Allow me to rephrase the question you're now going to avoid. Please cite for the audience where the 70 years of military aviation training materials you possess teach pilots to purposefully cut their engines in a dogfight.
I'm not avoiding the question. Until now, you've not asked for me to provide "70 years of military aviation training materials you possess teach pilots to purposefully cut their engines in a dogfight."
That being said, I never said it existed. The original request was slowly twisted over the course of three replies. The original statement was:
I'm all for any RL life tactics and ACM, like turning your engine off in mid-flight. That's RL life too, right?
I proved very readily that it does happen in real life.
You then came in and changed the wording of Changeup's request and stated:
Earlier, in this very thread, you cited 70 years of military training materials as justification for HO'ing. What do the 70 years of materials say about turning your engine off in combat?
Training materials mention engine off procedures with quite a decent amount of regularity, as any real pilot will confirm. An engine off, both in and out of combat is relatively common; whether for putting out a fire, doing an air restart from fuel starvation, or any other myriad of possibilities. It's taught as part of emergency procedures, and to a lesser degree as CRM/SPRM.
Having been called on that, the request was then changed for a third time:
Allow me to rephrase the question you're now going to avoid. Please cite for the audience where the 70 years of military aviation training materials you possess teach pilots to purposefully cut their engines in a dogfight.
You seem to repeatedly put words where they don't belong. I never stated that I possessed training materials that
taught pilots to cut their engines in combat; those were your words, not mine. There are numerous materials that address engine off procedures in combat, but none that instruct the pilot to pursue that end. In fact, no where have I stated that I possessed those, if only because that was never even a premise until your last post. I can't avoid a question that wasn't previously asked.
Does that suffice? Or will you need to change the question for a fourth time?
Now, having said that, something occurred to me.
Turning is a
tactic,
energy fighting is a
tactic,
HO'ing is a
tactic. Cutting one's engine off is not a tactic, but rather a
process of execution.
Let's definite tactic:
tac·tic |
ˈtaktik:
noun -
an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific endListing out HO'ing, turning, etc. - all of those actions can be employed and controlled from the start of a fight to a specific end. Ergo, they are tactics.
Killing one's engine in flight, however, is neither carefully planned nor is it controlled, as it's almost always done in reaction to avoid an overshoot. Further, it can cannot be used in and of itself to win a fight (kill your engine at the start of the fight and you're going to lose). Therefore, killing an engine is not a tactic; it is an action that is part of another tactic.
I just thought I'd clarify that because this thread is about WWII tactics, not the individual actions employed to achieve them.