hoen is ok!!

[Ghosth]

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this, but its starting to get old. "If YOUR turning, or HE's turning its NOT a HO".

It could be a hot merge, it could be a forward quarter shot in a maneuver fight.
It could be elvis  reborn with a 20mm, but its NOT a HO. Got it?

A HO by Definition is both guys turning nose to nose for an extended period in order to take that first easy shot. If either one turns or maneuvers its NOT a HO.

If neither connects on that first merge, both pull up into an immelman and one shoots the other at the top. ITS NOT A HO, cause both were maneuvering. It can't be a HO until both separate 3 -4 k apart, and turn nose to nose for the shot. Got it?

There is no foul on forward quarter shots in a maneuver fight, its FAIR GAME!
There is certainly no foul for ducking his "attempted" HO shot, reversing and killing him. No matter HOW you did it. That is why the (no ho shot shield) from AW is bogus and is never to be seen here.

Last, in AH everyone dies, Period, even Hitech.

If you just died, YOU MADE A MISTAKE, someplace. Don't blame the other guy. Figure out what you did wrong. So your ego got bruised, happens to ALL of us. Don't take it out on Him, he didn't do anything wrong. Your the one who made the mistake and died for it.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Ghosth

It can't be a HO until both separate 3 -4 k apart, and turn nose to nose for the shot. Got it?

3-4 k is considerably further than I would use to so classify it......... for me just holding the 180 without counter manouvre is sufficient to define it.

Like the picture above...........  it can happen in the vert.

For me the defining moment is when both players on each others 12 can choose not to merge head on yet still choose to do so ...........regardless of distance.

[Murdr]

Ghosth, I wonder if you could elaborate by squaring up these to sentences.

Originally posted by Ghosth
"If YOUR turning, or HE's turning its NOT a HO".

There is certainly no foul for ducking his "attempted" HO shot, reversing and killing him.

Only reason is I am not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with what BaldEgl and others have posted

Originally posted by BaldEagl
You're contention is that if you go for the HO on the merge and the guy trys to break and you get the deflection it isn't a HO at all.  Technically you are correct but it's just, as I said, a lame excuse to justify the HO when you get called out on 200 for it.

"Who?  Me?  I didn't HO.  It was a deflection shot!"

BS!

It takes one to initiate the HO.  It takes two to HO and accept.  Period.

In a true deflection shot your opponent never gets a guns solution.  In HO avoidance your opponent definitely HAD the chance for a guns solution and didn't take it.  At that point you simply took the cheap shot which is not a true deflection.  It's still a HO.

[Nimrod45]

Originally posted by Stoney74
Brilliant.  So, first, I can't make a bee-line past you because then I would be participating in a HO, even if I don't pull the trigger.  But, if I tried to avoid the shot, then I'm giving up angles and deserve to get hit.  

I guess I should just stay in the tower.

Yep you probably should.

[Nimrod45]

Originally posted by BaldEagl
Thank you.

Don't be ridiculous.  There are plenty of other shots than a pure six.  Personally, I prefer full profile snapshots but that's just me.

And don't get me wrong, I will HO in very advanageous situations (say in a 190A-8 against a non-cannoned or lightly cannoned bird if they initiate the HO and I'm mearly accepting or after the fight is already on).

You're contention is that if you go for the HO on the merge and the guy trys to break and you get the deflection it isn't a HO at all.  Technically you are correct but it's just, as I said, a lame excuse to justify the HO when you get called out on 200 for it.

"Who?  Me?  I didn't HO.  It was a deflection shot!"

BS!

It takes one to initiate the HO.  It takes two to HO and accept.  Period.



I never once suggested a planned attempt at a HO in my original post Baldy.  But beleive it or not in a fight every now and then you  and your oponent might end up facing eachother and if I have got a shooting solution with the upper hand I will take it, and I could absolutly care less how the other guy feels about it, I never tune to 200, and have never chatted on 200 so I wouldn't even be aware of being called out.  But anyway I am tired of making excuses for my lack of skill.  Your amazing.

[BaldEagl]

Originally posted by Nimrod45
I never once suggested a planned attempt at a HO in my original post Baldy.  But beleive it or not in a fight every now and then you  and your oponent might end up facing eachother and if I have got a shooting solution with the upper hand I will take it, and I could absolutly care less how the other guy feels about it, I never tune to 200, and have never chatted on 200 so I wouldn't even be aware of being called out.  But anyway I am tired of making excuses for my lack of skill.  Your amazing.

Nimrod, I have nothing against you here.  Don't take it personally but I don't believe the "It takes 2 to HO" line so many throw out there or the "If one turns it's no longer a HO" line.

Also, maybe I misunderstood you as most HO discussions revolve around the initial merge and that's the point that people differ on so much.  That's the skilless shot as the HOer has no intention of doing anything other than flying straight at his opponent, firing and hoping that he will survive both the firing pass and the potential collision.  

These guys typically have no moves once they have made the initial HO pass.  They want kills and instant gratification without taking the time and effort that it requires to learn SA and ACM.  As many have said, if they make the mistake of turning after the HO pass against an exprienced pilot they are usually dead within two turns.  If they are smart they run.

