pilot till you were promoted (and possibly later returned to frontline) wounded or killed. A goodly number being killed in accidents as opposed to combat.

Would like to hear Kill totals obtained in actual Dogfights?

As opposed to the use of overwhelming superiority/tactics/enemys lack of both!

JG14_Josf
01-24-2007, 05:07 PM
But not a good book on what makes an ACE!


That reminds me:

The War Diary (http://www.amazon.com/War-Diary-Hauptmann-Helmut-Lipfert/dp/0887404464)


Unfortunately the two Russians had already noticed us and before we were within range they turned quickly and came toward us. Now we began turning and soon I was so involved in the DOGFIGHT that I scarcely noticed what was up and down, where my leader was and where the flak bursts were.
Finally I got behind one of the Russians and stuck to him, but he wasn't about to allow me to get off a shot. The lad turned so well that it was all I could do to stay with him. In the meantime Barnickel headed off the other Russian, who for his part was trying to shoot me down. it was thus a merry, colorful chain, in which each was doing his best to close with the other. I was sweating and cursing profusely; each time my opponent dodged out of the way before I could press the triggers. The DOGFIGHT went on for perhaps a quarter of an hour, with neither side wanting to give in or break off the battle.
I was slowly becoming uncomfortable. This was the first long air battle I had participated in and I was feeling rather fatigued. I wouldn't be able to hold out much longer, but I didn't want to be the first to withdrawal. The turning match went on until my opponent had had enough; he stood his machine on its nose and dove into the midst of the anti-aircraft fire. But I was so furious that scarcely anything could have prevented me from diving after him, especially since I knew that my machine was heavier than his and that I could certainly overtake him. Hopefully I wouldn't be hit by flak in the process. The Russian in front grew larger and larger and soon he filled my gunsight. I pressed the triggers and saw my tracing ammunition disappear into his fuselage. There was a flash of flame. Then the enemy aircraft, which had taken no evasive action, reared up and dove toward the land at an increasingly steep angle.

In the back of the book is Lipfert's Aerial Victories

The date of that engagement was mentioned later in the text and the list shows the victory as a LaGG-3 on the 44th mission, third victory, Feb, 28, 1943.

Lipfert was not a hit and run fighter fighting with his brains so much as his Diary shows that he fought with his muscle i.e. turn fighting.

A 15 minute DOGFIGHT two on two and Lipfert's third victory. He added 200 more to his total.

There is a picture in the book that reads:


Another shot of "Bubi" Hartmann and Helmut Lipfert at Csor. Hartmann wears a rather skeptical expression as he listens to what Lipfert has to say.
Perhaps they were discussing tactics.

Philipscdrw
01-24-2007, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
I think what BadSight meant several pages and months ago is that we have all got much more experience at combat in FB than the WW2 pilots had experience in combat in WW2. We've all seen lots of combats (in FB) and shot down lots of aircraft (in FB) while real pilots didn't see as much action (in RL). You can't compare FB to real life, but you can compare an FB pilot's skill in FB with a real pilot's skill in real life - trust me, apparently I've learned "Dimensionless Analysis" this semester.

If you think that combats in FB teaches even 10% of what combats in real life then you should
stay inside the classroom and don't come out. I can get you to a forum with a real combat
pilot if you want to hear it from someone with both kinds of experience.

Take some business courses while you are there and then go out in that world and see what is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go and take a course yourself, in reading comprehension, why not. I explicitly state "you can't compare FB to real life".

I'll say again, I'll write slowly for extra clarity. We are all much more experienced at the electronic game of tag which is "Il-2 Sturmovik 1946" than real pilots were at combat in WW2!

Whether or not this is relevant to anything at all, I don't know and frankly I don't care at this hour of the day. The last exam of the season is in 12 hours, I need to sleep for 8 of those, and I also need to learn the course material. Can anyone explain how to use a Nichols chart? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Polyperhon
01-24-2007, 05:56 PM
I don't think we sim users that we are not combat pilots can claim that we have more combat exp. than real WWII pilots, even if some of us have flying epx.Is another thing to fly a loaded P-47 to the limit and another a cessna 152! However I agree that REAL combat pilots of today if they try the IL-2 and then could be returned back in time they would be much more experienced that the average combat pilot of WWII.But only because first they had real combat training.

It was very nice to read the Lipfert text.At the end just running away was not the best way to survive.From my ..."combat" experience on the IL-2, trying to escape the battle from an enemy that is determined to shoot you down,just increases the chance to be shot down!You just offer your tail to your enemy like that.For making "one shift destructive pass" work,someone needs to be accurate enough to score a kill in the first attempt;if not is more wise to fight like Lipfert unless you have a Bf 109 and the enemy a I-153,so you are sure that you can escape...but why a Bf 109 should avoid to fight with a I-153?

Badsight-
01-24-2007, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by Polyperhon:
I don't think we . . . . . can claim that we have more combat exp. than real WWII pilots not at real combat no

but we are more experienced at what we do than most , if not all WW2 pilots at what they did

its the nature of computer games with fast turn-around & quick action

ive made 10x the kills the top 100 german aces ever did in RL , but my kills are the FB kind so its not the same thing - doesnt mean im less experienced tho . contrary computer gamers get more time in the thick of the fight than those guys ever did during WW2

we take these pilot reports as gospel when they suit our POV , thing is tho they didnt get the opportuinity to analyse the oppositions gear the same way we did , they have less authority to state what actually happened than a good FB player does in his own DF . a good player of FB can make judgement calls of a DF based on more knowledge & experience than the RL pilots of WW2 of the DF's they experienced

the point isnt that FB is as demanding or skillfull as Real Life combat flying , because thats a joke of a statement

Ugly_Kid
01-24-2007, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
ive done more sorties than any WW2 pilot did during the war in FB . im more experienced & have been in more Dogfights than any WW2 pilot during the war .

Dream on...

You have more experience playing a video game with it's own rules and it's own tricks and exploits. Completely unreal DF-server environment would be of about zero or even detrimental use in real aircombat. Yes I also dream of topping Hartmann but then usually the sticks melt in my hand.

In online wars I have seen many of DF hotshots come and go - they don't last long without wingmen, comms and squad. There you see how usually a fight evolves and ends. Personal gaming skills and the aircraft performance is useful in initial positioning for the fight but it does not decide, the better team that flies tactically wins. You also see some guys getting a long streaks - if you watch them flying you'll notice several factors that are the making of the ace, his personal gaming skill and how he exploits prop pitch or trim cheats is not even on the list. 99% of FM whiners come from DF servers, coop and war people are interested more in load-outs and such.

Badsight-
01-24-2007, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Dream on...

You have more experience playing a video game with it's own rules and it's own tricks and exploits. which is exactly what ive said the whole thread

& because we ride the planes to the limit harder than they did in RL on a more consistent basis , we are more qualified to say what X plane performs like in Fb than they were in RL . because of the higher quality & duration of the action our experience is made up of

Ugly_Kid
01-24-2007, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
which is exactly what ive said the whole thread

& because we ride the planes to the limit harder than they did in RL on a more consistent basis , we are more qualified to say what X plane performs like in Fb than they were in RL .

Nope, you are mixing it. You are qualified to say about zip of the real plane in RL based on your gaming experience. The limits are not the same and the rules are not the same. You haven't pushed anything to any limit harder - I doubt you risked your life doing so, did you? You are free to try and mess with prop pitch or trim or try something completely insane like folding wings in flight, screw the opponents aim with lights and smoke, maybe that aids you in gaming the game but it probably would not work in real life. The limitations are not the same and the factors are not the same - h3ll even the planes differ considerably. How you can punish engine in a plane A hardly reflects what the real one did/had and yet you may gain an edge - in the game. How exactly does this qualify you?

Being good in Counterstrike isn't going to make you a hero in a real conflict either.

Whether you are a good gamer or not is irrelevant, the DF-server environment is as far from reality as possible. You will even notice that if you start participating in onlinewars that being a primadonna on DF server is of little help there. You will notice that your opinion about one or two aircraft in sim may change considerably and you evaluate them totally differently. This already within this game. However, even coops or onlinewars are gaming with its game rules and that experience mirrors reality in limited manner...(IMO closer than DF but still in a very limited manner)

HellToupee
01-25-2007, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:

Eric Brown himself admitted that the FW-190 could stay on the Spitfire's tail in a horizontal turn fight for about 180 degree's before it had to break off and gain some speed - hence why FW-190 pilots were so eager to mix it up with the Spits over the Channel,

Yet spitfires were not noted to simply outturn 190s but easily outturn 190s.

Their eagerness to stay and fight might have something to do with the massive advantage in speed and climb, where previously spits were quite a match for a 109.

A 190 woudnt simply engage in a hirizontal fight, they would engage from an advantage since they got to choose when and where to attack, and when a spit got on its tail it would use roll evasive and dive away.



PS: Ever wondered why after action reports by FW-190 pilots describe victories over Spitfires in "kurvenkampf" or turning fights ? - If the speed was kept above 400 km/h the FW-190 had the advantage.

ever wondered why spitfire pilots and tactical comparisions felt spit could easily outturn it?
Didnt they state 190 attempting to follow would stall even at speed.

mattinen
01-25-2007, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
Like many (I suspect) when I hear the expression dogfight I think of two noble warriors pitting their wits and machines against each other. Plenty of movment in the horizontal as one tries to get on the others tail until the best man/machine combo wins.

However the more I read the accounts of WW2 pilots the more I realise that the truth was closer to:

1) A formation of aircraft spots another formation of aircraft and atempts to get the drop on them.
2) It all goes to rats' after the first pass with aircraft milling about squirting bursts at anything hostile (hopefully) that crosses their sights.
3) Some planes blow up others start trailing glycol, fuel, oil or smoke.
4) One side brakes running for home or into the clouds.
5) The survivors attempt to relocate their wingman, formation etc. Whilst working out if the damp sensation in their pants is sweat, urine or blood.

The above is not an attemp to degrade the achievments of these men, more to remind us of the brutal chaos that was air combat.

I do think it's important we remember this as I feel the 'myth' of the dogfight influences many of the x was the best or x vs y threads we see.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-25-2007, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
but you can compare an FB pilot's skill in FB with a real pilot's skill in real life

That part was the kicker for me. NO, you can't compare the two. There isn't enough in common.
Not by a longshot. You might fool yourself into thinking so by playing silly rhetoric games.

That much I comprehend perfectly.

Kids playing "army" have no grasp of even peacetime army. Peacetime troops still do not know
combat. Analyze it any way you want to.

WWMaxGunz
01-25-2007, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
A 190 woudnt simply engage in a hirizontal fight, they would engage from an advantage since they got to choose when and where to attack, and when a spit got on its tail it would use roll evasive and dive away.

Unless the Spits bounced the FW's, the FW's had the choice from far enough away to fight or
try for better position. Unless they were bounced, the FW's came in with large advantage.
And as fast a they moved, the FW's must have been awfully hard to sneak up on.


ever wondered why spitfire pilots and tactical comparisions felt spit could easily outturn it?
Didnt they state 190 attempting to follow would stall even at speed.

The ones that lived. With a wingman a few 100m behind it doesn't much matter if the leader
gets outturned does it? Because the wingman only has to turn a little and be a good shot.
IMO the completion of the FW speed and roll is the FW major firepower. You don't have to
hold aim on target long at all. That's why I like the A8 so much even if it is artificially
hard to BnZ in this series.

BTW, at over 400kph the Spits do not turn so well at all. They don't have the excess power
to keep speed and make G's at the same time. Please don't say they could just run slower
because ==in history==, unlike DF, that got such bad results the Brits changed doctrine.

Whirlin_merlin
01-25-2007, 03:48 AM
Now I didn't really want to dig this one up but...

Josf I think you misunderstood what I meant. By myth I don't mean something totally false. Just that I think for many (possibly not yourself) there is an idealised or romantised view. Dont forget most myths are based on some truth. Of couse one on one turning fights occured but the pilot accounts I've read would seem to indicate that this was the exception not the norm.

I feel if you had read the post this would have been obvious that I wasn't saying that dogfights never happened.

JG14_Josf
01-25-2007, 09:10 AM
Whirlin_merlin,

I read your post when it first appeared. Not until much later did I see an opportunity to respond to all the responses.

I have this theory that goes like this...

If the shoe fits, then, you wear the shoe even if you don't like it and even if you repeat over and over again to yourself that you are not wearing the shoe. See the emperor's new clothes.

What you have read allows you to form your perspective. I have a challenge for you. Read Lipfert's War Diary. Read the following and then see if your perspective changes (even if only slightly):

Igor Kaberov (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Swastika-Gunsight-Igor-Kaberov/dp/0750922400)

Johannes Steinhoff (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Messerschmitts-Over-Sicily-Luftwaffe-Commander/dp/0811731596/sr=1-1/qid=1169741160/ref=sr_1_1/026-6287334-7094049?ie=UTF8&s=books)

Or not; I could care less. I care enough to respond to your words directed at me.

