You can't argue that head-on's should be removed from a historical or realism perspective.
Take the action in the South Pacific for instance. The US knew that (1) it's planes could take more of a beating than the Japanese aircraft and (2) the US had heavier armament vs. the Japanese aircraft. This lead to the head-on to be used as one of the the tactics by US pilots.
Good shots and aggressive American pilots from the beginning of the war looked for the opportunity to make a head-on attack....the US aircraft would use superior speed to gain distance and then simply turn around and head straight for the adversary. The shot had to be made in less than two seconds. In many circumstances the Japanese plane would break away and the US fighter sail past. Sometimes the Japanese fighter would either accept the one-sided duel or simply do the wrong thing. The result would be on of the most dramatic encounters in fighter combat.
The head-on attack was part of the American repertoire of basic combat techniques since being recommended by Chennault. No doubt hundreds of fragile Japanese aircraft perished under the punishing fire of American guns. Richard Bong was noted for favoring the technique.
Source:
Fire in the Sky - The Air War in the South Pacific , Eric Beregerud
There's also a nice descriptive account from Charles Lindbergh of him using a the head-on attack in a P-38 when he spent several months in the South Pacific on aircraft technical advisory issues. In his account both planes were blazing away at each other head-on and he narrowly missed a head-on collision by a matter of feet while downing the Japanese aircraft.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
