Refresh my memory, please, about HOs

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Krusty
But we all know that first-hand accounts are NOT historical fact, and that hindsight, the excitement of the moment, faulty memories, or even just plain ignorance, can make people claim something as fact that is not ("shooting the ground in front of panzers will kill them" and, in this case what makes me suspicious is "reached 600mph")


Take EVERYTHING, even PILOT TESTIMONY, as suspect until proven. Pilots were young, rushed through flight school, and many not as educated as some of the people browsing this simple forum. They did brave things, yes. Were they Einsteins? No!

Seems like an awful lot of typing and bandwidth wasted to say, more or less, that if an eyewitness or actual participant claims something you disagree with then you'll go on and believe what you want ....  because .... well .... they can't prove it, so there.

[Redd]

Originally posted by SCDR
If someone would be so kind as to point me to a web site that
talks about IRL HOs. IMO I think HOing takes no skill. I will only
fire when I see the enmy start to shot, cuz I know I'm gonna
die.
I have read accounts of the LW using the HO on 17s, and I'm
trying to figure out why AH has HOs turned on for.

 SCDR

do a search in Help and Training for Headon - there are some very long threads on this subject.

[Arlo]

Simply put:

1: Collision model - good thing.

2: Head-on attack, an option - good thing.

3: Inability to figure out how to deal with them - bad thing - but not the game's fault.

[Rino]

Originally posted by Krusty
But we all know that first-hand accounts are NOT historical fact, and that hindsight, the excitement of the moment, faulty memories, or even just plain ignorance, can make people claim something as fact that is not ("shooting the ground in front of panzers will kill them" and, in this case what makes me suspicious is "reached 600mph")


Take EVERYTHING, even PILOT TESTIMONY, as suspect until proven. Pilots were young, rushed through flight school, and many not as educated as some of the people browsing this simple forum. They did brave things, yes. Were they Einsteins? No!

    Well then, what exactly IS historical fact?  I always thought it
was someone's recollections written down afterwards.  Of
course maybe you have a time machine or something so that we
can ignore your impressions of the event in question.

[Drunky]

Originally posted by SCDR
I have read accounts of the LW using the HO on 17s,

Sorry if anyone has already answered this particular but I didn't read everyone's posts.

I believe that early in the war the LW attacked b17's from the front because they were less protected in the front.  I'm probably wrong but didn't earlier b17's not have a nose gun, it was simply the bombadiers position?

[nopoop]

They did but it wasn't a "face" shot. Come in above the 17 that's your target and angle you attack so you start at the nose at convergence and rake the upper fuse on your pass through.

Not easy to set up, but devistating if done correctly.

Egon Mayer's original concept from Jagdgeschwader 2 'Richthofen' that worked very well.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by nopoop
They did but it wasn't a "face" shot. Come in above the 17 that's your target and angle you attack so you start at the nose at convergence and rake the upper fuse on your pass through.

Not easy to set up, but devistating if done correctly.

Egon Mayer's original concept from Jagdgeschwader 2 'Richthofen' that worked very well.

And in fact it was the RAF in the Battle of Britain that got the head on to the bombers bit started.  One guy barreling through head on tended to break up the formation integrity.

Dan/Slack

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Krusty
But we all know that first-hand accounts are NOT historical fact, and that hindsight, the excitement of the moment, faulty memories, or even just plain ignorance, can make people claim something as fact that is not ("shooting the ground in front of panzers will kill them" and, in this case what makes me suspicious is "reached 600mph")


Take EVERYTHING, even PILOT TESTIMONY, as suspect until proven. Pilots were young, rushed through flight school, and many not as educated as some of the people browsing this simple forum. They did brave things, yes. Were they Einsteins? No!

Kinda kranky and kontrary lately Krusty?

What would a historical fact be?  Is a combat report taken and transcribed right after a flight comtain historical fact?  What about a logbook?  

Why even have discussions then?  No point in reading pilot accounts cause it might not be the 100 percent absolute truth?  The comment made by ground soldiers is that the battle one guy sees is completely different from the one seen by a guy in a foxhole 10 yards away.  It doesn't mean the account lacks value.

And I'd beg to differ on the quality of those pilots.  These weren't just shoved through flight school guys lacking intellect.  They clearly had to have something going for them to do the job they did and the expectations even in wartime were still high.

And just how would you PROVE something all these years later?

Dan/Slack

[llama]

Let's not forget that the target you're facing has something to do with HOs too.

There are some planes, such as the 190-a8, that meet two conditions condusive to HOs: 1) they have super-strong cannon, and 2) they are so unmanouverable that they have no hope of getting another shot off if ACM starts happening.

In addition to the A8, I have come to consider the following planes to be more likey to try an HO than others (and these are just off the top of my head):

BF-110
Mossie
P47 (when slow and low)
Hurri IIC
N1K1

I don't hold it against the first three planes in this list when their pilots HO, but those last two planes usually have some other choices. I mean, what else are they supposed to do, just sit there and let me shoot them after the first reversal?

-Llama

[Redd]

Originally posted by llama
Let's not forget that the target you're facing has something to do with HOs too.

There are some planes, such as the 190-a8, that meet two conditions condusive to HOs: 1) they have super-strong cannon, and 2) they are so unmanouverable that they have no hope of getting another shot off if ACM starts happening.

In addition to the A8, I have come to consider the following planes to be more likey to try an HO than others (and these are just off the top of my head):

BF-110
Mossie
P47 (when slow and low)
Hurri IIC
N1K1

I don't hold it against the first three planes in this list when their pilots HO, but those last two planes usually have some other choices. I mean, what else are they supposed to do, just sit there and let me shoot them after the first reversal?

-Llama

I would argue that just because you have chosen to fly those planes doesn't give you the right to fly around jousting all and sundry, and then use the plane as an excuse.  Not everyone agrees of course

[Wolfala]

Guppy,


Thats the most horrifying story i've read - ever.   to those guys.

Wolfala

[acetnt367th]

SCDR,

You pay only 14.95 to get a HO, I have to pay 60 bucks to get that in Texas.......

[Wolfala]

Originally posted by acetnt367th
SCDR,

You pay only 14.95 to get a HO, I have to pay 60 bucks to get that in Texas.......

You need to hang around high schools more chief. They come for free there.

[debuman]

Originally posted by Drunky
Sorry if anyone has already answered this particular but I didn't read everyone's posts.

I believe that early in the war the LW attacked b17's from the front because they were less protected in the front.  I'm probably wrong but didn't earlier b17's not have a nose gun, it was simply the bombadiers position?

IIRC, they didn't get the chin turret until the G model.  Also, a couple of cannon shells into the cockpit would kill the plane just as surely as spending time taking out engines or shooting off multiple parts.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by debuman
IIRC, they didn't get the chin turret until the G model.  Also, a couple of cannon shells into the cockpit would kill the plane just as surely as spending time taking out engines or shooting off multiple parts.

Works the same way in game. Heh ... and some think there's not any realism ....