All you HO guys...

[AKcurly]

Originally posted by Dago:
Sorry to disagree Wotan, but I was staying at a hotel in Detroit last year, and it just so happened there was a reuniion of a P38 fighter group there.

I spent as much time as I could talking with those guys, and trying to learn as much as I could from them, when I asked them about Head On attacks.

Their responce was unanimous  "We specialized in head on attacks!".


Dago

Dago, did they tell you why did they did that?  I am dumb as dirt about this and twice as ignorant, but any maneuver which permits your opponent to shoot at you seems less than optimal -- even if you have quad hispanos and he has nothing but 7mm.  One good burst through a vital airplane/body part can ruin a day, even though you just exploded his day.  Just curious.  

AKcurly

[AKcurly]

Originally posted by Wotan:
hos happened but not as a matter of tactic like it is used in the main.

How many combat sorties were flown in wwii

how many resulted in someone being shot down

how many resulted in being shot down in a ho

what the total percentage of kills achieved by ho in wwii?

Now compare that with the percenatges of ho kills in ah.

Hos in wwii were a very rare. No one ever said they never occur.

Even your own post shows that after 3 ho attempts no hits were recieved by either side. It took some acm skill to get the kill.

Just a typical mindless toad thread I guess.
[ 08-11-2001: Message edited by: Wotan ]

Lol Wotan - your note is the mindless one.  Toad makes no claim (read his note) other than to say "HOs happened and happen."  You're the guy making statements which a) can't be substantiated (what percentage of kills were achieved by HO) or b) mindless (Now compare that with the percenatges of ho kills in ah.)  Get a grip, Wotan.  

AKcurly

[whels]

and asi have said before HOs in AH are total unrealistic in leathality. if AH had HOs that even remotely  matched RL, i wouldnt mind them. but as it is, they are too deadly and hit planes too easy compaired to RL.

In RL u were more apt to collide then get hits or even kills with HO passes.

 

Originally posted by Toad:
Wotan, I am so hurt...

but I do want to point out that HO was a typical tactic in the PAC.

Further, are you somehow implying that the % of types of attack in AH should somehow match WW2? How are you going to implement that, may I ask? Give someone a "B&Z" allotment and when it's gone, no more B&Z for a while?

Go ahead, slap me around some more.


BTW, you'll note that Bill Reese never mentions shooting at the second 109 until he was behind him.  

[Toad]

Curly,

Thanks for saving me some time. Well said.

Wotan,

Yes, I believe I can supply some "more than anecdotal evidence" if you will accept instructions from aces like McGuire that were meant to guide the new guys.

For example, McGuire authored a book "Combat Tactics in the Southwest Pacific Area" that was adopted by the Army Air Corps. Here is a snip on his advice about using the Head-On pass against the Japanese:

"Offered in evidence is the Japanese reaction to the head-on pass. They don't like it and nine out of 10 will break first, even before they are in range. To be sure, the head-on attack cannot be recommended when flying a plane that has little armament, no convergence of lines of fire, and light armor, but what about this shout of "Banzai" and the suicide crash? Nothing about it because the Japanese aren’t living up to dying for their propaganda. Instead they will break from the head-on pass in a vertical bank and try to come around for a tail attack. The P-38 pilot need only to keep on at the same speed or go into a shallow dive to defeat this tactic, for the enemy pilot loses speed in the bank and turn and will wind up too far behind to be a menace. In this case of the exceptional one who does hold to a head-on pass, simply push over. The Japanese pilot will invariably go up. One thing you must not do when committed to a head-on pass: you must not turn until entirely clear."

IIRC, Tom Blackburn, leader of VF-17 "Jolly Rogers" was also proponent of the HO against the Japanese. I loaned his book to my father, but it will be back soon. Blackburn pretty much advised his men to take the HO if they could get it, for the same reasons that McGuire proposed.

Then there's Erik Shilling, the Flying Tiger:

"For the most part the AVG attacked the bombers and fought the fighters when necessary.  Hit and run tactics were not used against bombers, but if attacked by fighters, our P-40s made head on runs,
even turned with them as long as speed allowed, then dove away."

Also from Erik Shilling:

"To show a couple examples of attacking enemy fighters: If you attack head on, which the enemy was reluctant to do, because our guns outranged theirs, they would normally pull up."
 

As Curly pointed out, can you supply ANY of the numerical tally data or percentages you talked about?

[Jekyll]

In 'Thunderbolt', Robert S Johnson speaks of the HO being almost the preferred tactic in the P47 versus the Luftwaffe.

And in the PTO, the HO WAS a standard Allied tactic!  Take a look at this:

 

The Thach Weave ... perhaps the most 'famous' defensive maneuver in the PTO.  A maneuver specifically designed to force the HO engagement with the less durable Japanese aircraft.

Toad's right on this one.

[Toad]

Why, thank you for your support Jekyll.

But Wotan is bored.  