I'm not saying that anyone did say that dogfights never happen.

I'm saying that the term DOGFIGHT can be described in many ways. What appears to be a Myth concerning the DOGFIGHT to one person may be very real according to someone else.

Whirlin_merlin
01-25-2007, 10:33 AM
Right thanks for you reponse, no idea what your on about but thanks any way.

P.S Book references do look interesting though.

Cheers.

JSG72
01-25-2007, 02:20 PM
Forgive me JG_14Josf?

Just realised it was your good self that was quoting from the "Grun Hertz" book.

As I said a very good read with a couple of interesting Action pieces. But on the whole it is one of the best books at describing what conditions for survival in an already lost War.(Many of the experienced pilots new this.)

(Quote)(What you have read allows you to form your perspective. I have a challenge for you. Read Lipfert's War Diary. Read the following and then see if your perspective changes (even if only slightly)http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I Personally.Have over 600 publications pertaining to Luftwaffe Aircraft? Armaments /units/ Pilots /Aces/ Losses/ Camoflauge/ markings and Tactics.

I have never read Lipferts Diaries or indeed Steinhoffs.

So Wll my opinions change if I read them{I would very much doubt it.)

When you refer to the FW. 190A being a good dogfighter. I believe it was( In the correct hands when the opportunities arose.
However any accounts I have read would suggest it was Tactical use of the 190a on its introduction to sevice with its superiority over spitfire MKv at first that made it look like this.

I have never heard any accounts of pilots going out to look for a good Dogfight.

If one occured. It was because they made a mistake in estimating their enemies strength.

I could make literally. Hundreds of quotes to support this Idea of mine but like you say

(Quote)
(If the shoe fits, then, you wear the shoe even if you don't like it and even if you repeat over and over again to yourself that you are not wearing the shoe. See the emperor's new clothes.)

The books you have read have obviously coloured your own thoughts to the romantic side of things?

Individual Pilots Diaries/Testimonies are not really "My Bag"
As many of the books I have. Often(Like yourself)quote from them. But unlike yourself they are more trying to disprove the individuals accounts. StienHoff/ Galland and Dahl spring to mind.

Marseille. Moelders, and Nowotny remain heros in all publications

But then. They didn't publish their diaries http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BTW.Just finished Ju 388 by Christoph Vernaleken and Martin Handig.

If you would like to impress with Facts in the minutae. you should read and quote from this book

I am not fluent on the subjects. Just a guy with many books pertaining to a certain period of time that I am very interested in.

I can quote from them if you wish. But it doesn't seem right to me. As it would be a shame to spoil your own and many others pursuits.
Mines is a passion and not a statistical fact finding tour. IMHO. Statistics are what are destroying our World. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif
I just contributed to the AGE post.

Polyperhon
01-25-2007, 03:30 PM
To HellToupee

please don't change the subject to "my plane is better than your plane" topic. I tried to participate because I wanted to discuss the pecularities of the dogfight and not the advantages of one or another plane. Remember that some people performed much better to some planes than others,some blossomed and some sunk with the switch (e.g Pierre Clostermann's switch to Tempest, G. Backhorn switch to Fw 190D had opposite effect) and that often a gifted veteran had more chance with an inferior plane than a green with a better one.
Please discuss the dogfight by itself, it would be appreciated.

JSG72
01-25-2007, 04:38 PM
Sorry Again.

Replying to Whirlin_merlins. Original post.

Depending on your Age/interests/education.
Your thoughts may be coloured by romantised views. I myself, fell into this catagory.

It is through, my own further readings and more recently the manufacture of this SIM. that as time goes by. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif 40yrs. that dogfighting in my and I guess many of us's views. from WW1 to present day. has changed dramaticaly

A wake up call is in order.

Reality and ambition should not be mixed.

I Wanted to feel the experience of being a "Sturmpilot"(Sorry! not a dogfighter. But entirely relevant). Only to be shot out of the skys.
Now 6 yrs on. My tactics have been perfected.
Just unfortuanate I have been dead for 6 yrs. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif (Killed in a landing accident).

And so we all make missions in whih we try to emulate our wartime heros within dogfights. When infact as indeed many of them quote at the time. That they were just Lucky!

That is of course until the memoirs are published. and we read and enjoy every made up detail.

Facts. are Solid parallel lines with infinate truths, in between http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

JG14_Josf
01-25-2007, 05:53 PM
The books you have read have obviously coloured your own thoughts to the romantic side of things?

JSG72,

A question is much better than a claim of absolute fact. Thanks for giving me some room. Killing people is not romantic in my opinion. It is barbaric and unknown to me. Until such time as I've killed someone, then, I have no way of knowing what it is like to kill someone. My guess is that it destroys something; something human. My guess is that it destroys more in some and less in others. My guess is that some people are natural born killers.

Some people may think nothing of killing. Others may have deep regrets, scars, nightmares, and severe loss of inborn harmony.

I don't know any of that since I have not had to nor wanted to kill anyone. Perhaps I'd like it. I'd rather not know. I can guess. I can listen to veterans like my Uncles, my Dad, Gabby Gabreski, Franz Stigler, Charley Brown, and I can read books. I can learn something about the real thing. Those people tend to express a warning. Not all of them. Some are gung ho.

Romance is for reproduction. War is for destruction. What has war got to do with romance?

I have interests in flying, shooting, competition, history, and computer games. I've learned how to fly. My Dad made sure we all know how to shoot. He went to Korea. I think all WWII era weapons look cool, deadly, efficient, powerful, sinister, and functional; is that romantic? I don't get off if that is what you mean. I have two kids; I know what reproduction is all about. That is romantic. I like to shoot my rolling block Remington 45/70 with exploding tip bullets is that romantic?

The nuts and bolts of Air Combat, to me, is/are DOG FIGHTING. If DOG FIGHTING is defined by someone as flying unseen to attack an enemy by surprise and then disappearing, then, to someone DOG FIGHTING means that.

If someone else defines DOG FIGHTING as any and all engagements where one pilot and one plane shoots down another pilot and another plane by any means possible, then, someone has a wider viewpoint.

If someone else, like me, defines DOG FIGHTING as specific maneuvers that can be described in accurate detail, then, someone has many specific definitions of DOG FIGHTING. I can simulate specific maneuvers in accurate detail.

What is the problem?

Did I say that your definition is a myth?

If so then I made a mistake. You will have to quote my words that cause such an interpretation to be believed; like my supposed romantic viewpoints concerning war. I have none. As far as I am concerned war is legalized murder. My opinion may change when someone is raping my daughter and I happen to have a gun in my hand.

I tried joining an army once; but that plan didn't pan out. Now I know it would have been a mistake. The leadership principle is driven by greed; not liberty.

Discussion is driven by a desire to find agreement. Arguments are driven by disagreement.

Which is it?

Bo_Nidle
01-25-2007, 06:05 PM
In the excellent BBC TV series "Reaching for the skies" which was shown in the late 80's ( and never, to my knowledge, repeated?)Brigadier General Robin Olds (an ace in the P-38 and P-51 plus 4 kills in the F-4 over Vietnam)was interviewed and his comment on the perception of the dogfight was "Please understand, a dogfight is not the popular Hollywood depiction of one pilot valiantly testing his skills against another. A dogfight is: Sneak, Dive, Slash, Run!" I guess he should know? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

JSG72
01-25-2007, 06:44 PM
Good Greif Josf.

Nice to see you are opening up.(I.E. You have posted no "Quotes" from me and therefore cannot answer in the specific.

Although it is not a personal Forum.(You, have just been shotdown)



I am no Psychiatrist.

But perhaps this post. More than any has highlighted something. To me.

I beleive .That like myself and many others within this Forum and indeed many volunteered.(Dead) Combat pilots.

Feel that Air Combat, is the purest way of killing without guilt.

It is the Killing machine, you are destroying and not the fellow with two kids.(The ACE card)

You come across as the killing machine and are therefore to be destroyed.

Not an argument. It is a dogfight in a Forum.
I would suggest it is not only myself who has this view.

You may not survive.

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

Nice to see you take an interest.

If there are any publications you would wish to peruse? Give me a shout. I will be more than happy to oblige.

There is no Myth about "DOGFIGHTING"

Yes! It happened. But Never on your terms.
And BTW. Quit guessing, Death is FACT! regardless of your remorse/Statistical/Factual/ refrences.

I am not trying to flame you.
I think that perhaps we may come from different ends of the spectrum.

(cough! I'm Blaahoohoo?).

JSG72
01-25-2007, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
In the excellent BBC TV series "Reaching for the skies" which was shown in the late 80's ( and never, to my knowledge, repeated?)Brigadier General Robin Olds (an ace in the P-38 and P-51 plus 4 kills in the F-4 over Vietnam)was interviewed and his comment on the perception of the dogfight was "Please understand, a dogfight is not the popular Hollywood depiction of one pilot valiantly testing his skills against another. A dogfight is: Sneak, Dive, Slash, Run!" I guess he should know? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

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

The number of times I have managed four kills within this SIM!!! and then chased after my fifth. Only to be shot down Far from home.

Well!. Have we all! been there?(Tried the Ace in a day scenario).

JG14_Josf
01-25-2007, 07:22 PM
And BTW. Quit guessing, Death is FACT! regardless of your remorse/Statistical/Factual/ refrences.

JSG72,

You know it all; I guess. I don't.

JSG72
01-25-2007, 07:53 PM
Whaatt!!!!

Of course I don't "Know it all"

You have not, asked me anything?

I have an opinion about certain subjects.

I am willing to be educated.

I am old enough, to not take the "Truth as read".

However. "I enjoy, being educated."

Said: Egon Mayer. To the pilot of the B17. He had just shot down West of Cologne. (I just made that up (Did you believe it?)

Badsight-
01-25-2007, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Nope, you are mixing it. You are qualified to say about zip of the real plane in RL based on your gaming experience. wrong

we are more experienced at FB , than WW2 pilots were at RL dogfighting

we get more pratice , we bend the rules way more - & we have the experience of thousands of losses as well as the wins to guide our learning

you as well as others dont like to see FB compared to RL & thats the way your taking it . i suggest you re-read the posts

& yes because of our constant flying of more than one sides planes makes us more qualified to comment on what we use than the RL WW2 pilots were of their planes . they didnt have the opportunity we do

RL pilot says he out-turned spit using a Bf-109

FB player can explain why the condition was allowed to happen when he does it in FB to a higher degree because of the increased experience he has

RL pilot accounts are very generalised on the whole & are strictly from their own perception . they couldnt tell at all what the other guy was going thru at the time , but we have knowledge at a much higher scale what the oppositions plane is capable of because of the nature of the game

what really amuses me is the way people can get uppity when the think FB is being compared to RL piloting or RL aircombat

leitmotiv
01-25-2007, 09:26 PM
As Sensei put it, and he should know, air combat is assassination, or, as von Richthofen said "Air combat is killing, all else is nonsense."

This toy has as much to do with real combat as softball has to do with playing for the major leagues. It is interesting that something on a screen can give the susceptible fancies of omnipotence usually associated with powerful hallucinogenic drugs.

WWMaxGunz
01-26-2007, 01:00 AM
Set a gun to the back of your head so that if you get shot down the gun goes off and you know it.
Then you have added just ONE of many aspects of air combat the sim does not cover. One of many.

HellToupee
01-26-2007, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
They don't have the excess power
to keep speed and make G's at the same time.

this does not make the spitfire worse in turn, it could still easily turn much tighter.

HellToupee
01-26-2007, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by Polyperhon:
To HellToupee

please don't change the subject to "my plane is better than your plane" topic. I tried to participate because I wanted to discuss the pecularities of the dogfight and not the advantages of one or another plane.

what a plane does in a dogfight is usually the result of what advantages it pocesses over another.

ANd why the hell make a post directed at me? what dont you go and ping everyone in the thread who states something a certian plane can do?

lowfighter
01-26-2007, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

The nuts and bolts of Air Combat, to me, is/are DOG FIGHTING. If DOG FIGHTING is defined by someone as flying unseen to attack an enemy by surprise and then disappearing, then, to someone DOG FIGHTING means that.

If someone else defines DOG FIGHTING as any and all engagements where one pilot and one plane shoots down another pilot and another plane by any means possible, then, someone has a wider viewpoint.

If someone else, like me, defines DOG FIGHTING as specific maneuvers that can be described in accurate detail, then, someone has many specific definitions of DOG FIGHTING. I can simulate specific maneuvers in accurate detail.

What is the problem?



