Intersting comment on HO...

[FBBone]

Originally posted by lengro
Fixed!  

I wondered how long it would take!

[dedalos]

Originally posted by Oldman731
You have read too many German general accounts, and not enough others.

- oldman

Comon OM.  The army is army.  That is how they operate.  Even the US did a similar thing trying to storm the small islands in the pacific.  The kept sending the kids to their death trying to take a rock.  They could have put enough cells on those islands to make them disappear from the map, but the objective was not to save the soldiers lives.  It was to take the islands as fast as possible what ever the cost.

I m just saying that just because something was done in real life, it does not mean it was smart or valid or the best option.  I cant see myself turning towards anything that has a cannon and a couple of machine guns even if I had more guns.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by VansCrew1
Hoing is not a Valid tactic.In the Pacific then Americans did have an advantage vs the Jap fighters .Americans did HO,Not often but vs the weak A6m's and what now it was easy.Plus the f6f was one of the strongest birds in the air at that time.It could take the damage from a a6m hoing.But in the East vs German steal American pilots would be stupid to Ho say a 109 or 190 .Unlike in the game the German's would rape American fighters in the HO. German fighters were built stronger and had the advantage of canon.

Simply but Hoing is not a valid tactic. I know all you dweebs watching dogfights they said Hoing is a valid tatic.And im willing to bet you also thought that Ramming a ship in the game would think it. Hoing in the game is a lame move.It is not a tactic,It's dweebdome.

Then explain why the Abbeville Kids (JG26) routinely HO'd Allied bomber formations?  

[Flint]

If I were in a plane that could be outurned, outclimbed, not pull -g, and was offered a 50/50 shot.... I'd take it..

[Widewing]

Whether or not an HO is a valid tactic in the game (it can be on occasion, depending upon the situation), we should define what an HO actually is.

It isn't a front quarter shot. An HO is when both pilots have the ability to bring guns to bear on the enemy fighter.

This is an HO:


This is not an HO:


This is an HO:


This is not an HO:


Any questions?

Oh, and thanks to Platano for being that other guy...

My regards,

Widewing

[Capz]

Then explain why the Abbeville Kids (JG26) routinely HO'd Allied bomber formations?

No one complains about HOing bombers, that is probably the best tactic to take down buffs in AH.  We're talking about fighters and no, it's not a valid tactic, its lame.  If you aren't good enough to fly your plane to your opponents 6 and get a a shot, you shouldn't be playing, IMO.

[straffo]

HO It was used a lot by the German 190 on the east front  it rushed the production of the Yak9T.

[bombnbail]

Originally posted by dedalos
Comon OM.  The army is army.  That is how they operate.  Even the US did a similar thing trying to storm the small islands in the pacific.  The kept sending the kids to their death trying to take a rock.  They could have put enough cells on those islands to make them disappear from the map, but the objective was not to save the soldiers lives.  It was to take the islands as fast as possible what ever the cost.

I m just saying that just because something was done in real life, it does not mean it was smart or valid or the best option.  I cant see myself turning towards anything that has a cannon and a couple of machine guns even if I had more guns.

Until I read this, I wasn't going to comment.  But, you need to either join the military for a few years, or you need to spend some time studying history.  

They spent 5 days shelling the crap out of a rock called Iwojima.  They sent in two divisions of marines.  thats all, just 2 divisions.  They had one other division still on board the transports but refused to send them iin, even tho the marines were getting the crap shot out of em.  

That was just the last major island landing.  

It is also why the A-bomb was used, to limit friendly casualties and bring the war to a close.  

In the 1940s they didn't have smart bombs.  Bombing was a chancy thing, so it required troops on the ground to do the hard part, root out the enemy and kill him.  

Lots of men died, lots of Officers died leading their men, and lots of Generals died directing the fight.  ON ALL SIDES.

I don't know what you mean by cells but you are not well read in history or ww2.  

BTW  IwoJima saved a lot of lives after those marines captured it.  Maybe thats why it was worth the cost.

< salute >

BnB

[Vortex]

Originally posted by Chalenge
Ever since the first air combat in world war 1 it has been accepted that when you are attacked from above the only valid option is to turn into your attacker. Sometimes that turns into a head on pass and sometimes not. I dont see anything wrong with shooting head on if thats what you want to do. In other situations it probably is a good indication that someone lacks the knowledge or experience to get any other shot.

I think what often frustrates people is that this is a game, and the first priority with any game is that the game play strike a balance between fun and challenging. When the front quadrant is opened up like it is in AH it creates an environment where you really need not fly for kill. Simple jousting suffices. And that takes away from game play, at least imo. You need not incorporate any air combat tactics in achieving monster kill numbers. Simply joust. Which is really a shame as the game could be much better than that if it forced people to actually fly for a kill.