[Dago]

AKCurly,
They told me they prefered the HO against the German planes for two reasons:

1) The P38 couldnt turn very well, they said it was slow to turn and would be slaughtered if they tried to turn fight against the German aircraft

2) The P38 had great centerline guns and brought a much greater concentration of fire to bear in a HO at all ranges

I also got the impression that they felt the P38 couldnt outrun the German aircraft, so the HO was the closest thing they had to a tactic where they felt they had an advantage.

They were a blast these guys, funny, with an underlying hint of sadness for the friends who didnt come home, and those who passed away since the last reunion.  It was for me an honor and a treat to meet them and hear their stories.

Dago

[Jekyll]

Originally posted by Toad:
Why, thank you for your support Jekyll.
 

I always support people when they are right Toad.

[Toad]

Yes, Jekyll, so do I.  

Swamprat, the only thing you forgot to put in from all the previous rants was that bit about how "people who HO have no honor".  
 
No one is "cheerleading" it. It's simply ridiculous to claim that "it didn't happen" or "it wasn't a legitimate tactic" or "no one suggested it as a tactic" during the war.

People will HO. It's in the game. You can't make people fly the way you think they should fly. Never will happen. Breathe deep, relax, become one with the cosmic all.

Besides, they're so easy to dodge.

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]

[AKSWulfe]

The funny thing is... everyone is using WWII as the pillar for as to what can go on in this game.

If you want pathetic, that's it right there. This ain't WWII, and it never will be thankfully.

We fought the war 56 years ago, lighten up and have fun.. it's just a damn game.
-SW

[Voss]

I remember reading accounts from the LW perspective, regarding FW tactics, where the headon attack was considered an automatic victory. The FW has a relatively low profile, big guns, and the pilot is relatively safe behind a lot of metal. I would imagine Lavockin pilots felt the same way.

At any rate, I can prove that HO existed even before WWII. Hell, even before aircraft came into being.  

 

[Wotan]

I guess I'm not so done with this thread but this will be my last just to address somethings.

1 I never stated hos weren't used in WW2
(i don't care either way)

2 To state that hos were common tradional or typical is wrong imo
(i guess it depends on your definiton of typical)
In my first reply to this thread I listed several questions to which you me and toad know were unanswerable. In one of toads replies I assumed he understood that


   

We both agree that HO's happened in WW2 ACM.

We both probably agree that there are NO meaningful statistics kept on "HO's attempted" or on "HO's successful" in the WW2 records of any side. Therefore, speculation on the frequency or success of actual WW2 HO's is pointless.

 

As the above quote states I do agree and so does toad. To then say that hos are typical common and traditional is not valid.

AKcurly please read it again maybe you'll understand that point.

Sax what do I wanna be? wtf?

Toad offers anecdotal evidence to prove hos happened but I've agreed and conceded to just that. But to make the claim as too typical common and traditional is wrong.
I dont care how versed you are in wwii history.

Jekyll the thatch weave despite what you posted was not used to entice the nme into a ho shot.

It was a "drag manuvre" used to drag the more manuverable zeros through the gunsite of a freindly less manuverable wildcat.

Thatch Weave


<EDIT> Sorry bad link
goto Tactics and Methods
then to Fighter Defense

you can see by the illustration why in fact they call it a weave.

Dago can you be more specific?

Again the popularity contest that takes place on this board is imo boring. Do any of you think Toad needs help stating his opinion. Its always the same group scrathing each others back or dare I say "reach around"    

Nothing posted here proves hos common typical or traditional.

As for hos being "unhonorable" bs

You gotta dance with the one who brung ya. I will ho you in a second if it means me being shot down in the main.

However I do get bothered by it in places like scenarios and have been frustrated in CT when hoed. But the fact that they happen in Ah real life or where ever doesn't mean typical common or traditional.

<S>
Wotan

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: Wotan ]

[Toad]

Wotan, you don't accept McGuires book, which was adopted by the AAF as anything more than anecdotal?

I'm sort of thinking if they went to the trouble of printing it and distributing it to the pilots that it qualify as procedure or policy.

Typical or common fits, in my point of view.

I understand you disagree.

[Steven]

Weren't the majority of victories in WW2 against aircraft that never saw the attacker coming?

Well, to take a correlation on this HO debate...shouldn't we then get upset because everyone is maneuvering around and making it difficult to get a shot off?


 

-Puke
332nd Flying Mongrels

[Wotan]

One more to clarify.........

No McGuires book is not anecdotal nor is dagos claim that actual p38 pilots hoed.

But do you think either one of these statements equate to typical common or tradtional.

Do you think that they represent a circumstance or situation where a ho may be an option or a solution?........or desired?

Do believe a pilot (any pilot) upped for a sortie looking for a ho shot?

This seems be getting out of hand and maybe I am resposible for that (I don't care).

Nevertheless we disagree probrably more on phrasing then anything else but so what ....