You made a nice point here! Many of the divergences here I think come from different views of what a dogfight is. Now if you'd ask me what do i think a dogfight is I can't really give a clear definition. But in my head, just my view:
-a dogfight might be very short, 1 minute for example, perhaps even shorter
-a dogfight can involve several planes
-a dogfight is not only turn&burn, it can and it HAS TO involve all other tricks, boom and zoom, deceving team tactics etc

Xiolablu3
01-26-2007, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by lowfighter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

The nuts and bolts of Air Combat, to me, is/are DOG FIGHTING. If DOG FIGHTING is defined by someone as flying unseen to attack an enemy by surprise and then disappearing, then, to someone DOG FIGHTING means that.

If someone else defines DOG FIGHTING as any and all engagements where one pilot and one plane shoots down another pilot and another plane by any means possible, then, someone has a wider viewpoint.

If someone else, like me, defines DOG FIGHTING as specific maneuvers that can be described in accurate detail, then, someone has many specific definitions of DOG FIGHTING. I can simulate specific maneuvers in accurate detail.

What is the problem?



You made a nice point here! Many of the divergences here I think come from different views of what a dogfight is. Now if you'd ask me what do i think a dogfight is I can't really give a clear definition. But in my head, just my view:
-a dogfight might be very short, 1 minute for example, perhaps even shorter
-a dogfight can involve several planes
-a dogfight is not only turn&burn, it can and it HAS TO involve all other tricks, boom and zoom, deceving team tactics etc </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very good point Josf.

Polyperhon
01-26-2007, 03:05 AM
To HellToupee

1) Because you discuss only this and not the nature of the dogfight.

2) Because I believe that you favorite way too much the Spitfire.We all have our personal preferences, but we are not absolute and I think most guys after 4 year on their virtual cocpits understand now that not all people perform the same on every plane!

To HellToupee and all

After all,we need to discuss the tactics to have a point of reference in which we can discuss if one plane was better from another ( I reverse your argument).Spifire is a joy to fly and feels foolproof, something that had a great phychological effect on the Real pilot when he was going into real battle.However in pure combat terms, if you go into the depth of the air battle approach, you 'll see that a great plane to fly doesn't mean by definition that is great to go to war with.
Example
I tend to divide the fighter of WWII into 3 categories, according to the approach that should be followed in air battle
1)The what I called "Yoyozoom" fighters (e.g Bf 109, P-39)
2)The "hot rod" fighters (e.g. Fw 190, La-5/7, F4U)
3)The "turning fighters" (e.g Spitfire, Yaks)


I am more able with the "yoyozoom", managing to shoot down (and completing missions)much more planes with a P-39 than I managed with a Spitfire.For example I "shot" down lately 2 Ki-43-II with a P-39D-2. However I will not state that the P-39 was a better combat plane than the Spitfire.Somehow I managed to learn how to fly the P-39 with its peculiarities quite well, however I never managed to overcome the Spitfire's limited firepower and ammo.Someone else propably managed.This is also the nature of aviation in general.
In the online dogfights I had more problem with the "hot rods" (Fw 190A-8/9 and La-7 are my nightmare.But remember most online "combat" is done at low alt.).Most times that I was "shot" down I lost my opponent after a close turning fight and then suddendly I had a "bang!" in my fuselage.I believe what the guys were doing were a fast break=disengagement into a direction that I lost them (most times casually I guess) and then just going on me without applying any complicated or tight turns,just accelerating fast to reach me and shoot me down.

Discussing the planes without discussing these matters first is pointless.

nsteense
01-26-2007, 03:08 AM
By the way, does anybody realize that the dogfight was pronounced dead during some periods of the last century?
Before the start of WW2, the RAF thought the days of the dogfight were over, because the speeds of the day were deemed to be too high. Using WW1 as a reference, were the biplanes were higly manouverable, and speed wasn't most important factor in a dogfight, you can see why the dogfight in that way was consider as gone. That's also the reason why the rear visibilty on the fighter planes at the beginning of WW2 wasn't considered important, because the dogfight as it was known then, wasn't going to happen, so they thought.
Reality of course proved something else, and dogfighting did happen (although I can imagine that the tactics sneak up-shoot down-save your own rear end to fight another day was the preferred one), albeit in a slighty different form than WW1.
History repeated itself again, in the '60s when the US navy thought that the days of the dogfight were over, and didn't consider it necessary to fit a gun to the F4 Phantom. They thought they had it all figured out with this plane as an interceptor with the radar guided missiles, where they could shoot the bomber down without having the airplane in visual. Not to speak about the speed they were flying at that time (again this speed thing). The reality of Vietnam proved the Navy wrong, because the rules of engagement required visual identification (among others) with the consequences this gave...
What I'm just saying here, is that the way people interpret dogfight, also depends on the era. Dogfight of WW1 was something else compared to WW2 and itself completly different to the later eras.
A great book on this is Full Cirle by Johnny Johnson on the history of aerial fighting

Polyperhon
01-26-2007, 03:24 AM
Talking about "air battle" is a better term than dogfight, which can lead to a confusion to what that means.I think we should stick into what WWII pilots believed was a godfight, because we have the IL-2 as reference. True, if someone tries for e.g LOCK-ON, WWII style-dogfight almost never occurs.

cawimmer430
01-26-2007, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by nsteense:
By the way, does anybody realize that the dogfight was pronounced dead during some periods of the last century?
Before the start of WW2, the RAF thought the days of the dogfight were over, because the speeds of the day were deemed to be too high. Using WW1 as a reference, were the biplanes were higly manouverable, and speed wasn't most important factor in a dogfight, you can see why the dogfight in that way was consider as gone. That's also the reason why the rear visibilty on the fighter planes at the beginning of WW2 wasn't considered important, because the dogfight as it was known then, wasn't going to happen, so they thought.
Reality of course proved something else, and dogfighting did happen (although I can imagine that the tactics sneak up-shoot down-save your own rear end to fight another day was the preferred one), albeit in a slighty different form than WW1.
History repeated itself again, in the '60s when the US navy thought that the days of the dogfight were over, and didn't consider it necessary to fit a gun to the F4 Phantom. They thought they had it all figured out with this plane as an interceptor with the radar guided missiles, where they could shoot the bomber down without having the airplane in visual. Not to speak about the speed they were flying at that time (again this speed thing). The reality of Vietnam proved the Navy wrong, because the rules of engagement required visual identification (among others) with the consequences this gave...
What I'm just saying here, is that the way people interpret dogfight, also depends on the era. Dogfight of WW1 was something else compared to WW2 and itself completly different to the later eras.
A great book on this is Full Cirle by Johnny Johnson on the history of aerial fighting

Good point of view. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JG14_Josf
01-26-2007, 11:08 AM
Very good point Josf.

X3,

Why?

Take any example of any Fighter combat in history and see how the generic term DOG FIGHT matters not.

One on one, two on one, two on three, 12 on 4, bounce, set-up, defense, offense, co-alt, co-energy, merge, angles, energy, turn and burn, hit and run, boom and zoom, two circle, one circle, sustained, stall fight, vertical, Zoom, Dive, corner, horizontal, oblique, or whatever combination of all that and more in time and space is or can be filed in the folder DOG FIGHT.

If DOG FIGHT is boxed into any specific meaning that excludes any further definition refinement, then, someone somewhere is going to come along and spank your *** in a DOG FIGHT because you insisted upon fencing in the definition of DOG FIGHT to your own personal definition.

The Battle of Britain 109 vs Spitfire example is like the F4 Phantom Mig-21 example.

When the official version of DOG FIGHT is: horizontal turning against hit and run tactics, then, an Fw 190 may come along and redefine the term DOG FIGHT.

When the official version of DOG FIGHT is: point offense with missile weapons, then, a Mig-21 may come along and redefine the term DOG FIGHT.

Example:

When the official version of DOG FIGHT is higher, faster, farther, then, John Boyd may come along and redefine DOG FIGHT as EM theory.

Here is the thing:

John Boyd was called 20 second Boyd because he was the U.S. Air Force fighter instructor. Not one of the U.S. Air Force flight instructors. He was THE U.S. Air Force fighter instructor. No one ever shot down Boyd in real or mock combat. One Marine pilot, only one, tied Boyd to a stalemate.

The challenge in America was:

Boyd is ahead of the challenger in mock combat.

In less than 20 seconds Boyd will shoot down the challenger.

The time was bumped up to 40 seconds after awhile.

Boyd was 40 seconds Boyd.

Boyd was the one who defined the term DOG FIGHT.

No one defined the term DOG FIGHT better than Boyd ever.

Not better ever.

Since Boyd is gone, then, the current best definition of DOG FIGHT has to be written by someone else.

Here is a historical example of the point I'm trying to make (in other words):


I realized it all boiled down to just one basic question: could this trio of experienced bomber pilots survive in combat as fighter pilots, or would they simply be sitting ducks shot down the moment they encountered the enemy? There was only one way to find out.

That is taken from
Luftwaffe Fighter Ace
From the Eastern Front to the Defense of the Homeland
Norbert Hannig
Edited and translated by John Weal

My point and Hannig's words continue:


Type familiarization on the Fw 190 take-offs and landings posed no problem for them at all. It was at the next stage, formation take-offs, that their difficulties began. As was customary I took each of them up in turn as my wingman to demonstrate basic Rotte. We got off the ground together. But their years as bomber pilots had ingrained in them the habit of lifting off gently and maintaining a straight course until a sufficiently safe height had been gained to allow them to commence a slow turn to either port or starboard. By contrast a fighter pilot would retract his undercarriage and flaps almost before his wheels had left the ground, pour on the coal and be ready for any eventuality the moment he was in the air.
To them it was second nature to carry to all control movements carefully and in a coordinated manner. We, on the other hand, worked quickly and instinctively, often jerking the throttle and stick about, twisting and turning, zooming and diving as the situation demanded. If they couldn't develop such reflex actions in the short time available to them they would be dead men on their first op. And that was a fate I wanted to spare them if it was at all in my power.
But after three training flights nothing had changed. They were still painstakingly coordinating their ailerons and rudder movements. Their formation flying and station keeping were impeccable their practice dogfights a catastrophe. Two or three turns and I would be on their tails every time. Back on the ground I expressed my concerns and made the following proposal to them:


That is a lot of typing on my part as my leg heals. Soon I will be back in action doing my chores and having the ability to return to playing the Fighter Pilot game with Il2.

All that text above leads to the following challenge offered by Norbert Hannig in the summer of 1944 (and this is my point):


"One of you please choose the machine you think is the best of all those we've got here on base. I'll take one of those you've just been flying. We'll climb to 3,000 meters and I'll begin to dogfight. If I'm not sitting on your tail in position to fire within three minutes, you may just stand a chance of survival in combat."

My point continues with text written by Norbert Hannig:


They were a bit taken aback at first. But then they went into a brief huddle and agreed to my suggestion. It was decided that the Major with the Oak Leaves would be the one to accept the challenge. He selected a brand new Fw 190A-6 while I took the machine he had just been using. We took off nd climbed to 3,000 meters. "Kleeblatt 2 from 1 ready?" I asked, "Victor, Victor," he replied.
I immediately slammed home the throttle, went into a steep diving turn to the right, pulled out sharply, and yo-yoed upwards. Looking back I could se my katschmarek way behind me just beginning to recover from his initial dive. By the time he was climbing I was already on my way back down again, nose-diving past him as he clawed for height. In less than two minutes I was directly behind him, the A-6 filling my sights. His attempts to shake me off his tail were fruitless.


And this is another long post by me that may or may find an interested reader. Norbert Hannig's words continue to press the point that I am trying to communicate:


We went through the whole rigmarole twice more with exactly the same result. After that he conceded defeat. We flew back to the base in perfect, tight formation before opening out for the landing. All three thanked me for the convincing demonstration, took themselves off the course and offered their services elsewhere.
It was a different story with those young trainees fresh from the flying schools. Here was raw, untutored talent. They were eager to learn and quick to master the bravura style necessary to become a fighter pilot. We hoped that the lessons and experiences we were able to pass on to them from our own time in combat would enable them to play a useful role when they reached their front-line units. Nearly all went on to fly with JG 54. And as the Geschwader remained split between west and east III Gruppe was now part of Reich's defence organization, the other Gruppen still on the Russian front most were given the opportunity to choose the theatre of operations in which they wished to serve.

My point:

If you X3, wish to teach me how to fly, then, do it.

I'll record the session and offer back to the Sim flying community the lessons that you teach me. I can offer a track file. I can offer a series of snap shots showing my version of what happens during the lesson.

Like this:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Art/Nastyshot.jpg

That was an informal lesson taught.

It happened to produce a very good example of a rolling scissors defense maneuver.

I have the track file. The track file I have won't run on the latest version of the game. I intend to record new track files as I learn new lessons in Fighter Combat Dog Fighting.

