Author Topic: Historical HO as a tactic (Read 1492 times)

Mace2004 · « **Reply #15 on:** June 11, 2006, 11:18:17 PM »

Here's a couple of thoughts.

What was the average number of flight hours (i.e., experience) the German pilots had versus the Allies? By the time the US entered the European war with significant fighters the Germans had already been fighting for years. Also, at some point most of the US pilots went home, something that wasn't really an option for the Luftwaffe (except leave) so the average level of US experience was probably much lower...maybe the US never learned the lesson. Ever hear the one about no old, bold pilots?

As far as any success the US had using this tactic we see it all the time in AH. If one pilot tried to avoid the HO and the other doesn't that means the guy pressing the HO has the advantage both in forcing the other pilot to maneuver to defeat the HO (eliminating the possibility of a mutual HO) and he's defending, not maneuvering for advantage. So, even if the HO is unsuccessful, the HO'er usually gains an advantage. Not surprising that the guy not following the "rules" wins (vulching, picking, hoing, etc.) Of course, it sounds reasonable that the Germans learned the lesson of the HO in large part to the simple mathematics of 100 50Cals coming at him vs 10 20mm going out, the odds were just not with him. And BTW, anyone see what a 50cal does to a body? It's really irrelevant whether the round is a 20mm or 50cal when it comes to soft targets...they both dismember it although the 20mm might be a bit more "colorful".

Mace

Guppy35 · « **Reply #16 on:** June 12, 2006, 12:36:50 AM »

I think folks tend to believe that all the Japanese fighters were Zeros, N1Ks etc

Remember that the 38 drivers and other USAAF pilots were fighting Ki-43 Oscars of the Japanese Army Air Force much of the time. The Flying Tigers in China were as well. You are talking 2 x 12.7mm MGs in that bird.

A 38 head on vs that was no contest. Over 5000 Ki-43s built and it was a mainstay of JAAF units throughout the war.

phycobabble · « **Reply #17 on:** June 12, 2006, 08:28:30 AM »

simple, .50 cal's maximum effective range is much more than any cannon. period.

SlapShot · « **Reply #18 on:** June 12, 2006, 08:31:16 AM »

Come on guys ... get real.

Don't think for 1 second that any pilot in WWII purposely went for what we all know and love ... the MA HO ... no loving way !!!

I don't care what kind of ballistic round the other guy was using ... nobody wants to go face to face with 12.7s, 303s, .50s ... they all will leave a mark that will definately ruin your day or tear your engine up causing you have to bail in places where, if your caught, you won't be staying at a Holiday Inn. Very strong deterents for doing the MA HO.

I would bet that what was considered a "Head-On" attack back then was a very high angle deflection shot to the frontal quarters of the enemy.

I doubt very strongly that any "doctrine" said ... line up nose to nose on the enemy and start firing. I challenge anyone to find any documentation or "doctrines" that recommended that tactic.

phycobabble · « **Reply #19 on:** June 12, 2006, 08:41:04 AM »

side note, if you read NON FICTION (YES A NOVEL IS FICTION)ww2 books, you'll find the ho referred to much.

Masherbrum · « **Reply #20 on:** June 12, 2006, 08:42:00 AM »

The Abbeville Kids HO'd the Allied bombers over France. It was their preferred, no deflection, but HO. They were feared by the USAAF because they knew they were more vulnerable.

SlapShot · « **Reply #21 on:** June 12, 2006, 08:57:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Masherbrum
The Abbeville Kids HO'd the Allied bombers over France. It was their preferred, no deflection, but HO. They were feared by the USAAF because they knew they were more vulnerable.

I am confused ...

"They were feared by the USAAF ..."

or did you mean ...

"They feared the USAAF ..."

Mace2004 · « **Reply #22 on:** June 12, 2006, 09:10:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SlapShot

I would bet that what was considered a "Head-On" attack back then was a very high angle deflection shot to the frontal quarters of the enemy.

I doubt very strongly that any "doctrine" said ... line up nose to nose on the enemy and start firing. I challenge anyone to find any documentation or "doctrines" that recommended that tactic.

Gotta agree with that. There is a difference between a forward quarter attack (attacking from in front of his wingline) and the HO we typically complain about. In AH, what I would call a HO are those that go pipper on, trigger down till someone blows up or rams, they don't even try to avoid it. In RL it's perfectly acceptable (and many times mandatory) to turn directly into a target and take him close aboard to take out separation and turning room. I'd guess they might put out a stream of rounds at range (to give the target something to think about) and then jink but nobody in their right mind would ever do an AH style "HO to merge".