Those who rely on the HO (initial merge) usually have a K/S under 1 and K/D around 1 which will never improve until they learn that their preferred tactic is the reason they aren't getting any better and then they will have to practically start over from the beginning to learn some ACM.

The other typical HO shooter is a big cannoned BnZer with E.  Accepting their HO is suicide but fortunately they are easy to avoid.  If they do get the lucky "deflection" kill I have no problem with it as their options to fight are limited.  If they miss the HO they will definately extend, often not to return.  If they re-set and return then it's just a matter of time until they bleed off E and limit their options even further.

Once the fight is on (which if I'm reading this correctly is where your contention came from) then I have no problem with someone trying to HO or do whatever it takes to try to kill their opponent (unless they are part of a "gang" against a lone con) and I doubt most here do but once the fight is on it's rarely a HO, at that point it usually is a true deflection.

Again, don't take it personally.  I have nothing against you.

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by Ghosth
I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this, but its starting to get old. "If YOUR turning, or HE's turning its NOT a HO".

I think I know what your saying, but I have a different take on it.

A "HO", in the context that we discuss this flogged horse, and is my take on the subject, is this ...

When 2 opposing planes BOTH have a guns solution on each other ... that is an HO.

It matters not what distance or wether one is turning or both are turning. Once the 2 both have a guns solution ... then there is a possibility of a "HO" occuring.

Anything outside of both having a guns solution, then any shot taken by one or the other, who has a guns solution ... that is called a deflection shot.

If there is enough separation at the merge where I can get a guns solution on you ... I WILL TAKE THE SHOT ... I will lay .50 cals from cockpit to tail if presented and it will not be an HO. Some may say, well that is lame ... I say don't present a guns solution for me.

[LYNX]

Originally posted by SlapShot
When 2 opposing planes BOTH have a guns solution on each other ... that is a HO. [/B]

Exactly.




Now we have to address "Pickers" and "Cherry pickers".

[BaldEagl]

Originally posted by SlapShot
When 2 opposing planes BOTH have a guns solution on each other ... that is an HO.

It matters not what distance or wether one is turning or both are turning. Once the 2 both have a guns solution ... then there is a possibility of a "HO" occuring.  

So are you saying that if both have a guns solution then one pulls off and gets hit on the deflection it wasn't a HO?  Even though the clear intent of the HOer was to HO?

If so then this gives HOers plenty of justification to continue and it probably should be taught as a valid tactic.  After all, it's really just a 0 degree (or is that 180 degree?) deflection shot right?

Trainers:  Deflection shooting; from 0 to 20 degrees.  Thursday nights.  Trained by Ghosth.  Also, how to justify a HO by arguing deflection.

[VonMessa]

Originally posted by Ghosth



Last, in AH everyone dies, Period, even Hitech.

If you just died, YOU MADE A MISTAKE, someplace. Don't blame the other guy. Figure out what you did wrong. So your ego got bruised, happens to ALL of us. Don't take it out on Him, he didn't do anything wrong. Your the one who made the mistake and died for it.

     That is the bottom line, and I do not think it can be stated in any better terms.   Ghost

  Of course, HO's were an undeniable part of air combat.  But, I'm sure is wasn't the first choice for any but the most suicidal of pilots.  I do not claim to be an expert cartoon pilot in fact, ######'s guys kill me routinely.  I am, however, fairly certain that the object is to stay out of the way of the other pilot's field of fire as much as possible.  To put yourself in a position that lets the red guys' get ANY type of shot on you can't be good.  In fact the meager amount of kills I do have are from someone else's failed HO's.

     Now take into account that I am a former Army guy who had a very intimate relationship with Mother Earth.  Cover and concealment to be exact.  If guys could see and fire rounds at you, there was always the chance that you could put some Terra Firma between yourself and the ordinance, meaning the bullets could not get to you.  BUT..........

     Up "there", there is (almost)nowhere to hide, and no cover (unless you put your wingman between you and the enemy fire).  Again, coming from a ground pounder, I would think that in this situation, one would not want to intentionally put one's self ANYWHERE that the enemy fire could reach you.  I DO know that there are no foxholes to dive into up there.

     So, therefore, CmusTARD, your theory lacks logic, and merit.

and by the way

squeeeeeeeeek!  (couldn resist, i hope skuzzy's not watching)

[Ghosth]

Snippage..........
When 2 opposing planes BOTH have a guns solution on each other ... that is an HO.

It matters not what distance or wether one is turning or both are turning. Once the 2 both have a guns solution ... then there is a possibility of a "HO" occuring.
............................. .end snippage  


Snapshot with all due respect sir, I still have a problem with that definition.

You and I both know that good pilots don't HO. The reason we know this is that good pilots setup for a merge, or ACM to get behind and kill the other guy with good flying not a simple Head On Guns on pass.