Have I made another point? Is it a very good one?

Am I still an ***?

Whirlin_merlin
01-26-2007, 11:18 AM
Jo' what on earth are you on about. And why bite Xiola for agreeing with you?

I think wires are getting crossed here to make an argument that doesn't really exist.

JG14_Josf
01-26-2007, 11:33 AM
Jo' what on earth are you on about

Whirlin_merlin,

If you read my post and do not understand the point made, then, I need a little more feedback from you to effectively answer your question.

I can try:

I am on about defining the term DOG FIGHT.

I used John Boyd and Norbert Hannig as examples of what the term DOG FIGHT means.

John Boyd was on about defining the term DOG FIGHT. He did a good job of defining the term DOG FIGHT. He was on about it. So was Norbert Hannig.


And why bite Xiola for agreeing with you?


I didn't bite. X3 offered to teach me the meaning of DOG FIGHT once.

I'm on about defining the meaning of the term DOG FIGHT.

One Dog bites the other Dog in the tail no?


I think wires are getting crossed here to make an argument that doesn't really exist.

X3 and I contend on a specific contention. You may not understand the contention that X3 and I contend just like you don't understand what on earth I am on about with my last post.

X3 contends that the game models the Fw190 vs. the Spitfire DOG FIGHT accurately.

I contend that the game does not model the Fw190 vs. the Spitfire DOG FIGHT accurately.

If X3 wishes to teach me his point of view on the subject, then, I'm all for the lesson to begin as soon as I recover from my illness which is soon.

I'm here to learn.

I like learning how better to define the term DOG FIGHT.

Sometimes I even teach a lesson or two like this:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Vertical%20Zoom.jpg

Have I answered your questions or are our wires still crossed?

slipBall
01-26-2007, 11:57 AM
It will be interesting to see if SOW damage model allows for high G forces to be applied, without twisting the airframe all out of true. There was one Pacific ace that lost his life, due to his pulling too many G's all the time. His name escape's me, but was featured on "Legend's of Airpower" I believe

nsteense
01-26-2007, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
There was one Pacific ace that lost his life, due to his pulling too many G's all the time. His name escape's me, but was featured on "Legend's of Airpower" I believe

Wasn't that Mcguire?

slipBall
01-26-2007, 12:37 PM
Mcguire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif that's him... Tommy Mcguire

Xiolablu3
01-26-2007, 02:19 PM
Josf, I was saying that you make a good point, I am not sure why you have replied in the manner you did? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Today was a new day.

First we have to define exactly what the person means by 'dogfight'.

I wouldnt know if the game simulated the FW190A vs Spitfire fight accurately - I have never flown a FW190 against a SPitfire in combat, so how could I? Only real FW190 pilots who have fought against a Spitfire could possibly know accurately. I know that the game represents what we read about in most books etc very well. The FW190 tries to stay in the vertical, using zoom climbs and dives, whereas the Spitfire tries to draw him into a turning contest.


In the manner you have replied, in my opinion yes, you are still acting like a bit of an ***, I am afraid. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif I know that how you communicate with me at the moment, I wouldnt enjoy flying with you, so lets skip the 'lesson'. I never said I would give you a 'lesson' anyway, I said I would show you what I know, and how to be successful in the FW190 online, thats all. It was a kind offer, not made in some 'I'm a great pilot and you're not' kind of way. I offer my experience to new guys all the time.


But hey, we are all learning as we go. Perhaps your next reply will have me thinking you are less of an ***? I am hoping so.

JG14_Josf
01-26-2007, 03:16 PM
The FW190 tries to stay in the vertical, using zoom climbs and dives, whereas the Spitfire tries to draw him into a turning contest.

X3,

As I know the game, as the game exists, the game does not simulate any vertical maneuvering advantage for the Fw190 over the Spitfire. I am willing to have you or anyone prove me wrong.

If that option is not a desirable one for you, then, I'm wondering why.

Perhaps, from my viewpoint, you are building a game myth.

Like this:


I know that the game represents what we read about in most books etc very well.

I know otherwise.

The Fw190 is a very good hit and run plane due to its higher speed in the game. That is the Fw190s one and only advantage in the game unless the new patch has changed.

I'm very anxious to find out if the new patch has changed.

I can find out if the new patch has changed in many different ways.

One way is to go head to head with an Fw190A-4 against a Spitfire VB (1941) and simulate a DOG FIGHT.

Like this:


'The AFDE trials confirmed what the RAF already knew - that the Fw190 was a truly outstanding combat aircraft. They also produced vitally important information which went some way toward restoring the situation in so far as the RAF was concerned and in eradicating something of the awe in which the Focke-Wulf had come to be held by Allied pilots. It was concluded that the Fw190 trying to "mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - even below the German fighter's stalling speed - it would be out- turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on the Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up an down was usually the recipient of only difficult deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "Sinking"
Arnim Faber's Fw190A-3 was thoroughly wring out and dispelled the mystique with which Focke-Wulf had been surrounded during the first year of its operational career; the fortuitous acquisition of this one warplane probably saving the lives of countless RAF pilots. But familiarity certainly did not breed contempt, for although conversant with both attributes and shortcomings of the fighter, we were equally conversant with the fact that it had to be treated with the utmost respect as an antagonist, despite its awesome reputation by now having been placed in perspective.

It will not take me long to find out what I want to know in a simulated one on one DOG FIGHT between the Fw 190A-4 and the Spitfire VB (1941).

If the Fw190A-4, in the new patch, can use vertical maneuvering, dives and zooms, in an odd style of dog fighting against the Spitfire VB (1941) and if the Spitfire VB (1941) is trying everything in the book to draw the Fw190A-4 into the horizontal, then, the new patch will be simulating history.

If not, then, NOT.

If the Spitfire VB (1941) can roll, spit S, dive, turn at the bottom, zoom climb, and stay right behind the Fw190A-4 and never get out of perfect guns range, then, the game will be the same game where the Fw 190A-4, in the game, must find Spitfire VB (1941) planes that can be hit and then ran from because any turning up down or sideways will increase the Spitfire VB (1941)s energy state and decrease the Fw190A-4s energy state rapidly as if the Fw190 BLEEDS ENERGY like a stuck pig despite the fact that the Fw190A-3 had more power to weight (based upon climb test results), greater acceleration under all conditions of flight especially during the initial stages of the dive, and the Fw190A-3, in history, had an advantage in the zoom climb where the Spitfire VB (1942) could not follow; hence the odd' style of fighting in the vertical where the Spitfire pilots tried everything in the book to draw the Fw190 pilots into a horizontal level sustained turn fight.

I'll know what I know and you can know what you know and unless you are willing to teach me what you know, well..., I'll continue to know what I know.


If that makes me an *** according to you, then, I am an *** according to you.

That is fine by me.

Just don't call me late for dinner or a mock combat test flight.

Badsight-
01-26-2007, 03:24 PM
you cant redefine the meaning of the term just because different types of planes have been developed since WW1

it means , & will always mean 2 planes circling each other . horizontal or verticle

a dogfight is : tight circling aircombat

Xiolablu3
01-26-2007, 03:32 PM
But Badsight, check Eric Browns description of the Fw190A fighting the Spitfire V :-

It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to "mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - even below the German fighter's stalling speed - it woud be out-turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of DOGFIGHTING evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only diffiuclt deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking"


Notice that he still calls the FW190s zoom climbs and dives 'Dogfighting' (what most of us here would call energy fighting).

He cant possibly mean simply circling/looping over and over, because this would still be a test of 'elevator turn', and the Spitfire would win. He means long drawn out dives and zoom climbs, enabling the FW190 to use its superior Zoom climb and speed in a dive to combat the Spitfires better turning.

Xiolablu3
01-26-2007, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:


If the Fw190A-4, in the new patch, can use vertical maneuvering, dives and zooms, in an odd style of dog fighting against the Spitfire VB (1941) and if the Spitfire VB (1941) is trying everything in the book to draw the Fw190A-4 into the horizontal, then, the new patch will be simulating history.

If not, then, NOT.

.

It already can, quite easily if done correctly. The Eric Brown quote describes the majority of my fights versus SpitfireVb's while I am in a FW190A4. The Spitfire usually dies as I will not be drawn into a turning contest. I am never killed in these engagements with Spitfires. P47's or Tempests, are much more dangerous to my FW190.

As for the rest of the 'comparisons', I am not sure what you mean exactly, but safe to say that the FW190A4 is far superior to the Spitfire Vb in game. You just have to fly it as if you were in it, and not in a computer game. Dont worry, you are safe from me showing you how to fly the FW190A4 against the Spitfire Vb.

Its hard enough trying to communicate with you on this forum, I imagine flying with you would be hell, and no fun at all. (And I play this game for enjoyment, nothing else http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
But I think anyway these who fly really bad will have a trouble flying in FW190 against very easy flying Spit (what is stated a lot of pilots comparing to FW-190 or Bf-109, even FW-190 was easy controlable aircraft... Simply at critical values spit is better...than both of them... This is fact. Sometime its better even than Yak-3 for critical situations in control). I personally have no trobles in FW -190A4 against Spit V of any modelled modification if to use right tactic.

JG14_Josf
01-26-2007, 04:52 PM
It already can, quite easily if done correctly. The Eric Brown quote describes the majority of my fights versus SpitfireVb's while I am in a FW190A4. The Spitfire usually dies as I will not be drawn into a turning contest. I am never killed in these engagements with Spitfires. P47's or Tempests, are much more dangerous to my FW190.

X3,

I know I am safe from you teaching me anything. If you could, then, you would have already.

Here is a thought:

Record your tactical use of the Fw 190A-4 in the vertical against a Spitfire VB (1941) so anyone can see exactly what you mean by using the vertical.

On second thought: just say that you can do something and hope that someone actually believes you.

Here is a tip: Make sure that when you describe what you can do that you remain ambiguous so that no one can detect that your tactics are, in fact, hit and run tactics, instead of vertical maneuvering tactics.

Say things like this:


It already can, quite easily if done correctly. The Eric Brown quote describes the majority of my fights versus SpitfireVb's while I am in a FW190A4. The Spitfire usually dies as I will not be drawn into a turning contest. I am never killed in these engagements with Spitfires. P47's or Tempests, are much more dangerous to my FW190.

See how that works? Your words say absolutely nothing about tactics other than "I will not be drawn into a turning contest."

You can't say this:


He cant possibly mean simply circling/looping over and over, because this would still be a test of 'elevator turn', and the Spitfire would win. He means long drawn out dives and zoom climbs, enabling the FW190 to use its superior Zoom climb and speed in a dive to combat the Spitfires better turning.


That would mean that you would have to actually use vertical maneuvering where the Fw 190 uses its superior Zoom climb (a turn) and uses an acceleration advantage in a dive (after another turn) to combat the Spitfires better turning. You would have to be able to do that instead of just making passes at slower and lower Spitfires and then extending away from those Spitfires while those Spitfire turn with someone else (the Spitfire didn't follow the run part of your hit and run) and then you return, later, to make another pass - later on in the day. Hit and run.

If you actually did say that you did use vertical tactics, and you actually could use vertical tactics, then, you could use the Fw190's superior dive acceleration and superior pull out into a zoom climb against a Spitfire in a long drawn out engagement. Then you would actually be able to do that in the game and then when asked to provide a track file, well, you would be ready and willing to provide one because you can actually do what you say you can do.

If you don't actually say you can use vertical maneuvering in the game then you won't be fabricating stories about it - if you can't actually use vertically maneuvering tactics in the game actually.

Anyone flying any plane can use hit and run tactics. I can use hit and run tactics with a B-25 against LA-7s. Hell the B-25 probably has a lower corner speed than the FW190A-8.

Two things have to happen:

1. The LA-7 doesn't see me coming
2. The LA-7 doesn't follow me.

That is hit and run tactics.

Two things destroy hit and run tactics:

1. The victim sees the attack and avoids it.
2. The victim follows

If the Spitfire VB (1941) sees the attack coming, then, it avoids the attack. I see no problem here unless the Fw190 goes for the head-on shot. The Spitfire VB (1941) pilot can then have the same head-on shot. Both pilots lose.

That is why a mock combat match does not include a hot merge.

If the Fw190 passes after the merge and the Spitfire VB (1941) pilot follows, then, the Fw190 loses.

End of game.

If you claim that the Fw 190A-4 can gain energy on the Spitfire VB (1941) then prove it.

It can't - not in the last patch. The Spitfire follows at best climb speed and there is nothing the Fw190A-4 can do but go away and look for a sleepy Spitfire VB (1941).

If the so called "Match" is such that a DWEEB in the Spitfire follows the Fw190A-4 at the Fw190A-4s highest climb speed, then, the DWEEB will slowly lose a margin of energy since the Spitfire VB (1941) will hit the drag wall and not be able to climb at all at that speed.

