Badboy,
I'm not sure where you are going with the Jet vs Prop comparison but the sustained turn technique described in "Fighter Combat" serves me quite well in WWII combat simulation.
The reason why the sustained turn technique works so well has to do with preying on other player’s weaknesses, particularly their overconfidence. When fighting against opponents with an obvious turn advantage the tendency is for them to go for the angles and burn up their energy.
The sustained turn technique is excellent for developing a sense for relative energy states too.
Also the sustained turn technique is a staple in team tactics allowing the dragging plane to set up his wingman for a good shot without too much risk.
After a successful application of the sustained turn technique the relative energy gains may not be enough to afford a reverse yet have plenty of room to invite the target in for a chase. Being well out of range the game is really on, if the victim takes a bite.
Some times my energy margin is enough to afford plenty of room to pitch back on top of the target but the set-up is so well done it is more fun to just watch the target hang there as my wingman picks him off like a fish in a barrel.
What really interests me about this technique concerns relative energy modeling in the games. Just how much energy loss is accurate during high g turns relative to less aggressive turning?
Which planes were better at unloaded acceleration and are these planes being modeled correctly?
The other game has moved from a condition of relative modeling where acceleration was a generic factor. During those days the energy fight was relatively non-existent. The game was hit and run for those planes that were modeled with inferior turn performance and that was about it. What surprised me was that the sustained turn technique did work then if the other pilot really took the bait and pulled on the stick. Then it was a real trick however to end up with enough energy to zoom and pitch back. Now things are much different, even the P-47s are sticking around to fight it out.
I don’t really know how accurate all this is, but my guess is that if the tactics worked in the real world and they work in the simulation then things are pretty close.
So the question is: How did things work in the real world?
Well...?
I can read "Fighter Combat"
or
Boyd, Galland, Buchner, Stienhoff, Brown, Lipfert, Knoke, etc.
Which book will give me the best picture of how Air Combat was conducted in real life during WWII?
How about this one:
“Actual combat accounts of the successful use of energy tactics are rather rare, but the following example is a beauty. Here John Godfrey's P-51B Mustang has probably 20 percent lower wing loading than the German Focke-Wulf 190D-9 opponent, and Godfrey increases his turn advantage further by skillful use of flaps. The Focke-Wulf, however, may have 20 percent better power loading. Here are two masters at work.
“A plane was approaching, and because of its long nose I thought it was a Mustang. Turning into it I received a shock; it was neither a Mustang nor an ME-109, but a new Focke-Wulf; its long nose was the latest improvement of the famed FW. These planes with the longer noses were rumored to have more horsepower than their predecessors, and were capable of giving a Mustang a rough time. We met practically head-on and both of us banked our planes in preparation for a dogfight.
Around and around we went. Sometimes the FW got in close, and other times, when I'd drop my flap to tighten my turn, I was in a position to fire - but the German, sensing my superior position, kept swinging down in his turn, gaining speed and quickly pulling up, and with the advantage in height he would then pour down on my tail. Time was in his favor, he could fight that way for an hour and still have enough fuel to land anywhere below him. I still had 400 miles of enemy territory to fly over before I could land. Something had to be done. Throwing caution to the wind I lifted a flap, dove and pulled up in a steep turn, at the same time dropping a little flap. The G was terrific, but it worked, and I had the Jerry nailed for sure. Pressing the tit I waited, but nothing happened, not a damned thing. My guns weren't firing."
"By taking this last gamble I had lost altitude but had been able to bring my guns to bear while flying below the FW. With his advantage of height he came down, pulled up sharp, and was smack-dab on my tail again. The 20mm. cannons belched and I could see what looked like golf balls streaming by me. A little less deflection and those seemingly harmless golf balls would have exploded instantly upon contact with my plane. "Never turn your back on an enemy" was a byword with us, but I had no choice. Turning the plane over on its back I yanked the stick to my gut. My throttle was wide open and I left it there as I dove. The needle stopped at 600 miles per-that was as far as it could go on the dial. Pulling out I expected at any minute to have the wings rip off, the plane was bucking so much. The last part of my pull-up brought me up into clouds. I was thankful to have evaded the long-nose FW. for that pilot was undoubtedly the best that I had ever met." (Fighter Combat, Robert Shaw)
Note how the tactics are explained with specific examples.
Where are you going to find this type of instruction, this type of historical documentation made relative to specific tactics and maneuvering for WWII fighter planes no less!?
It doesn’t stop there in “Fighter Combat”.
How about the Split, Half Split, Sandwich, Brackett?
What about the Bogie Cloud? No that sounds familiar in WWII combat simulation.
OK, enough with the sales pitch. I am a fan. I am curious too.
Joe