So by defining a HO your way,it puts a negative implication on any time 2 players both have a shot and one loses. Yet it should not be that way in my opinion. There are a LOT of times in a good fight where both players could have a shot at the same time. Yet NONE of those should carry any stigma, shame, or penalty. Because your both in there giving it everything you have.
Your not Jousting or playing chicken from 4k out, your FIGHTING, manuvering for all your worth. The only time real stigma or shame should be attached is when both pilots go nose to nose with no attempt to do anything else.  


At times ANY good pilot is going to extend out 2k, reverse back high into the bogeys following him, right?  Yet if you define that as a HO, your telling people that maneuver is wrong. Or other people will say that its wrong, because your turning into a HO situation. So the only way to end the endless HO whining is to first agree to what a "Real" NOT good, HO is. Then teach the community to not use it, correct?



If instead you put a septation in there ie the 3k or greater, then it does become exactly what everyone dislikes about it. In short playing chicken, nose to nose,  no maneuvering,  no duck, dodge, or attempt to win by ACM, just who wins the guns vs guns battle.

So the only way to change this is to develop a Definition that Excludes all excepted shots, but does NOT exclude what is not accepted.

Now, looking at it again, taking the LONG view, thinking in terms of Community, do you STILL have a problem with that definition? Can you provide a better one that still fits the situation? Because the one you gave does not.

If so I'll give up this crusade and let the whines continue endlessly.

You don't agree with my definition, fine, then Challenge the Trainers to come up with a single accepted definition. And accept it when they do.

Murdr I was not attempting to reply to what BaldEagl had posted.
I'd prefer to get a definition of WHAT a HO is accepted first. Then we can quickly find out if a HO was involved or not. In short, don't untie the Gordian knot, cut it.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Ghosth
You and I both know that good pilots don't HO. The reason we know this is that good pilots setup for a merge, or ACM to get behind and kill the other guy with good flying not a simple Head On Guns on pass.

That's not entirely true; good pilots will also adapt to whatever circumstances present themselves.  If I notice that someone goes out of his way to avoid going HO with me, I can use that to my advantage by predicting where he's going to try to avoid me every time.  I can then "cheat" in that direction and give him a face full of lead without much risk to myself.

On the other hand, if I know the other guy is game for a HO, I'm more likely to adjust my tactics accordingly and stick with another option that is less risky.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[hubsonfire]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
I'm more likely to adjust my tactics accordingly and stick with another option that is less risky.

-- Todd/Leviathn

Like casting more powerful spells on him, fairieboy?

[MajIssue]

Originally posted by Stoney74
Where does this line of reasoning come from?  If I'm trying to duck the inevitable LA-7, Mossie, P-38, Spit, etc. HO shot, and they hit me despite my best efforts to avoid it, I'll get on 200 and call them out.  It takes only one to make a HO shot.  It takes two to Co-HO.

The key words in your post Stoney were "Line of reasoning" a concept alien to some of the brethern that HO.

I will turn toward someone that is lining me up so that I make a smaller target and to complicate their gunnery... What gets me is that certain players will deliberately collide despite my best efforts to avoid such a collision... but what can you do? Whine on 200? I just re up and get back into the fight.

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by Ghosth
Snippage..........
When 2 opposing planes BOTH have a guns solution on each other ... that is an HO.

It matters not what distance or wether one is turning or both are turning. Once the 2 both have a guns solution ... then there is a possibility of a "HO" occuring.
............................. .end snippage  


Snapshot with all due respect sir, I still have a problem with that definition.

You and I both know that good pilots don't HO. The reason we know this is that good pilots setup for a merge, or ACM to get behind and kill the other guy with good flying not a simple Head On Guns on pass.

So by defining a HO your way,it puts a negative implication on any time 2 players both have a shot and one loses. Yet it should not be that way in my opinion. There are a LOT of times in a good fight where both players could have a shot at the same time. Yet NONE of those should carry any stigma, shame, or penalty. Because your both in there giving it everything you have.

Ghosth my friend ...

Notice I also said ... "Once the 2 both have a guns solution ... then there is a possibility of a "HO" occuring."

Maybe I should have also clarified that there is no HO unles shots are fired.

You are correct that you and I could both have a guns solution ... and not fire ... hence no HO ... but without both of us having a guns solutions, there is no possiblity at all of an HO occuring.

I would also agree with your idea of circumstance coming into play. If you and I were knife fighting and your were on the edge of maybe stalling ... and an HO presented itself ... and you took it ... I would have no problem with it ... and if the circumstances were reversed, I don't think that you would have a problem with it either ... but not everyone sees it that way.

As to what Lev said ... I never ever get HOed in a 1 v 1 situation ... I never ever try to present a guns solution to my opponent ... which naturally puts me out of a guns solution so an HO can't happen ... I am working on the lead turn ... BUT if the opponents merge is so bad that they present a guns solution for me prior to the merge ... I will try to fill you full of lead from stem to stern and not blink.

There is an exception to that. If I know who is my opponent, and they have the right attitude, I will go guns cold on the first merge. This is something that Eagler and I do all the time. We find each other, we know it is each other prior to the merge ... we merge guns cold ... and then we go at it like two tom cats.