Even so...the moment the Fw190A-4 tries to turn around it will lose all the energy it gained and the next merge will favor the Spitfire VB (1941).

If the so called "Match" is such that the NOOB DWEEB in the Spitfire follows the Fw190A-4 in a dive, then, the Fw190A-4 will gain an energy advantage again as the Spitfire VB (1941) hits the drag wall and stops accelerating.

If the Fw190 continues accelerating until it too hits the drag wall, then, the Fw190 pilot can try his famous Zoom climb advantage from a much higher speed.

The Spitfire NOOB DWEEB cuts the corner and nails the Fw190A-4 idiot trying to use the famous zoom climb advantage.

On the other hand:

If the separation during the RUN part of the hit and run is extensive - where the Fw190A-4 guy runs away in a dive from the Spitfire VB (1941) and the Spitfire VB (1941) follows in a dive, when this run thing extends for half an hour, then, the Fw190A-4 guy is off the Map and he can Zoom climb happily without incident and set-up another head-on merge.

Had the Spitfire dude followed at best climb rather than follow the running Fw190 dude in high speed climb or dive, then, the running Fw190 dude could run for that half hour and who cares? Not me if I'm flying the Spitfire VB (1941).

When the Fw190 returns it will be much lower than the Spitfire and easy meat if the Fw190 is foolish enough to take on a higher Spitfire.

I can see the poor bastard trying to get up to my altitude. It will run away or get shot down.

So...the new patch is new.

I'm anxious to do some testing.

Xiolablu3
01-26-2007, 04:58 PM
EDIT: Never mind, you edited, so I will too.

Bed time nn all.

gkll
01-27-2007, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

When the Fw190 returns it will be much lower than the Spitfire and easy meat if the Fw190 is foolish enough to take on a higher Spitfire.
.

Isn't this just because the separation is attained in different manners? The 190 by horizontal separation the spit by vertical, via low speed sustained climb? However the 190 must spend the e used in horizontal separation if he wishes to renew the fight.

Two 190s and the spit is doomed, no low speed climbs then? However two spits and a single 190 and you have a standoff... I know, Im the dead spit more times than I can think.

gkll
01-27-2007, 12:37 AM
Josf I have followed a lot of your posts on this topic. It would clarify, for me, your thinking on this issue ('190s vs Spits the game is wrong', close enough?)if you described what you feel the 190 should be able to do, against a spit, that it cannot ingame. Under the following scenario:

Co e see each other from 5 k out. The Spit driver turns towards the 190. Then he bores in co-altitude looking for a lead turn on the pass, no headshot...

What should happen, and how does this differ from what happens in game? What would your tactics be?

The insight I might gain is mine however, so ignore this if that sounds a lousy deal

BfHeFwMe
01-27-2007, 01:47 AM
http://www.gamerevolution.com/oldsite/chatter/mailbag/fighting%20dogs.jpg
http://staffyrescue.org.au/images/Staffy2.jpg

B0lloX
01-27-2007, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
...

I think the topic title is ridiculous. A fighter pilot in WWII embroiled in a dog fight was not embroiled in a myth. The term Dog Fight has a specific meaning that may not have the same meaning to a WWII fighter pilot with hundreds of hours of combat experience as the player of a game interprets the meaning of the term.

The topic title could read: My myth of the dogfight.

If you construct a myth concerning the dogfight, then, you have one. Own it.



Ah, I see the chap who's here to learn is back. Marvelous to see you, and good first post in this thread.

B0llox

[edit] and I see Hammy has put my post count back to 1...I'm new here. How do you fly the Spitfire? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-27-2007, 04:17 AM
If the hit is made at a high delta-V by an oblique approach with the shot made from an off
angle and the run made across and behind the targets tail then there ain't much chance that
the target is gonna follow. All three elements, not one or two or switch it around must be
present. That's historic btw, as written by a guy that got over 300 kills.

Hit and run set up so the target can possibly follow even if missed is straw men for losers.

JG14_Josf
01-27-2007, 05:33 AM
Co e see each other from 5 k out. The Spit driver turns towards the 190. Then he bores in co-altitude looking for a lead turn on the pass, no headshot...

gkll,

The question you ask can be answered in game for the game.

The question you ask was answered for the real planes in history.

We can answer the question in the game; again and again.

In history the planes answered the question again and again.

I just wanted to get that clear because I do have control over the game question while I have no control over the real combat question; however the people who did answer the real combat question left clues that may or may not allow us to answer that question accurately.

I think your question is flawed.

A lead turn assumes that the opponent will act in a certain manner.

You can perform a perfect lead turn on a non-maneuvering target such as a level bomber flying straight and level. From any angle off the bombers nose or from any relative closure speed the lead turn on the bomber can be started from the opposite direction while maintaining one turn radius of lateral separation before the early' turn and after the early lead' turn the fighter is exactly in optimum guns range right behind the level bomber (without a rear gunner). The bomber doesn't change heading so the calculations concerning turn radius (according to current speed) and timing are constant.

That is an ideal lead turn used ideally.

Two fighter planes cannot perform lead turns against each other and therefore the tactician must base his tactics on the actions of the target. Your question can be answered from a perspective where the Fw190 tries a lead turn earlier than you. Then it is a rapid decrease in angle off the nose for both planes resulting in a head-on collision.

Do you see how your question is flawed for the purpose intended?

Without knowing which plane has the lower corner velocity the answer to which plane would win in a lead turn against lead turn fight is unanswerable. It can be answered in the game. It can be theoretically answered for WWII planes if turn performance is accurately known.


What must also be known, for your question, is the relative speed at the time of the fight. I mean when both fighters know there is a fight on, then, what is the speed of both fighters, the relative altitude of both fighters, and the distance of separation of both fighters. A fight starting at very slow speed is going to be very different from a fight starting at very high speed.

It is more reasonable to ask your question from a cold merge situation rather than pre-suppose conditions after the cold merge.

Like this:

What happens when a fight is on when two planes pass each other head-on at the same speed and the same altitude where both planes are heading in opposite directions right after the merge.

Here again the question of relative speed will drastically change the scenario.

So the question that does not pre-suppose any prior maneuvering and sets the question up as a match of tactics used against relative performance capabilities from a neutral or even co-energy state is this:

What happens right after a cold merge when two planes are level, side by side, in opposite directions at the median corner speed of the two planes?

That would be a fair question.

I will try to answer your question instead:

gkll asks:

It would clarify, for me, your thinking on this issue ('190s vs Spits the game is wrong', close enough?)if you described what you feel the 190 should be able to do, against a spit, that it cannot ingame. Under the following scenario:

Co e see each other from 5 k out. The Spit driver turns towards the 190. Then he bores in co-altitude looking for a lead turn on the pass, no headshot...

If I am the Spit driver in reality (not in the game):

If the 190 driver allows the lead turn, then, I continue the lead turn and nail the 190 as my lead turn sets me up right behind the 190. I shoot down the 190.

If I am the Fw190 driver in reality (not in the game):

After the merge and while the Spit is turning I gauge his angular gains and adjust the g and speed of my turn at corner or vertical maneuvering speed (whichever is higher) with pitch changes (nose high or low) according to those angular gains gained by the Spitfire driver.

If the Spit makes up angles very quickly (burning energy fast), then, I drop the nose and increase g load while maintaining corner or vertical maneuvering speed (which ever is higher). In other words I do a low yo yo.

If on the other hand the Spitfire is not going for the lead turn, or passing shot, then, I relax the g load and maintain a level turn at corner or vertical maneuvering speed (whichever is higher) and watch the Spitfire driver on the other side of the turn radius.

Since the question asks about a Spit driver going for the lead turn (burning energy in a turn to set up one turn radius of lateral separation on the next merge), then, I perform my low yo-yo and increase g at corner speed or vertical maneuvering speed by lowering the nose in the turn (burn altitude for turn performance).

The Spit driver is making up angles quickly (he turns more than 180 and I have yet to turn 180 degrees to arrive back at a head-on merge).

I drop my nose as needed to pull the required g (turning a faster rate and smaller turn radius at corner or vertical maneuvering speed) to steadily increase the rate of angular gains required by the Spit driver to perform his lead turn (or get a passing shot).

In geometry this looks like him making a quick constant radius turn at first and then a relaxing radius as he sets up his lead turn or passing shot (in this case you already say that you are trying to set up a lead turn). While, in geometry, the Spit has turned hard and fast early and while I allowed his quick angular gains my turn was wide and steady until the Spit's gains in angles caused me to begin scribing a steadily decreasing radius turn (nose low). So geometrically the Spitfire is easing his turn to set up the lead turn requirements while I am now burning altitude (not speed) to increase my turn rate and decrease my turn radius. I am now defeating the lead turn or passing shot (in this case I am defeating the lead turn). I am flying just ahead of the Spit drivers turn. This may be hard to imagine. It works. My objective (once it is obvious the Spit driver is going for the lead turn) is to remove all lateral separation and pass the Spit as close as possible on the second merge. It goes like this: give up angles first let the Spitfire into the rear hemisphere first then turn enough to maintain the Spitfire in profile (out on the wing 90 degrees off), then increase turn to spoil any shot by the Spitfire by rapidly decreasing angle off the nose (get your nose to his nose in a nose low turn if speed is dropping under vertical maneuvering speed or a nose high turn if speed is burning lower than vertical maneuvering speed or corner speed whichever is higher). What usually happens when the Spit driver is eager is a passing shot where his bullets go wide.

Had the Spit driver gone for the passing shot instead of trying to set up a lead turn, then, I would have to increase my g sooner which would cause the angular gains required by the Spit driver to pull lead for the passing shot to increase more rapidly. I would go more nose low to increase g more and I may have to drop below vertical maneuvering and corner if my judgment was bad (in the game I usually leave a little cushion in speed above vertical maneuvering speed).

To say what would happen next requires more information concerning what already happened.

What I would expect in reality from a Spitfire that turns more angles sooner (210 degrees for the Fw190s 150 degrees) is a lower energy state Spitfire and a higher energy state Fw 190 because the Spitfire uses up more energy turning hard (at first which lowers his energy at first and on into the engagement his energy is lower) the Spitfire tries to set up a second merge quickly while the Fw 190 energy fighter allows those angular gains while utilizing the Sustained Turn Technique as described by Robert Shaw and maintain energy until energy can be used geometrically at the right time.

I would expect that the second merge set-up in this manner would favor a nose high pull up into the vertical for the Fw 190 who maintained vertical maneuvering speed while the Spitfire did not in reality.

However that advantage in vertical maneuvering capability may not be enough after the second merge, in reality, after the Sustained Turn Technique low yo-yo to offer a significant enough advantage for an end game shot for the Fw 190 in a vertical maneuver after that second merge.

One more try?

Set up the same turn to see if the Spit driver still wants to burn energy.

After the second merge go into a nose low extension with just enough turn to keep an eye on the Spit driver or utilize an unloaded acceleration advantage first if you are confident in what the Spit driver is doing without having to see him all the time.

If the Spit driver is turning hard again for maximum angular gains in minimum time, then, almost match his turn again with nose low turns at or above vertical maneuvering speed. Let him turn more and burn more first while you burn less first and maintain energy longer.

Let the Spitfire burn up energy and gain 230 degrees for your 130 degrees before rolling over into a nose low lead turn on the Spitfire.

This forces the Spitfire to go nose low for his lead turn (or passing shot).

When done right the Spitfire is heading down and turning very hard with vapor trails showing while you are turning at corner speed near black out going up. His shots go wide.

The idea is to decrease your turn radius as the Spitfire bears in and time your turn to minimize range at the merge and pass just ahead of the Spitfire's guns (again the decreasing radius turn stays ahead of the Spitfires angular requirements).

Now the Fw 190 is pointing straight up.

The Spitfire is pointing straight down.

The Fw 190 is faster and decelerating.

The Spitfire is slower and perhaps fighting stall or black out all the way around his turn from straight down to up.

The Fw 190 driver unloads in a straight up vertical zoom climb while rolling (not quite straight up as it is better to pitch back from the direction you came and require the Spitfire to turn even more for the shot on you).

Roll the Fw 190 to keep the Spitfire in view.

If the Spitfire dives away, then, chase it.

If the Spitfire tries to match your zoom climb, then, the Spit must turn more than 180 degrees for your 120 degrees of zoom climb turn. It should stall first, in reality, and the Fw 190 should stall just a little later or not have to stall, rather, roll inverted and use gravity to help turn down into the stalled out Spitfire who tried to use his plane in vertical maneuvering where the Fw 190 is king and the Spitfire is not.

How did I do?

