Author Topic: Historical HO as a tactic  (Read 1480 times)

Offline Stoney74

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
Historical HO as a tactic
« on: June 11, 2006, 01:21:05 AM »
Disclaimer:  This is not a "value or worthlessness" of a Head On attack post.

My question:

During WWII, among some of the books (primarily "Long Reach" and "12 to 1") I've read, U.S. pilots routinely broke into enemy planes and tried to force a head-on pass.  I'll caveat that by saying I haven't seen much gun-camera footage of HO shootdowns, but, the pilots report the HO pass a valued tactic.  In both the pacific and europe, there are consistent tales of German and Japanese pilots turning away to avoid the head-on.  Now, most of the U.S. planes had .50 cals while most Axis planes were carrying at least some cannon.  Seems like the exact opposite is true in the MA, where all the cannon planes are more than happy to HO you, whereas in a U.S. plane, you're basically looking (with the exception of the jug and 38) at the basic 6X.50 cal package and can only HO a cannon armed plane at your own risk.  Can someone explain the paradox here, again, without getting into a "HO sux" type of discussion.

Offline hubsonfire

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8658
Historical HO as a tactic
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2006, 01:34:50 AM »
Until we've attempted to shoot real people in the face, we'll only be referencing the same things you've read. Plane construction, weapon range and effectiveness, the situations in which such passes are made, etc.


And, I'm sure having some maniac spray 6 or 8 50 cals at your head as he screams past at a rate of 600mph of closure probably left a lasting and extremely unnerving impression on newer pilots.
mook
++Blue Knights++

Proper punctuation and capitalization go a long way towards people paying attention to your posts.  -Stoney
I was wondering why I get ignored so often.  -Hitech

Offline Grits

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5332
Historical HO as a tactic
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2006, 02:08:19 AM »
The USN taught HO shots as a prefered tactic against IJA/IJN planes because of their fragile construction. It was official USN doctrine to seek a HO shot. Donno about the USAAF, but I know I'd think more than twice about taking a HO with a 190A-8.

Offline ujustdied

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 385
Historical HO as a tactic
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2006, 02:14:24 AM »
ya i would HO a a6m i mean the plane is fragile and 1 couple of pings would kill the pilot. plus the 50cals were alot stronger in real life.
also the use mosly used 50 cals so when they did HO they had a lof more bullets coming at u. which would result in a pilot kill. the japanease planes were weak and the US probably tried to get any type of shot they could. also with the german planes its the same thing. they only have 1 little lo cannon so id be scared to HO with that too.

Offline StarOfAfrica2

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5162
      • http://www.vf-17.org
Historical HO as a tactic
« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2006, 05:02:55 AM »
What the heck.  Just as a note, cartoon planes in a simulated world does not equate to doing this for real.  Valid tactic in RL or not, it has no bearing here, and you are still a worthless, skilless dweeb if you do it ingame, and your momma still wears combat boots.

In RL?  Sure, flying a Hellcat or a F4U I'd make a headon pass vs a A6M.  Why not?  

1)  The American planes are all well armored, with a huge radial engine up front that can absorb lots of damage and keep on flying, self sealing fuel tanks, and bullet-resistant glass in the front of the cockpit.

2)  The American planes pour out a huge hail of lead from 6x.50 cal. MGs

3)  The Japanese A6M had no armor, slim design, and afforded very little protection to the pilot other than the maneuverability of the aircraft.

4)  The limited firepower of the A6M meant that, while it was armed with cannons, it had neither the ROF or the number of guns of the American planes, so there was much less lead able to be put in the air to do damage to the oncoming American.  

If the American plane gets you in his sights, your best bet is to go evasive and not try jousting.  If the A6M can avoid the initial pass, and the American plane stays to fight, the balance swings to the Zero.  Why wouldnt the headon pass be a great opening move for the American in this case?  It makes sense.

Now, put me in a P-51, facing heavily armed and armored FW 190's and Bf 109's, no way in hell would I make a headon run against them.  For one thing, by all pilot accounts the P-51 was a good match for the 109, and more than a match for the FW if it came to a dogfight.  For another, they were all well armed and as well armored as any American plane.  Add to that the fact that you no longer have the protection of the big engine in front, and indeed you have the cooling system to worry about besides.  I might feel more safe in a P-47, but I never read anywhere that P-47 pilots used headon passes vs Luftwaffe fighters as a tactic.  Even with a Jug I wouldnt want to face the guns of a FW headon.

I have read stories about Spitfires and Hurricanes using the tactic vs German bombers during the BoB, mainly from initial frustrations over how much ammo it took to bring down a bomber with those .303's.  They started making passes at the cockpits of the bombers to try to kill the pilots.  Desperation tactics in desperate times.  Had they had cannon armed planes earlier, I think they would have done differently.  They did what they had to do, with the equipment they had to work with.  Those were tactics against bombers though, not vs fighters.

No matter what, no RL pilot ever made a headon pass at an enemy plane and did so lightly.  In the case of the Zero, its simply far more dangerous if it gets behind you where you cant shoot back than it is in front of you where your superior firepower might bring it down first.  Beyond that example, I cannot think of any other plane matchup where pilots would actively seek to setup for headon passes at opposing fighters.

Offline Raptor

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7577
Historical HO as a tactic
« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2006, 02:50:59 PM »
Chuck Yeager was shot down in a HO with a 190.

HOs with bombers are different. Most bombers do not have many forward firing guns (Early in the war anyway). Also the front of bombers has the most glass, and is an inviting target. For the planes we do not have in AH, think of most mid-early war planes to have guns placed like the ki-67. Why attack the tail gun when the nose is defended by a single gun?

