All you HO guys...

[funkedup]

I've read dozens of stories from 8th AF pilots who say they commonly HOed the LW.  LW did not have the balls to HO and would turn away, giving the Yanks a free shot.

And there are a lot of accounts of US pilots scoring HO kills in the pacific.  Against flimsy jp planes they took any shot they could get.

[AKDejaVu]

I'll take a HO over a HE any time.

AKDejaVu

[AKSWulfe]

ALL of you are still making the mistake of comparing WWII to a game.

I don't like scripted fights, I like surprises and I most of all enjoy it when someone goes for the head on. No matter what plane I am flying or what plane he is flying, I have only lost a head on when I was going for the head on.

I play online to play against humans, not against AI.. if I wanted a scripted opponent I could play offline games for a lot less than 30$/month.
-SW

[SKurj]

Be nice to see a change in HO lethality, which would reduce its effectiveness.

The chances of glancing shots I would imagine were very high HO.  Perhaps the mine shell was less susceptible to this I dunno.  It just seems weird losing wings and tail planes HO.
I can accept engine hits...


SKurj

[Dago]

The discussion about HO's in the game really do crack me up.

They happen, always have, always will.

There are two type of people in the HO, those who do it and accept it will happen, and those who do it and blame the other guy for the HO.

Nobody has to ever be in an HO.  All they have to do is turn and place their tail in front of the enemy.  Problem solved.   Thats right,  give the enemy your 6, and you will not die in an HO.  You will die, but not in an HO.  hahahahhahah

Funny, I have never seen even one single plane HO.  Why is it, that to have an HO, both planes must do it, but some guys whine when they die in it?

Blame it on a guy who dives at the front of your plane?  Well then, dive away.  Turn, pull up,  but if you go nose to nose with someone using a poor tactic, then you are just as much to blame as the guy who did it.

So, avoid them if can, dispise them if you want, but please dont whine when you die in one.  You are just as much to blame as the other guy.

And dats all I gots to say about dat.

Dago

[Vulcan]

Is it just me or does it sound like that fight was more in the vertical than a flat out HO situation?

I've taken to HOing Nikis now. I find that 70-80% of them go for the HO, those that do are mostly lousy shots. The good shots don't take the HO. Plus the tiffie is tough enough to take a few rounds happily. Since I've started doing this my survival rate against Nikis has shot up.

The other funny thing is a lot of Nikis have started performing bizarre evasives at the sight of a Tiffie coming headon at them  

WW2 anecdotes on HOs are IMHO hard to balance and take seriously. We only get to hear of the 'success stories' - if you know what I mean.

[Beegerite]

If I'm not mistaken, and I'm not cause I just checked, in CFS2 there's an intro to a scenario replicating a P38 Ace Dick Bong's mission and it says that his favorite tactic was the head on.  Now, what dweeb in here wants to make the claim that they know more about air combat than Dick Bong a man who got 21 kills in WW2, eh?
Beeg

[Toad]

Wish I had Tom Blackburn's book here.  

Yes, some guys went looking for the HO. There was one guy in particular in the Jolly Rogers that went for the HO and he's mentioned in the book. Blackburn told his guys to take it if they got a chance, IIRC.

Then you've got McGuire writing a book for all of the AAF fighter pilots in the Pacific.

Basically, both of these (and many other books written by the guys who were there that I've read that you would undoubtedly call anecdotal) present the HO as a solution to the superior turning ability of the Japanese aircraft. The inferior Japanese armor and shorter gun range left an opening to exploit. McGuire, Blackburn, Shilling along with many others pointed to that opening.

You can choose to ignore it and use semantics as your cover.

Or you can accept that "common" is accurate.

[Wotan]

Hos were not the common a2a tactic in world war 2.....

That statement is 100% accurate. For every story you have of a "ho" There are hundreds of accounts of attacks/passes/kills that did not involve a "ho".

Zeros/109s would just fly level waiting to be hoed? If a pilot could work hi out of the sun to bounce a nme he would look to "ho"?

No doudt that ( I think you would agree) that if a situation evolved where a pilot could use a "safer" method to attack a nme he would?

I stand by what I say

Hos (while certainly a part of a2a combat) were not common nor traditional nor typical.


now given a situation where the pilot faced  a "ho" (and I think by your own quotes you agree) he would  it take to force the nme into a predictable response in order to gain the advantage.

Now I've read many times where the majority of kills in wwii were achieved by an unseen unknown attacker? is this wrong?  

I've read few that were the direct result of a "ho". Most that I've read about hos were

1. desperation

2. to force an opponent into a predictal flight path to gain the advantage.........

I dont doudt that there was some instruction as to what to do given a situation where a "ho" would be the only viable option.

I do not accept that the "ho" attack was the typical or desired type of attack at the beginning of any a2a combat.

I don't need to cover anything I made it perfectly clear ...........


<edit> spelling

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

[Toad]

It's all semantics.

How many instructions to/accounts from pilots do you need before it's "common"?

It certainly can't be considered "uncommon". Just about every WW2 fighter pilot I've ever talked to mentions them.

Argue all the semantics you like.

[Sunka]

See Rule #13

[mensa180]

You realize this post is almost 7 years old?

[Sunka]

hehehe but the talk is the same

[mensa180]

So you just blatantly ignore rules?

[Sunka]

I see no rule i broke but in the other hand   6- Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". Issues with any breach of rules should be brought to HTC's attention via email at