B0lloX
01-27-2007, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:


You can perform a perfect lead turn on a non-maneuvering target such as a level bomber flying straight and level. From any angle off the bombers nose or from any relative closure speed the lead turn on the bomber can be started from the opposite direction while maintaining one turn radius of lateral separation before the early' turn and after the early lead' turn the fighter is exactly in optimum guns range right behind the level bomber (without a rear gunner). The bomber doesn't change heading so the calculations concerning turn radius (according to current speed) and timing are constant.

That is an ideal lead turn used ideally.



A lead turn puts your flight vector in front of the target. If you continue to lead-turn as you close on the target, you either crash into it or end up in FRONT of it.

A lag turn puts your flight vector behind the target. What you have described is a lag turn.

B0llox

JG14_Josf
01-27-2007, 07:06 AM
B0llox

I have described an 'early' turn or 'lead' turn.

It is a manuever.

It is described in detail in Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw.


A lead turn puts your flight vector in front of the target. If you continue to lead-turn as you close on the target, you either crash into it or end up in FRONT of it.

If you lead your target in a turn, then, you are said to be in "lead pursuit".

If you lag your target in a turn, then, you are in lag pursuit.

Pure pursuit is when you aim your flight vector at the target.

Lead pursuit closes range.

Lag pursuit increases range.

Pure pursuit maintains range.

An early turn' or lead turn' is a maneuver.

If you don't know this, then, you don't know it. Why blame me for your ignorance?

Polyperhon
01-27-2007, 07:26 AM
If you claim that the Fw 190A-4 can gain energy on the Spitfire VB (1941) then prove it.

Apparently we are participating in a different game.
If a problem had the Spit Vb was the fact that its turning approach would require an endless burning of energy.But is not that powerful in comparison with the Fw 190 and more over loses a lot of speed because its big wing acts like a airbrake in turns.
The Fw 190 can accelerate harder,dive faster and more crucially, rolls faster.A spitfire Vd if tries to turn more tight than the Fw 190 loses so much energy that if fails to go to a shooting position is in real danger.In a few words, this much-rapped turning ability could be put into good use only in the hands of experienced pilots.
These are my impressions from what I learned from the IL-2 in ALL of its versions, and guess what a surpise,they descibe pretty well what happened to RAF when Fw190 appeared in 1941.What you described in your last post fits more into a Spit vs Bf 109 dogfight.Bf 109 was the one that really was excellant in the vertical and not the Fw 190. Bf 109 would do a very high speed yoyo which will change all the sequence of the events that you wrote in your last post. Actually I confirm by my own experience that when I tried to "fly" the Fw 190 in a similar manner, a Bf 109 manner which I am the most efficient,and very often I got hit.I realized that these planes needed a very different approach, which explains why germans pilots very often didn't like to jump from one type to another (after the introduction of Fw 190D some Bf 109 pilots found their way to it, but remember,in the beginning a lot of Fw 190A didn't like the D version and Kurt Tank himself had to go in combat units and show them in the air the advantages of the "Dora", which says something)

At the end what IL-2 confirms is history:Spit IX makes more difference than a just more powerful engine would suggest. Fw 190 grew heavier and its advantage was almost entirely lost, even if it was a not a easy plane to shot down until the end of the war.


At the end I am annoyed by the favoritism that goes for the Spitfire in this topic...like the one I previously encountered for the P-51 in an earlier topic.I am annoyed by the fact that people they cannot get trough the fact that the plane that they are most efficient is not necessary the best one.

fighter_966
01-27-2007, 07:44 AM
They didnt give order to Spitfire V pilots to fly full throttle in combat Zone for nothing when Fw190 appeared. Spit ix corrected situation again to equal source ww2 history

JG14_Josf
01-27-2007, 08:11 AM
Bf 109 was the one that really was excellant in the vertical and not the Fw 190.

That is opinion.

Here is opinion:


(3) After the war the British fighter pilot Johnnie Johnson wrote about the merits of the Focke-Wulf 190.

The Focke-Wulf 190 was undoubtedly, the best German fighter. We were puzzled by the unfamiliar silhouette, for these new German fighters seemed to have squarer wingtips and more tapering fuselages than the Messerschmitts we usually encountered. We saw that the new aircraft had radial engines and a mixed armament of cannons and machine-guns, all firing from wing positions.

Whatever these strange fighters were, they gave us a hard time of it. They seemed to be faster in a zoom climb than the Me 109, and far more stable in a vertical dive. They also turned better. The first time we saw them we all had our work cut out to shake them off, and we lost several pilots.

Back at our fighter base and encouraged by our enthusiastic Intelligence Officers, we drew sketches and side views of this strange new aeroplane. We were all agreed that it was superior to the Me 109f and completely outclassed our Spitfire Vs. Our sketches disappeared into mysterious Intelligence channels and we heard no more of the matter,. But from then on, fighter pilots continually reported increasing numbers of these outstanding fighters over northern France.


Opinion (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWfocke190.htm)

Whose opinion should I value more?

Your opinion is opposite the other opinion.

Let me know.

Whose opinion whould I value more?

B0lloX
01-27-2007, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

If you don't know this, then, you don't know it. Why blame me for your ignorance?

Blame? Blame you? Blame you for an affliction I don't suffer from, but that you plainly do? That would be unfair of me. Like kicking a cripple.

Luckily, I said nothing about blame. For some reason, you did that. More absinth over here please, waiter. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

For the rest, you seem to be saying you've described something different, then you go on to agree with me, then you say I'm ignorant, and then you get to the bit about blame.

You are clearly off your nut.

B0lloX

JG14_Josf
01-27-2007, 08:19 AM
What you have described is a lag turn.

BOLLox,

You are clearly trying to insult me.

I may be a nut case. That may be factual. You are clearly trying to insult me. How would you like it if I called you stupid ***?

The moderator can ban both of us. It's only fair.

You do not understand the lead turn, otherwise, you would not have said this:


What you have described is a lag turn.

I, me, the nut case (according to you) described a lead turn' and NOT a lag turn.

You do not understand therefore you are ignorant concerning that understanding.

If you continue to pretend not to understand, then, you could be viewed as a stupid ***. I'm not saying that you are a stupid ***. I don't want to be thrown off this site for saying that you are a stupid ***.

If the shoe fits; however then I'll wear the shoe.

NP

B0lloX
01-27-2007, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What you have described is a lag turn.

BOLLox,

You are clearly trying to insult me.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have a thin skin if you think disagreeing with you is an insult.

If wanted to insult you, I'd say you are a f**king idiot or something.

If I disagree with you, I'm disagreeing with you, to use your idiom. If you think that's an insult then you need to get another hobby or drop the attitude.

B0lloX

Polyperhon
01-27-2007, 08:28 AM
vertical climb my friend, vertical climb and not vertical dive.Bf 109 was the best fighter of the war in this matter.Your answer shows that you haven't really studied a lot of planes in depth (apart from the spit).

JG14_Josf
01-27-2007, 08:38 AM
vertical climb my friend, vertical climb and not vertical dive.Bf 109 was the best fighter of the war in this matter.Your answer shows that you haven't really studied a lot of planes in depth (apart from the spit).

Polyperhon,

So your answer is that I should rate your opinion over this one:


(3) After the war the British fighter pilot Johnnie Johnson wrote about the merits of the Focke-Wulf 190.

The Focke-Wulf 190 was undoubtedly, the best German fighter. We were puzzled by the unfamiliar silhouette, for these new German fighters seemed to have squarer wingtips and more tapering fuselages than the Messerschmitts we usually encountered. We saw that the new aircraft had radial engines and a mixed armament of cannons and machine-guns, all firing from wing positions.

Whatever these strange fighters were, they gave us a hard time of it. They seemed to be faster in a zoom climb than the Me 109, and far more stable in a vertical dive. They also turned better. The first time we saw them we all had our work cut out to shake them off, and we lost several pilots.

Back at our fighter base and encouraged by our enthusiastic Intelligence Officers, we drew sketches and side views of this strange new aeroplane. We were all agreed that it was superior to the Me 109f and completely outclassed our Spitfire Vs. Our sketches disappeared into mysterious Intelligence channels and we heard no more of the matter,. But from then on, fighter pilots continually reported increasing numbers of these outstanding fighters over northern France.

This:


They seemed to be faster in a zoom climb than the Me 109

Is not as good as this:


vertical climb my friend, vertical climb and not vertical dive.Bf 109 was the best fighter of the war in this matter

B0lloX
01-27-2007, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You have a thin skin if you think disagreeing with you is an insult.

I am not insulted. You can call me a nut case.

Calling me a nut case is clearly trying to insult me. OH...are you saying, honestly, that your nut case comment was an intent to compliment me or were you merely suggesting, in a friendly manner, that I may need professional help - for my own good perhaps?

The lead turn is a maneuver. I described it. I did not describe a lag turn.

You remain ignorant concerning that fact. No need to boil up and start calling me a nut case is there? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's just turn that argument around, shall we?

Do you seriously expect me to believe that you didn't intend to insult me with your "Why blame me for your ignorance?" comment? Hmm? Really, Mr My-Farts-Don't-Stink?

That's right, it doesn't hold water. As I said, you need an attitude adjustment or a new hobby.

B0lloX

JG14_Josf
01-27-2007, 09:39 AM
BolloX,

Why have arguments at all?

Why not discuss to the topic.

If the description given for a lead turn is inaccurate, then, make it more accurate.

You wrote:


A lead turn puts your flight vector in front of the target. If you continue to lead-turn as you close on the target, you either crash into it or end up in FRONT of it.

A lag turn puts your flight vector behind the target. What you have described is a lag turn.

What exactly was described as a lag turn?

My quote?

This:


You can perform a perfect lead turn on a non-maneuvering target such as a level bomber flying straight and level. From any angle off the bombers nose or from any relative closure speed the lead turn on the bomber can be started from the opposite direction while maintaining one turn radius of lateral separation before the early' turn and after the early lead' turn the fighter is exactly in optimum guns range right behind the level bomber (without a rear gunner). The bomber doesn't change heading so the calculations concerning turn radius (according to current speed) and timing are constant.

That is an ideal lead turn used ideally.


How is that a lag turn?

Have you done a lead turn?

Do you know what is meant by the term: Lead turn?

Leave me out and I'll leave you out of the discussion entirely.

What is a lead turn?

This:


A lead turn puts your flight vector in front of the target. If you continue to lead-turn as you close on the target, you either crash into it or end up in FRONT of it.

A lag turn puts your flight vector behind the target.

If that is YOUR definition of a lead turn, then, that is YOUR definition of a lead turn.

Why add this:


What you have described is a lag turn.


I did not.

And that is quite clear. I did not describe a lag turn.

If you describe a lag turn, then, you describe a lag turn in YOUR way.

I described, in my own words, a lead turn. That lead turn description, in my words, is the same description, in other words, as Robert Shaw's description of a lead turn. I am confident of this despite not having my copy of Fighter Combat for years (it is at my brother's house).

The lead turn is an "early turn".

Why do this:


What you have described is a lag turn.


Why?

Why must you correct my description as if my description is wrong, when, it is not wrong?

Or

If my description of a lead turn is wrong, then, offer a better one.

This:


A lead turn puts your flight vector in front of the target. If you continue to lead-turn as you close on the target, you either crash into it or end up in FRONT of it.

A lag turn puts your flight vector behind the target.

That is very good. Thanks. You describe pursuit curves. What does that have to do with my description of a "lead turn" maneuver?

Why does my description of a "lead turn" maneuver turn into me being wrong about your definition of pursuit curves?

Like this:


What you have described is a lag turn.


Could it be that you are right and I am wrong?

Why?

Why not simply find an agreeable definition of a lead turn?

If you want to describe a pursuit curve that points the velocity vector ahead of the target and call that a lead turn, then, I agree. You have accomplished your task.

I described an early turn angles tactic maneuver called a lead turn. The lead turn is a part of the fundamental understanding of angles tactics that can be incorporated into much of the fighter tactics and maneuvering concept. This is all part of the 3D situational awareness and geometrical understanding of dog fighting. I try to communicate these things and this understanding, in part, because this is how I learn. In part because this is how I return what I have learned.

You can criticize all you want and even call me names. That is fine until the moderator steps in with a shot gun when, in my opinion, he should be using a 7mm Remington with a scope. The moderator, like Stalin, wipes out everyone. So the practice of banter, insults, well meaning, or just plain meanness, becomes a **** shoot a flame war inviting a tsunami.

Let's play with fire.

Why not simply discuss the topic?

Why blame each other for confusion concerning things that we ourselves do not quite understand in the context of the author's mind?

If you have a concept of a lead turn, then, by all means express your concept.

I have mine. It is a maneuver.

It is a maneuver that can be very effective against someone who does not understand what is happening.
The lead turn can be the source of much confusion concerning relative game modeling.

My guess is that gkll understands this perfectly otherwise he would not have set-up his question in the manner that he did.

