Dogfight question

[frank3]

How, in real life, did they used to dogfight? Did they try and stay on speed, or jank the stick back and eat g's?
Did they jamm the throttle to the firewall or did they have to throttle back?

In aces high (h2h for me) people would just turn turn and turn, which always results in a head-on when you're trying to engage the guy on speed.

Any feedback/war-stories?

Thanks in advance

[Shane]

everything that you see done in terms of dogfighting ww2 planes in AH was done in real life....

one can debate the extent of what was done that we do, but it was all done depending on the situation.

i'm sure the preferred choice was an easy zoom pass on unsuspecting enemy, it was *real* after all.

[ALF]

The top sticks in the MA do not  keep the throttle pegged and they certainly dont yank as hard as they can.  You need to keep you plane in its best speed envelope for the situation...too much speed means less manuverability and a nasty overshoot.  Pulling back too hard on the stick bleeds off speed many times faster than being gentle, and is a sure way to die, especially in planes that accelerate more slowly,

I get many of my kills by making the other guy yank too hard and buring off his E.

I avoid getting killed a lot by doing a very short jink as some bozo comes flying by at 550 IAS and the only control he has that works is the one that fires the guns where I aint.

[MANDO]

frank3, in RL they fought as teams trying to achieve a goal: kill buffs, cover jabos, cover buffs, cover buff killers, etc, not just 1 vs 1 turning til puke. In most cases, the goal of at least one team was whatever but to keep enganged with the other side fighters.

[lasersailor184]

Yeah, I'd say all of the above except for keeping throttle at 100% 99% of the time.

[pugg666]

In real combat they dealt with the situation on hand

[bozon]

In almost all aces books I've read they emphesize speed and usually describe very little fancy ACM.

They had a real problem of ID the planes around them, so a lot of the fight was flying around till you found something ID'ed as a target. There were a lot of attacks against friendlies that were broken off at the last minute and "breaking" from friendlies. Most targets were shot down without even seeing the attacker till hit.

In such a situation, keeping a very high speed, makes intercepting you harder and almost impossible to sneak from behind. The most common defensive move was a break or a split S followed by a dive for the clouds.

fights that did include ACM were also extremely short - 1 or 2 moves. there were rare exceptions, where both opponents were very skilled. I suppose ACM became more important in very low dogfights where escape was difficult.

In light of the above one can realize the success that the P47 enjoyed. It was fast (up high), could absorb the 1st hit from an un-seen attcker and offer a second chance and could dive-escape like no other. The ultimate dweeb ride.

This is repeated again and again in all the books.

Bozon

[Crumpp]

They had a real problem of ID the planes around them, so a lot of the fight was flying around till you found something ID'ed as a target. There were a lot of attacks against friendlies that were broken off at the last minute and "breaking" from friendlies.

Absolutely.

One of the more interesting things to come out of my research is the high number of "friendly fire" incidents.

Good example:

I have combat reports where an FW-190 (ground attack varient) was bounced and shot down on landing.  Combat report reads that USAAF fighters bounced them on landing, shot down and killed one Luftwaffe pilot.

Cross reference those reports with the logs from the Me-109 unit providing escort and they reveal a Schwarm of 109's exited cloud cover and spotted "enemy aircraft" making a "strafing run" on the airfield.  One 109 dove down, got on an "enemy aircraft's" 6 and shot it down.  The pilot and his wingman witnessed the plane spin in crash at the end of the runway.

Allied records show no air activity in that area at all.  In other words the presence of allied fighters is highly unlikely.  There was only one crashed plane at the end of the runway that morning, the FW-190.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Absolutely.

One of the more interesting things to come out of my research is the high number of "friendly fire" incidents.

What is a high number of 'friendly fire' incidents?

1 out of 5
1 out of 10
1 out of 100
1 out of 1000
1 out of 10000
1 out of 100000

[dedalos]

Why didn't they turn on kill shooter?

[Crumpp]

What is a high number of 'friendly fire' incidents?

Off hand, out of 12 combats examined in detail, 4 of them involve some degree friendly fire incidents and 2 cases of fratricide.   This seems to be a common occurrence for both allied and axis pilots.

Now that is just a window into the air war and may not be representative of the exact ratio for the entire war.  It is enough though to conclude that "friendly fire" and aircraft indentification were very real problems.  Just as they are in modern combat.  Today we have IFF's in the cockpit which help cut down on this.  In WWII IFF's only alerted ground controllers to your identity not other aircraft.

Even modern IFF's are not foolproof as the UH-60 downed in the Northern No-Fly Zone a few years back shows.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp
You’re asking an impossible to quantify question.  A high number is just that a high number.  

Off hand, out of 12 combats examined in detail, 4 of them involve some degree friendly fire incidents and 2 cases of fratricide.   This seems to be a common occurrence for both allied and axis pilots.

Crumpp

So out of the 100s of 1000s of combats in WW2, you draw the conclusion from only 12 combats, that fraticide was a common occurance.

[rshubert]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
So out of the 100s of 1000s of combats in WW2, you draw the conclusion from only 12 combats, that fraticide was a common occurance.

Oh, for crying out loud...

Are you just picking a fight, milo?  Of course there was fratricide, and of course it would be difficult to quantify it.  And your point is...?

[humble]

frank3,

A couple things to keep in mind....

1st in real aircombat finding the enemy first is a key element...90%+ of the victims never even knew what hit them.

2nd Doctrine varied, the germans in particular focused on slashing attacks (basically what we call B&Z)...very little actual "dogfighting" occured.

3rd Only when two (or more) pilots saw each other and countered the initial opener could a dog fight develop. These were actually normally small group engagements since all nations flew in "groups" of four through out most of the war (except japanese). Traditionally fights were quick fast and not complex...

4th over 90% of all kills in WW2 were attributed to ~5% of pilots...basically alot of sheep and a few wolfs. The average WW2 combat pilot had significantly less ACM understanding and experience then the average "3 month wonder" in AH.

[HoHun]

Hi Frank,

>How, in real life, did they used to dogfight? Did they try and stay on speed, or jank the stick back and eat g's?
>Did they jamm the throttle to the firewall or did they have to throttle back?

>In aces high (h2h for me) people would just turn turn and turn, which always results in a head-on when you're trying to engage the guy on speed.

Technically, everything that works in an accurate simulation worked in real life, too.

There are some important differences in the style of fighting, though.

WW2 combat was team-oriented. It wasn't focused on ACM, but on keeping section, flight and squadron cohesion. That makes a big difference for the ACM you can use, and for the ACM you need to use.

WW2 pilots didn't know about energy combat. It hadn't been invented yet, and pilots weren't aware of the concepts behind it. No doubt some pilots grasped most of it intuitively, but it was an art and not a science.

WW2 pilots were "afraid" of risks. Of course, it only appears like that if you compare to typical simulation gamers who "die" three times a day. Head-on attacks in particular were rare because they were so dangerous. They provided a chance for a quick kill, sure - but they also provided a chance to die just as quckly, and real world pilots didn't like that kind of odds.

I'm sure there are more differences I haven't mentioned. The total effect is that typical air-to-air combat in the game doesn't have much in common with typical air-to-air combat in real life.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)