One of the funniest things you see is a slow and almost unmaneuverable plane hoed by a 400kt La7/190/109. The slow guy doesn't have the e to maneuver away, has no options and is forced to accept the HO and the HOer ends up going down...guess who is all over ch200? Right, the 400kt guy who had all the options in the world and chose to HO anyway. Also, is it just me or do you get far more HOs from these three aircraft types than any other? Think it might be because they have crappy over the nose visibility which makes deflection shots difficult? Maybe these guys are doing the only thing they can to hit something.

Mace

Masherbrum · « **Reply #23 on:** June 12, 2006, 09:45:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SlapShot
"They were feared by the USAAF ..."

The above is what I typed.

The bomber pilots FEARED the Yellow nosed FW-190's JG-26 flew. They HO'd the buffs.

SlapShot · « **Reply #24 on:** June 12, 2006, 10:04:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Masherbrum
The above is what I typed.

The bomber pilots FEARED the Yellow nosed FW-190's JG-26 flew. They HO'd the buffs.

Ahhh ... got it now.

Did the bombers have frontal guns ? If so, I would bet that it was a frontal assault, but not directly at forward firing guns.

Masherbrum · « **Reply #25 on:** June 12, 2006, 11:20:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SlapShot
Ahhh ... got it now.

Did the bombers have frontal guns ? If so, I would bet that it was a frontal assault, but not directly at forward firing guns.

It's been a couple of years since I read the book Slap, but if I recall, they were frontal attacks. They knew of the possibility of the chin turrets hitting them (these were US aircraft during the day) them, but they were very effective in taking a few out of a formation on the first pass. Insane yes, but again, the allies shivered when they saw the yellow-nosed 190's.

It was a good read Slap, like $7 on paperback: "JG26 Top Guns of the Luftwaffe" or something similar. Check it out. <~~> Slap, cya in the MA bro.~~

HardRock · « **Reply #26 on:** June 12, 2006, 11:57:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Grits
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.

Meanwhile..back in the backwater war, China, my dad who flew with the flying tigers was leading a flight on a mission to attack japanese bombers when he spotted a zeke in his rear. He turned around to attack it. He looked around for his wingman and they weren't there.

OOPS..he forgot to tell then he had turned around. So he just fired HO'd at the zeke with his tiger sharked P40, hit him, and boogied home. Tactics or shear panic?

I asked him if the zeke went down which he replied.."he was smoking and zekes being lightly built..I don't think he made it home, son".

SlapShot · « **Reply #27 on:** June 12, 2006, 12:15:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by HardRock
Meanwhile..back in the backwater war, China, my dad who flew with the flying tigers was leading a flight on a mission to attack japanese bombers when he spotted a zeke in his rear. He turned around to attack it. He looked around for his wingman and they weren't there.

OOPS..he forgot to tell then he had turned around. So he just fired HO'd at the zeke with his tiger sharked P40, hit him, and boogied home. Tactics or shear panic?

I asked him if the zeke went down which he replied.."he was smoking and zekes being lightly built..I don't think he made it home, son".

<> to your dad !!!

Those flying Tiger pilots were some real gutsy dudes.

I was hoping he answered the ... "tatics or shear panic" question.

Did he say that HOing was something he did all the time ?

Grits · « **Reply #28 on:** June 12, 2006, 12:17:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SlapShot
I would bet that what was considered a "Head-On" attack back then was a very high angle deflection shot to the frontal quarters of the enemy.

I doubt very strongly that any "doctrine" said ... line up nose to nose on the enemy and start firing. I challenge anyone to find any documentation or "doctrines" that recommended that tactic.

You are correct. The prewar USN doctrine was WWI style "dogfighting". After the first contact with the Zero/Oscar they found that the Brewster F2A and the F4F could not turn with it and had to come up with other tactics. From that point on, turning to get on a enemies tail was abandoned and they started teaching deflection shooting. The USN did more deflection shooting practice in training than the USAAF. With that shooting skill, they told them to seek HO shots, but they were not what we do in this game, they were as you say, high angle front quarter shots and 90 degree side shots.

The point being, and totally separate from AH, this was 180 degrees away from what they were teaching pilots before contact with the Zero/Oscar.

Saxman · « **Reply #29 on:** June 12, 2006, 12:27:07 PM »

Anyone who says they don't take the HO shot in the MA is lying through their teeth. I haven't EVER been in a merge in the MA where the guy HASN'T taken the shot (and this INCLUDES recognizeable vets).