I got the impression that gkll knows exactly what I am trying to communicate.

I am often wrong. It doesn't do me any good however to guess about right or wrong. What if I am wrong?

I may be a nut case. So what?

What does that have to do with a lead turn or the topic?

Polyperhon
01-27-2007, 09:39 AM
I was referring to VERTICAL climb and not a zoom that can be e.g a zoom of 60 degrees.Because of its more powerful engine,Fw 190 would zoom faster up to certain angle but it would drop its nose on a VERTICAL climb.Note that this is usual to radial fighters in comparison with in-line ones:Much the same applies for the F4U, which was very fast on zoom climb but would drop its wings violently in a VERTICAL climb.
For God's shake,I wonder why you dogfight with other people here...we are just changing opiniions,this is what I think I am doing,not trying to "shoot down" other people's opinion.

B0lloX
01-27-2007, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:


Why not discuss to the topic.



Because you canned the topic with your very first post in this thread. You wrote

"I think the topic title is ridiculous. A fighter pilot in WWII embroiled in a dog fight was not embroiled in a myth. The term Dog Fight has a specific meaning that may not have the same meaning to a WWII fighter pilot with hundreds of hours of combat experience as the player of a game interprets the meaning of the term.

The topic title could read: My myth of the dogfight.

If you construct a myth concerning the dogfight, then, you have one."

Ridiculous. So, the ace of aces, Erich Hartmann is ridiculous, too? He regarded dogfighting as the most dangerous way score a victory.

This is also what I was referring to by your bad attitude. You showed up in the thread and immediately say the title is ridiculous, and go on to say the thread starter has the myth in his own head and should just own up to it.

Smooth opening, man.

Then you have the front to complain about perceived insults!

The topic is whether the sustained manoeuvring fight (ie the dogfight) was as prevalent as some seem to think. It's not about energy fighting or whether the Spitfire is too good or the Focke Wulf too bad. These seem to be your monomanias, but they're not the topic in the thread title.

So yes, why not discuss the topic?

B0lloX

JG14_Josf
01-27-2007, 10:24 AM
Your answer shows that you haven't really studied a lot of planes in depth (apart from the spit).

Polyperhon,

You may be right. I may not have really studied as much as you. I'm inferior. Therefore I should take your opinion over Johnnie Johnson's opinion as I try to study relative performance and catch up to your level.

Someday I may be at the current level of knowledge that you are at now while you continue to be ever more superior to me.

How am I doing?

Why not leave me out?

What about vertical maneuvering?

Why is your opinion opposite that of Johnnie Johnson's?

Is there a simple misunderstanding concerning the term Vertical Maneuvering?

I already wrote my understanding of the concept.

Like this:

Sustained Turn Technique
Low yo yo
Try to get the opponent to turn hard
Zoom climb in the vertical (almost straight up or straight up enough to set-up a stall and gravity assisted turn)
Perhaps even set up a vertical dive before the zoom climb

Zoom climb: Vertical maneuver employing rapid acceleration on the lift vector pointing away from the gravity vector to set up a stalling turn in a rope a dope type bet the farm' energy tactic maneuver.

What is your version of vertical maneuver or zoom climb?

Zoom climb = Vertical maneuver going up = after Zoom turn climb part use an unloaded deceleration after the rapid acceleration on the lift vector part = Vertical maneuver going down = split S and dive = unloaded rapid acceleration after the split S and dive where, first, the plane accelerates rapidly on the roll axis and almost at the same time the plane accelerates rapidly on the lift vector pointing down with the gravity vector, then, unloading induced drag to increase rapid acceleration going down in a vertical maneuver trying to rapidly reach corner speed or vertical maneuvering speed which ever is higher.

Like this:


Decidedly the most impressive feature of the German fighter was its beautifully light ailerons and its extremely high rate of roll. Incredible aileron turns were possible that would have torn the wings from a Bf 109 and badly strained the arm muscles of any Spitfire pilot trying to follow.

Eric Brown was no Jonnie Johnson of course; however Eric Brown did test fly the Fw190. Perhaps Johnnie Johnson did too. Both pilots flew combat missions in WWII. Johnson flew combat missions against the Fw 190 and the Me 109. If I'm not mistaken Johnson shot down a few. I don't think Brown shot down as many. I can be wrong.

Who is right?

How about finding out what is more accurate?

It seems that the Fw190 did, in fact, maneuver in the vertical better than the contemporary Spitfire and the contemporary 109, at least, according to these sources and at least at that time during the war i.e. Summer 1942.

There are more sources.

Please do provide evidence supporting this:


I was referring to VERTICAL climb and not a zoom that can be e.g a zoom of 60 degrees.Because of its more powerful engine,Fw 190 would zoom faster up to certain angle but it would drop its nose on a VERTICAL climb.Note that this is usual to radial fighters in comparison with in-line ones:Much the same applies for the F4U, which was very fast on zoom climb but would drop its wings violently in a VERTICAL climb.

That is difficult for me to understand.

This is easy for me to understand:


'The AFDE trials confirmed what the RAF already knew - that the Fw190 was a truly outstanding combat aircraft. They also produced vitally important information which went some way toward restoring the situation in so far as the RAF was concerned and in eradicating something of the awe in which the Focke-Wulf had come to be held by Allied pilots. It was concluded that the Fw190 trying to "mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - even below the German fighter's stalling speed - it would be out- turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on the Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up an down was usually the recipient of only difficult deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "Sinking"
Arnim Faber's Fw190A-3 was thoroughly wring out and dispelled the mystique with which Focke-Wulf had been surrounded during the first year of its operational career; the fortuitous acquisition of this one warplane probably saving the lives of countless RAF pilots. But familiarity certainly did not breed contempt, for although conversant with both attributes and shortcomings of the fighter, we were equally conversant with the fact that it had to be treated with the utmost respect as an antagonist, despite its awesome reputation by now having been placed in perspective.

Like this:


This description by Hans Dortenmann makes clear how intensively 12. Staffel prepared for further airfield protection missions during the period of bad weather. The inexperienced pilots did their best to put into practice the suggestions and rules imparted to them by their experienced Staffel-kapitan. Not everyone embraced this intensity to the same degree, as the following account illustrates. Herman Rathje, a former member of 12./JG 54, recalled the following incident involving Staffel mate Ofw. Leo Klatt:

It also happened at this time that my friend "Leo" got himself a broomstick and, sitting on a stool, simulated evasive maneuvers. Half roll and dive, increase speed, fighter turn, vertical climb to more than 2,000 m and try hard to get on the enemy's tail. When I laughed at this he said: "If you continue to take your life so philosophically you won't be doing it in this outfit much longer!"

If I were "Leo" I would make comments like this:

Half roll and dive
increase speed and push forward on the stick to unload the induced drag
fighter turn (zoom climb) at corner speed or vertical maneuvering speed whichever is higher - near black out
vertical climb almost straight up unloaded by pushing the stick slight forward
to more than 2,000 m (or whatever the game has modeled for that plane)
try hard to time the rudder kick or the pitch back just before stall to initiate rotation before departure
on the way down try hard to get on the enemy's tail, or, if the enemy is stalled out, then, shoot out the enemies engine, wing root, cockpit, or whatever is possible in this vertical dog fight maneuver where the Fw 190 is king (until the P-47 shows up).

Polyperhon
01-27-2007, 10:25 AM
I agree with BOlloX...Can we discuss the topic at last?
By the way, I am done for today...talk you later guys.

JG14_Josf
01-27-2007, 10:46 AM
BolloX asks:


Ridiculous. So, the ace of aces, Erich Hartmann is ridiculous, too?

Is that a rhetorical question meant to divert the topic away from the topic and try to suggest that JG14_Josf is saying things that are in direct contradiction to what Eric Hartmann has said?

Why not quote Eric Hartmann?

He spoke for himself. I can speak for myself. You can speak for yourself. If your definition of a DOG FIGHT is such that a DOG FIGHT is a myth, then, that will be you speaking for you. If you have another definition of DOG FIGHT, then, you have another definition of DOG FIGHT.

My guess is that Eric Hartmann defined DOG FIGHT a few times during his days DOG FIGHTING.

Ahhhh....

This is also what I was referring to by your bad attitude. You showed up in the thread and immediately say the title is ridiculous, and go on to say the thread starter has the myth in his own head and should just own up to it.

Smooth opening, man.

Then you have the front to complain about perceived insults!

I'm not smooth? I complain? There are no insults; only a false perception?

What about the topic?


The topic is whether the sustained manoeuvring fight (ie the dogfight) was as prevalent as some seem to think. It's not about energy fighting or whether the Spitfire is too good or the Focke Wulf too bad. These seem to be your monomanias, but they're not the topic in the thread title.

So yes, why not discuss the topic?

What is a monomania?

Are you complaining?


The topic is whether the sustained manoeuvring fight (ie the dogfight) was as prevalent as some seem to think.
So yes, why not discuss the topic?

You define DOG FIGHT as sustained maneuvering fight'?

I think your definition tends to create a myopic and superficial myth.

I'm not complaining. It appears to me as if your version of DOG FIGHT is a myopic and superficial myth type of definition.

Let me help with that:

Myopic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myopic)


3. lacking tolerance or understanding; narrow-minded.


superficial (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/superficial)


6. apparent rather than real.


or


4. concerned with or comprehending only what is on the surface or obvious: a superficial observer.


I'm not trying to insult. I am trying to communicate accurately i.e. open minded, tolerant, concerned with comprehending what may not be obvious or readily apparent.

I must admit; however - that I am only human.

B0lloX
01-27-2007, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I'm not trying to insult.


No, you do it so effortlessly. No need to try. Myopic and superficial, huh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I am trying to communicate accurately i.e. open minded, tolerant, concerned with comprehending what may not be obvious or readily apparent.


I've not seen any evidence of tolerance or an open mind from you, JG14_Josf. Rather the opposit. You seem to me like an insecure little boy, so fond of your opinions that you see any disagreement with you as a personal attack. That and a lot of pages of w@nk.



Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I'm not trying to insult.

I'm glad you cleared that up. Until you'd explained that for me, I'd just thought you were a kunt. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif No worries then.

B0lloX

JG14_Josf
01-27-2007, 11:54 AM
You define DOG FIGHT as sustained maneuvering fight'?

BOlloX,

All kind words bantered about aside (complete with the obligatory smiley faces) there is this discussion to consider.

Do you define DOG FIGHT as sustained maneuvering fight'?

I am curious since; such a definition appears to leave out the maneuvering fight that is not sustained like the vertical maneuvering fights. It appears as if, perhaps, your definition of Dog Fight limits the concept to horizontal maneuvering.

I'm asking.

Do you define DOG FIGHT as sustained maneuvering fight'?

B0lloX
01-27-2007, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

I'm asking.

Do you define DOG FIGHT as sustained maneuvering fight'?

No, real communication doesn't work like that. If what you're interested in is real communication, you wouldn't set up straw men and demand that I knock them down. That's a debating trick. For masturbators.

Why ever would vertical manoeuvring be less sustainable than horizontal? Rather the other way around. The basis of your straw-man question is preposterous.

B0lloX

gkll
01-27-2007, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
.....
How did I do?

Hi there... I will mull over the scenarios you present and <may> post back later. Things to do right now, cya

My experience ingame has been that you need a lot of smash to defeat a lead turn if the opponent is an angles fighter and has fair smash himself, I had in mind a merge speed of say 400-450 for the spit and 450 to 500 for the 190, I am assuming here they were coe initially but that the 190 has somewhat better high speed acceleration. So both can happily go for a nose high merge. Later.

JG14_Josf
01-27-2007, 12:53 PM
Why ever would vertical manoeuvring be less sustainable than horizontal?

BOLLoX,

When pulling unsustainable g force the fight is no longer sustainable such as a fight where the energy fighter uses the Sustained Turn Technique or any vertical maneuver end game that lures the angles fighter into burning more energy, faster, and then the energy fighter goes vertically up with a gravity assisted turn at the top of the zoom climb. That type of vertical fight is unsustainable. The winner burns less energy the loser burns more energy.

It is OK from my view if you go on thinking that Dog Fighting is limited to only sustained maneuvering.

If you were to elaborate on your definition of sustained maneuvering' (your words), then, anyone could know what you mean by that term.

This:


The topic is whether the sustained manoeuvring fight (ie the dogfight) was as prevalent as some seem to think.
So yes, why not discuss the topic?

I can't discuss the topic with you when your terms have no definition.

That is why I ask questions.

Is a dog fight limited to only sustained maneuvering?

What is sustained maneuvering'?

I can guess what you mean as you use your terms.

Does sustained maneuvering' mean: Sustaining Altitude?

Does dogfight' mean: Sustaining Altitude?