It may or may not be historical. That's really a red herring as AH, and the games that came before it, have very little to do with anything historical. I would agree though, as long as game play allows for it there certainly isn't anything wrong with jousting, or just taking a front quarter shot for that matter. Whether it enhances or lessens game play is an entirely subjective discussion.

[humble]

Originally posted by Xargos
Don't forget that this same country would send ten soldiers into battle with only one rifle between them and expect the others to keep picking up that same rifle after it's holder died.  The Russians did not care if their pilots died in the HO.

This is an ignorant comment....

Experienced combat pilots were a valuable commodity. If you read the text HO's were considered a valid tactic under situations of engagement were they felt the pilot had a less then 50/50 chance of winning. At higher alts they felt they had an even fight and tactics changed....

This is not encouraging or defending a HO in this game. It is however realizing that alot of this HO whining is from guys who fly T&B rides and whine when a guy doesnt want to T&B a spitty or nikki in a 190D....

[waystin2]

This is now my 3rd AH Tour, I now collide less, do not take HO'S, nor try to create them.  All of these things were by choice & practice, not the enemy cons I am flying against. The Spits I fly are allergic to bullets! With definition and pictures provided above, are we discussing head-ons or front quarter merges? I say that you do not have to accept either situation completely.   Is it not possible to turn?  Dive? Climb? If you have good SA, you have all the time in the world to plan your merge.  The only exception I can think of are furballs (basically anything goes when your in the bowl) or an enemy con has crept up on you and you don't see them until they are very close.  I would ask myself how did this enemy con get close enough to the front quarter (or worse yet the nose) of your fighter?  SA good?  ACM good?  If not practice, I do and it works.  I am by no means one of the best, but will keep practicing towards that goal.  You will end up having a whole heck of lot more fun, and whole hell of lot less frustration when you revise your tactics with experience gained from your dogfights.

[VansCrew1]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
Then explain why the Abbeville Kids (JG26) routinely HO'd Allied bomber formations?  

Hoing bombers is different from hoing fighters.If a German wanted to take a bomber out fast shoot him in the face.That is a logical ho vs bombers but hoing fighters is not logical.

[waystin2]

Originally posted by VansCrew1
Hoing bombers is different from hoing fighters.If a German wanted to take a bomber out fast shoot him in the face.That is a logical ho vs bombers but hoing fighters is not logical.

Agreed.

[Boxboy]

Originally posted by bombnbail
Until I read this, I wasn't going to comment.  But, you need to either join the military for a few years, or you need to spend some time studying history.  

They spent 5 days shelling the crap out of a rock called Iwojima.  They sent in two divisions of marines.  thats all, just 2 divisions.  They had one other division still on board the transports but refused to send them iin, even tho the marines were getting the crap shot out of em.  

That was just the last major island landing.  

It is also why the A-bomb was used, to limit friendly casualties and bring the war to a close.  

In the 1940s they didn't have smart bombs.  Bombing was a chancy thing, so it required troops on the ground to do the hard part, root out the enemy and kill him.  

Lots of men died, lots of Officers died leading their men, and lots of Generals died directing the fight.  ON ALL SIDES.

I don't know what you mean by cells but you are not well read in history or ww2.  

BTW  IwoJima saved a lot of lives after those marines captured it.  Maybe thats why it was worth the cost.

< salute >

BnB

As the son of an Iwo Jima Vet (who was in that floating reserve) I can tell you that they DID hit the island on third day.

My father was in the 3rd Division, 28th Marines, Company I and they took the center of the island where the air fields were  (which was the purpose of the invasion).

I remember my dad telling me about a wounded B-29 landing before the island was totally secured, saving that crews lives.

Ded's argument falls apart with Hiroshima and Nagasaki where we saved an estimated 1,000,000 lives vs an invasion.

PS I get into HO situation cause my eyesight is not what it used to be and in the game sometimes I mistake a on coming target as going away until I am too close to change.

[TalonX]

Originally posted by Xargos
Don't forget that this same country would send ten soldiers into battle with only one rifle between them and expect the others to keep picking up that same rifle after it's holder died.  The Russians did not care if their pilots died in the HO.

The HO was used frequently, in all theatres, by all sides.  Period.

The F4F and F6F pilots often HO'd the Japanese planes.   The Germans and American's used it frequently.

Only in AH is it a bad move....usually cried about by the LOSER....

See, in real life, no one had to suffer the LOSER on 200...