Originally posted by Toad
A Tempest isn't always less maneuverable than a Hurri; as you point out, it's much more maneuverable in the verticle than a Hurri. Same with an La-7 and an Il-2.
"Maneuverable" isn't limited to the horizontal plane.
Is your argument then that you will HO an aircraft that is more maneuverable in the vertical?
That you will HO an aircraft that is more maneuverable in the horizontal?
Seems to say you'll take any HO you can.
I do agree that B&Z is pretty boring; on either end of it. Still, the HO is not the only recourse for either pilot in that scenario.
I guess I should define something first. To me, the people who say "use ACM skills" to get a kill vs the HO are basically saying maneuver onto the enemy's 6 for the kill. Not sure if this is quite correct, but it was the basis for my statement.
So, my point is that if a Tempest or LA-7 driver has any idea what they are doing, and you are in a Hurri or an IL-2, there is little chance you are going to be able to saddle up on their 6 to take them down. They will continue to use their speed advantage until that last BnZ pass when you can't quite avoid their shot and you die.
OTOH, as the slow maneuverable plane you
can take away his speed advantage by presenting the HO. Then you are on more or less equal terms. The faster plane can either take on the HO or break off his attack. But the option you do not really have (again, if the enemy knows what he is doing, and you should never underestimate your enemy) is "maneuvering" for a 6 kill since you will not slow him down enough to fight on your terms.
I put in the qualifying first paragraph because I suppose you or someone else might suggest trying to get the BnZ to overshoot and hit him with a snapshot as he passes, which may qualify as an ACM kill to some. But to me this is as dangerous as the HO (since you are giving the enemy an initial shot) but with less chance of taking him down in the process if his aim is good.
Hope that clears up what I meant.
Rereading your post, I think you are saying in the case I just described, by your definition it is the BnZer that has the "maneuverability advantage" (in the verticle) over the slower plane. Thus if he accepts the HO shot when presented, he is the "tardling" for giving up his advantage. I suppose looked at in that way, we do not disagree -- only a "tardling" will willingly give up his advantage.
In the end, the HO is the great equalizer. If the fight is unequal
to your advantage, do not HO. If you are outmatched, then IMHO you should HO away.
Sheesh, I didn't mean to write a book, really!