This is a puzzle:


The topic is whether the sustained manoeuvring fight (ie the dogfight) was as prevalent as some seem to think.
So yes, why not discuss the topic?

This:


sustained manoeuvring fight (ie the dogfight)
What, according to you, is the dogfight?

Is it a myth to propagate the perception that sustained maneuvering was prevalent?

Is it a myth to propagate the perception that the dogfight was prevalent?

Are those two questions the same question i.e. sustained maneuvering is the dogfight?

Is it wrong to point out that maneuvering that isn't sustainable (such as vertical maneuvering) can be perceived as dogfighting?

When I say vertical maneuvering' I mean high g split S turns followed by unloaded vertical dives followed by zoom climbs from dives at high speed and high g into vertical unloaded climbs followed by pitch back, hammerhead, or wingover gravity assisted turns followed by vertical unloaded dives that cannot sustain or gain altitude during the employment of these vertical maneuvers yet these vertical maneuvers remain effective as energy tactics in vertical maneuvering dogfights.

That is what I mean when I say vertical maneuvering'.

Your definition of vertical maneuvering' remains undefined as far as this discussion goes. I suppose I may have missed something. I got the kunt part. That term needs no definition.

JSG72
01-27-2007, 02:51 PM
Myth:

A widely held but false notion.

IMHO.

It is a widely held notion. Within the world populace that encounters between aircraft of warring factions would result in a dogfight.
And so many people took to Combat Flight siming. To realise this notion.
However it is a false notion. As the majority of encounters between opposing forces resulted in:

Swift death.

Ignorance of each others presence and nothing happened.

Or indeed the encounter would not be considered worth entering for fear of it leading into a dogfight. in which it would only be through the pilots skills with his own craft and his complete grasp of situational awareness that he would choose to enter combat.With a perceived outcome based on his own/companions skils

Pity. Many of the poor newbs who had to follow their leaders orders. into the boiling pot.

Any manouvre which will save your life within the presence of an attacking or defending enemy. could be used as part of a dogfight
It was a Good leader who would teach these green pilots these manouvres and allow them to be nurtured.

And within Combat missions
Choosing situations where they could be practiced. Commonly with good cover against a sitting duck.

Following the training guides within this Sim. give the new Sim flyer the basic understanding but combat manouvres are not fully explained.

Also IMHO

I think that the majority of Sim/realworld WW2 Flyers Thought dogfighting would be easy.
Only to find it is not infact the bestway to defeat an enemy.

It would only become highlighted when two or more Situationaly aware pilots decided to take each other on. and the results were either inconclusive with an (Private)acknowledgement on each others part.

Or resulted in the death of one.

These are the interesting ones we read of in memoires and Diaries.



And that to my mind is the dogfight MYTH!

B0lloX
01-27-2007, 07:31 PM
No, no, JG14_Josf. Not so fast.

You came back with the assertion that I must only be talking about horizontal fighting. When I asked you to explain why vertical fighting is "less sustainable than horizontal?" you came back with an answer that's no answer. You avoided the question.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why ever would vertical manoeuvring be less sustainable than horizontal?

BOLLoX,

When pulling unsustainable g force the fight is no longer sustainable </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And this situation can happen in the vertical or the horizontal. You've avoided the issue.



Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
such as a fight where the energy fighter uses the Sustained Turn Technique or any vertical maneuver end game that lures the angles fighter into burning more energy, faster, and then the energy fighter goes vertically up with a gravity assisted turn at the top of the zoom climb. That type of vertical fight is unsustainable. The winner burns less energy the loser burns more energy.

You still haven't said a word about why this is inherently less sustainable in the vertical than in the horizontal. All you've done is give an example that is unsustainable for one plane. Pull too hard in the horizontal and it's unsustainable, too.

You put a lot of words on the page, but you still avoided providing an explanation.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
It is OK from my view if you go on thinking that Dog Fighting is limited to only sustained maneuvering.

Thanks. That's big of you.

You've provided an example that doesn't address why you think vertical fighting is less sustainable than horizontal, and walked away as if you've demonstrated something. You haven't.



Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
If you were to elaborate on your definition of sustained maneuvering' (your words), then, anyone could know what you mean by that term.

My words mean what they mean. Use a dictionary.



Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
This:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The topic is whether the sustained manoeuvring fight (ie the dogfight) was as prevalent as some seem to think.
So yes, why not discuss the topic?

I can't discuss the topic with you when your terms have no definition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you just don't want to discuss the topic because you'd look silly after stomping into this thread in your big boots ("Ridiculous" and all that: remember?), only to be pwned again.



Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
That is why I ask questions.

Is a dog fight limited to only sustained maneuvering?

What is sustained maneuvering'?

No, you don't. You ask questions when you want to avoid a point that's already been made. You forget, I've read this thread and that 30 pager on the FW 190. I know what you're like.



Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I can guess what you mean as you use your terms.

Does sustained maneuvering' mean: Sustaining Altitude?

Does dogfight' mean: Sustaining Altitude?

"Sustaining Altitude". Where did you pluck that from? Very imaginative: seven out of ten.



Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
This is a puzzle:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The topic is whether the sustained manoeuvring fight (ie the dogfight) was as prevalent as some seem to think.
So yes, why not discuss the topic?

This:


sustained manoeuvring fight (ie the dogfight)
What, according to you, is the dogfight?

Is it a myth to propagate the perception that sustained maneuvering was prevalent?

Is it a myth to propagate the perception that the dogfight was prevalent?

Are those two questions the same question i.e. sustained maneuvering is the dogfight? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's not a puzzle. It's just a couple of quotes followed by some rhetorical questions. No puzzle there. Move on people, nothing to see here.



Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Is it wrong to point out that maneuvering that isn't sustainable (such as vertical maneuvering) can be perceived as dogfighting?

Now here you're acting as if you've demonstrated something as true, and then basing a rhetorical question on your false premise. Debator's tactic.

The phrase "...to point out that maneuvering that isn't sustainable (such as vertical maneuvering)..." implies that vertical fighting is inherently unsustainable. It might also be designed to give the impression you've demonstrated something to that effect. You haven't demonstrated anything like that. In fact, you avoided the question.

So when you put the question "Is it wrong" in front of that phrase, the answer is yes. It is wrong.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
When I say vertical maneuvering' I mean high g split S turns followed by unloaded vertical dives followed by zoom climbs from dives at high speed and high g into vertical unloaded climbs followed by pitch back, hammerhead, or wingover gravity assisted turns followed by vertical unloaded dives that cannot sustain or gain altitude during the employment of these vertical maneuvers yet these vertical maneuvers remain effective as energy tactics in vertical maneuvering dogfights.

That is what I mean when I say vertical maneuvering'.

What you're describing is a series of manoeuvres. That they're a series is implied by the repeated use of the word "following". Manoeuvre X "followed" by manoeuvre Y. This series of manoeuvres constitutes a lot of continuous manoeuvering. Now, have a look at the word "sustained" in a dictionary. You'll find that - among other things - it means to keep doing something continuously. Your series of manoeuvres therefore constitutes sustained manoeuvering. It's a dogfight.

They were rare.



Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Your definition of vertical maneuvering' remains undefined as far as this discussion goes. I suppose I may have missed something. I got the kunt part. That term needs no definition.

My pleasure to help you.

B0lloX

JG14_Josf
01-28-2007, 08:22 AM
And this situation can happen in the vertical or the horizontal. You've avoided the issue.

BOLLoX,

In your opinion I avoided the issue. I get that part. In fact I am discussing the issue. Too many words are verbose. Too few words are avoiding the issue'?

If a horizontal or vertical fight maintains altitude, then, the horizontal fight can be seen easily as a dog chasing a dog, one circle - fight in the horizontal.

As soon as one plane starts gaining and losing altitude, then, the fight goes into the vertical sustained.

At what angle going down will the plane not be able to get back up to the same altitude without a steady state climb angle?

Do you think my question dodges the issue?

Try answering the question and you may find that I am not dodging the issue. I am discussing it. Your concept of vertical and sustained maneuvering and my concept of vertical and not sustained maneuvering may not be the same. How do we go about not dodging the issue?

If the two dog fighters in a level sustained horizontal turn fight drop their noses and build speed up to corner velocity, then, those two fighters are maximizing turn performance in an unsustainable turn fight. The ground will force the issue.

You may think I am dodging the issue. I think I am discussing the issue.

I may think you are dodging the issue. You may think that you are discussing the issue.

Well...we can't both be right? One of us must be a kunt.


You still haven't said a word about why this is inherently less sustainable in the vertical than in the horizontal. All you've done is give an example that is unsustainable for one plane. Pull too hard in the horizontal and it's unsustainable, too.

You put a lot of words on the page, but you still avoided providing an explanation.


Perhaps you can provide the correct answer that you want exactly as you want it.

I'm too stupid apparently.


Thanks. That's big of you.

You've provided an example that doesn't address why you think vertical fighting is less sustainable than horizontal, and walked away as if you've demonstrated something. You haven't.

Again: answer your question in the exact manner that you desire. If you do this then we both will know exactly what it is that you are looking for exactly. I honestly did try. Please forgive my stupidity.

I did ask this:


can't discuss the topic with you when your terms have no definition.

That is why I ask questions.

Is a dog fight limited to only sustained maneuvering?

What is sustained maneuvering'?

I can guess what you mean as you use your terms.

Does sustained maneuvering' mean: Sustaining Altitude?

Does dogfight' mean: Sustaining Altitude?

What did you mean when you said this:


The topic is whether the sustained manoeuvring fight (ie the dogfight) was as prevalent as some seem to think.
So yes, why not discuss the topic?

What I mean when I say that vertical maneuvering is not sustainable is that high g maneuvering is not sustainable. When high g is generated, then, planes lose altitude = not sustainable.

That is what I mean. If you need more than that, then, please consider offering your own answer to your own question so that we both can know exactly what you are looking for with your question.


My words mean what they mean. Use a dictionary.


The dictionary does not distinguish between sustained maneuvering altitude or sustained maneuvering turn rate, sustained maneuvering g speed, sustained maneuvering corner speed, or sustained vertical maneuvering speed, or sustained maneuvering situational awarness, or sustained maneuvering interest, or sustained maneuvering whatever it is you mean when you say this:


The topic is whether the sustained manoeuvring fight (ie the dogfight) was as prevalent as some seem to think.
So yes, why not discuss the topic?

If you don't want to elaborate, then, you won't so who cares? Why blame me for your reluctance to elaborate when asked. I do, in fact, know the meaning of the word sustained and the meaning of the word maneuvering and the meaning of the word Dogfight. I do and blaming me for not knowing and blaming me for needing a dictionary is off-topic like calling me a kunt.


I think you just don't want to discuss the topic because you'd look silly after stomping into this thread in your big boots ("Ridiculous" and all that: remember?), only to be pwned again.

Now I need a dictionary. What is pwned? What does that have to do with the topic?

File this in the kunt folder?


No, you don't. You ask questions when you want to avoid a point that's already been made. You forget, I've read this thread and that 30 pager on the FW 190. I know what you're like.

Off-topic filed in the kunt folder.


"Sustaining Altitude". Where did you pluck that from? Very imaginative: seven out of ten.

On topic?


No, it's not a puzzle. It's just a couple of quotes followed by some rhetorical questions. No puzzle there. Move on people, nothing to see here.

Policing the forum and protecting the innocent is MaxGunn's job. Watch it I think he has a union card.


Now here you're acting as if you've demonstrated something as true, and then basing a rhetorical question on your false premise. Debator's tactic.

The phrase "...to point out that maneuvering that isn't sustainable (such as vertical maneuvering)..." implies that vertical fighting is inherently unsustainable. It might also be designed to give the impression you've demonstrated something to that effect. You haven't demonstrated anything like that. In fact, you avoided the question.

So when you put the question "Is it wrong" in front of that phrase, the answer is yes. It is wrong.


So...what do you mean by sustained maneuvering' - exactly?


What you're describing is a series of manoeuvres. That they're a series is implied by the repeated use of the word "following". Manoeuvre X "followed" by manoeuvre Y. This series of manoeuvres constitutes a lot of continuous manoeuvering. Now, have a look at the word "sustained" in a dictionary. You'll find that - among other things - it means to keep doing something continuously. Your series of manoeuvres therefore constitutes sustained manoeuvering. It's a dogfight.

They were rare.

This:


The topic is whether the sustained manoeuvring fight (ie the dogfight) was as prevalent as some seem to think.
So yes, why not discuss the topic?


That did not mean to suggest that sustaining altitude was a requirement in the dog fight.

Now we are getting somewhere. Thanks.

Plane A sees Plane B and engages in a sustained maneuvering fight which was rare or not as prevalent as some seem to think.

I think that it happened every time a plane was shot down in a dog fight.

But you are right and I am wrong right?