Offline RTSigma

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1318
Historical HO as a tactic
« Reply #6 on: June 11, 2006, 03:39:01 PM »
HO's back then were different. You couldn't re-up moments after you were shot down. You either took a risk with YOUR LIFE and hope you don't hit the other plane or get shot up, or you could try something else. This tactic would scare the other pilot into making a manuever that would benefit the attacker or allow the said attack a good shot into the cockpit area.

Sigma of VF-17 JOLLY ROGERS

Offline xNOVAx

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
Historical HO as a tactic
« Reply #7 on: June 11, 2006, 03:40:51 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Raptor01
Chuck Yeager was shot down in a HO with a 190.

HOs with bombers are different. Most bombers do not have many forward firing guns (Early in the war anyway). Also the front of bombers has the most glass, and is an inviting target. For the planes we do not have in AH, think of most mid-early war planes to have guns placed like the ki-67. Why attack the tail gun when the nose is defended by a single gun?


I hardly ever attack bombers from the rear. The HO shot from the top or bottom is the best tactic for waxing buffs in my opinion.

:aok


NOVA - Army of Muppets - Inactive

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return." -Leonardo da Vinci

Offline NCLawman

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 442
Historical HO as a tactic
« Reply #8 on: June 11, 2006, 04:13:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
What the heck.  Just as a note, cartoon planes in a simulated world does not equate to doing this for real.  Valid tactic in RL or not, it has no bearing here, and you are still a worthless, skilless dweeb if you do it ingame, and your momma still wears combat boots.

I didn't get the impression he was asking about in-game HOs as a valued tactic.  I took the question as an attempt to gain HISTORICAL information, unrelated to the game.  

Ligthen up, Francis:lol
Jeff / NCLawMan (in-game)


Those who contribute the least to society, expect the most from it.

Light travels faster than sound.  This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

Offline Stoney74

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
Historical HO as a tactic
« Reply #9 on: June 11, 2006, 06:07:45 PM »
Actually Lawman, you are correct.

The book "VIII Fighter Command At War" (Long Reach), almost every pilot states that turning into a HO with a 109 or 190 was the best way to get them to break.  I'll provide quotes if necessary.  I guess my bigger question is why didn't the LW pilots value all that armor and cannon?  If the cannons hit so hard, why not use 'em?  I'm just trying to figure out why the U.S. pilots had no hesitation to go HO with the Germans (despite all the armor and cannon) whereas both opposing countries avoided it like the plague--so much in fact that they would expose their six to avoid the HO...

Did they think the Americans were crazy?

I'll concede self-preservation to a point.  Obviously U.S. pilots weren't as concerned, and most of the time they were over enemy territory.  So, at least for the U.S., self-preservation wasn't keeping them from the HO.  

Thanks for the comments.  It'd be nice to find some documentation from Axis pilots regarding HO passes...
« Last Edit: June 11, 2006, 06:13:32 PM by Stoney74 »

Offline Morpheus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10231
Historical HO as a tactic
« Reply #10 on: June 11, 2006, 07:03:19 PM »
LOL i know i'd sure listen to a desk jockey for the USN telling me its OK to HO.
If you don't receive Jesus Christ, you don't receive the gift of righteousness.

Be A WARRIOR NOT A WORRIER!

Offline Grits

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5332
Historical HO as a tactic
« Reply #11 on: June 11, 2006, 07:09:42 PM »
It was actually not put into the doctrine until after Coral Sea when guys like Jimmy Thatch came back to report the tactics they found worked.

Still, I agree, I would probably not want to put myself in a position where the other guy had guns on me in RL even if my plane had tons of armour and his had none.

Offline Morpheus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10231
Historical HO as a tactic
« Reply #12 on: June 11, 2006, 07:20:39 PM »
Thing's change alot when the bullets become real, and are flying in your direction.
If you don't receive Jesus Christ, you don't receive the gift of righteousness.

Be A WARRIOR NOT A WORRIER!

Offline Raptor

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7577
Historical HO as a tactic
« Reply #13 on: June 11, 2006, 08:40:46 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Stoney74
I'm just trying to figure out why the U.S. pilots had no hesitation to go HO with the Germans (despite all the armor and cannon) whereas both opposing countries avoided it like the plague--so much in fact that they would expose their six to avoid the HO...

I would be just as afraid of being hit with a 50 cal as a 20mm (hit in the body, not plane). Either one will either kill you or make you lose a lot of blood before you can land.
Here is where 50 cal has the upper hand, the 50 cal guns have a higher rate of fire than the 20mm, and the US planes hold more 50 cal than the enemy had 20mm. Where US fighters have 6 50 cal guns, the enemy has 1 or 2. So there is a lot more risk for the 109/190 pilot than the US pilot.
To answer the original question, the reason US planes fear being HOed more than cannon armed planes, it because you still fight when you have a pilot wound. In real life the pilot would hit the deck and head for home (assuming they were still alive) in a lot of pain. In AH, you don't feel pain. So instead of worrying about the pilot wound, you worry about how much damage you can inflict on the other plane. A few 20mm rounds does more than a few 50 cal rounds.

Offline StarOfAfrica2

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5162
      • http://www.vf-17.org
Historical HO as a tactic
« Reply #14 on: June 11, 2006, 10:12:43 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by NCLawman

I didn't get the impression he was asking about in-game HOs as a valued tactic.  I took the question as an attempt to gain HISTORICAL information, unrelated to the game.  

Ligthen up, Francis:lol


It was a joke.  I figured most of you were old enough to understand sarcasm.  Next time I'll use the preschool version for you.  

Dont take yourself so seriously Nancy.