To answer Bnz's comments;
I did not intend to mean that energy fighting was useless, not used, or unknown in WWII. What I meant is that it was not as dominant a tactic in WWII Europe as usually assumed, and that contrary to widespread assumptions, maneuvering combat was a lot more prevalent in Europe than in the Pacific. This was due to the relative equality of characteristics between the opponents in Europe, and was noted as such by actual pilots of the time. In the Pacific, the Japanese noted ONLY the Hellcat would engage them regularly in maneuvering combat, and it has, by the way, by far the highest tally of kills... In theory the P-38 could also maneuver, but I think in person the P-38 is a blinder and more intimidating ride than "on paper"...
Note that I do concede energy tactics were more predominant in the Pacific, but I think it is useful to emphasize that this importance was due in large parts to the characteristics of the opposing aircrafts involved.
Note the premium I put on the altitude advantage, which is in part related to energy tactics, but the most important, and overlooked, thing about altitude advantage is that, when you are not lined up behind another aircraft, which is most of the time, pointing your nose at or in front of him means he is slipping away, because his progress will be faster than yours, since you are at a cross angle to his trajectory. Even if your aircraft is faster and more maneuverable, allowing you to keep the lead ahead, your inputs will not match exactly enough his rate of progress to put most of your shots into him.
By being above him and nosing down, the dive acceleration allows you to match his rate of progress easier, making for a steadier aim from a wider variety of angles. So altitude advantage gives you a better, steadier aim, and, I would argue, that this is at least as important as the overtaking speed to obtain the single-burst kill you were talking about.
I attempted to duplicate this in my game by allowing a greater vertical gun reach from above; 1200ft., vs 600 ft. from below.
The way I see it, pure Boom and Zoom was essential against a more maneuverable enemy that was not slower; early Pacific. Very good against an unusually fragile enemy that was slower; late Pacific, and useable against an enemy that started or stayed below you, PROVIDED you had good high speed handling on your side; P-47, P-51; late Western Europe. The P-38 could Boom and Zoom at LOW altitudes against the slower Japanese, where its poor allowable TAS was much higher, but did badly against the faster or higher Germans. The FW-190A and A6M Zero are two types that generally would do poorly with Boom and Zoom tactics. The Me-109G, on the other hand, would do well if the pilot remembers the big trim wheel (Not always the case!)...
As for jet-era vs prop-era tactics;
A high yo-yo to slow you down to a better turn rate would be of no use in a P-51 or P-47, which turn better at higher speeds...
A low yo-yo to accelerate in a turn would probably make more sense in many American prop fighters, but not if you are flying a FW-190A, A6M Zero, or any other kind of WWII fighter that mushes at higher speeds (FW-190A), or that doubles its turn radius quickly as speed goes up (A6M, FW-190A or medium speed Me-109G). It is a valid tactic in some circumstances, but at the serious cost of having to raise the nose afterwards to hit your opponent, and I think it would have been done often simply to stay in the enemy's blind spot...
WWII fighters had such diverse personalities that cookie-cutter energy maneuvers like high/low yo-yos were not necessarily applicable.
Another general concept like Corner Velocity simply has no practical value for numerous types; Me-109G, P-47, P-51...
Jets have far more consistent traits (and on top of that behave symmetrically!), so I would underline instead the specialized WWII knowledge that was necessary to achieve dozens or hundreds of kills, and encourage to not try to placate post war jet fighter training on that era.
I would say a few things would stand out to simmers who would fly these WWII contraptions for real; the confusion and near-physical pain created by the tremendous engine noise, the vibrations and crummy static-ladden radio (not so on spark plug-free jets!), all of which means it takes a while to see calmly past the windows...; the difficulty of seeing down and ahead; and perhaps most of all the shocking weakness of the guns, due in large parts to the various buffeting oscillations of a small maneuvering aircraft.
The effect of guns would be hard to replicate exactly by a computer model, but I will take as an example a recent poster in this forum who had great success with the Me-163B, shooting down regularly several bombers, to a maximum of four. In reply, someone said that the Me-163B had trouble getting to the bombers, but once there it had no trouble shooting them down. In fact, it is just the opposite; the guns were the single biggest headache of the Me-163B, despite 30mm ballistic properties that were not all that bad, as recently shown here in an animation (or is it in Il-2 GD?).
That someone in real-life shot down 2 B-17s with the Komet is probably a minor miracle, and was seen as such at the time. I think most discrepancies with real-life successes in simulations boils down to the gun impact on actual structures and the real flight buffeting accuracy, but solving these problems is not an enviable task...
I hope I'm not boring everyone to death, so I'll conclude quickly by saying to Lusche, Shane, or anyone, that if they want to play by E-Mail my version of the Air Force game, available for free as "Advanced Air Force", I am perfectly willing: Here again the link;
http://www.visi.com/~mrowles/Mike%27s_Air_Force_page.html My E-mail; Gaston1_01@hotmail.com
For me too, the recurring problem is to find someone who likes to play this game. Note that my "Advanced" variant requires having the original game rules, preferrably Avalon Hill, and the maps and counters.
Good luck to all simmers, whether on screens or cardboard!
Gaston.
