Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Help and Training => Topic started by: humble on January 14, 2009, 11:51:26 AM
-
I haven't posted one of these in a long time. This happens to be a G2 in MWA. Nothing fancy or special here (was a hop focused on flying for "score"/living)....I dug it up for another thread but thought it was worth linking here. You dont need a lot of alt or to fly "B&Z" to be in control...if your SA (and luck) are decent.http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/film137.ahf
-
(and luck) are decent.http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/film137.ahf
That puts me out of contention right there.
-
That puts me out of contention right there.
Yes but you are BnZ so you have to be the exception. :D
sorry not as funny as I orignally thought. :)
I haven't posted one of these in a long time. This happens to be a G2 in MWA. Nothing fancy or special here (was a hop focused on flying for "score"/living)....I dug it up for another thread but thought it was worth linking here. You dont need a lot of alt or to fly "B&Z" to be in control...if your SA (and luck) are decent.http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/film137.ahf
I have no luck either but it does not keep me from trying
-
Just takes good SA in a 109. Personally, don't like to pick in a 109, too hard to see. I get down knowing that I have shots that I would much rather take.
In a Temp, it's a diffrent story, much easier guns, better aim as well.
KI also another plane I don't normally pick in either. Guns aren't good enough to go and miss a whole bunch.
-
The plane itself is largely irrelevant, obviously some planes are better suited then others but they all work. I could fly an SBD like that and do reasonably well in a mixed environment. The variables will change and the slower the plane the more important your big picture SA. Nothing worse then ending up as the last man standing low and slow in an early war T&B ride.
SA is the same in any plane, you can fly any plane in the set that way...the primary issue being that the slower the plane the less flexibility you have. The moment you view it as your "having shots" is the moment you lose effectiveness. While you can maneuver to your advantage the reality is that you don't create shots, you exploit the opportunities presented. The moment you start to work for shots your dead and just don't know it.
As noted above I never fly like this unless I'm helping someone, its simply to boring to me. It is however a basic fundamental of the game that is greatly overlooked. None of that is picking by my definition, I'm basically E fighting in a furball that worked its way back and forth. I never sat on another fight or intentionally hung a fellow greenie out to dry. When required I exercised good game play and worked in concert with other friendlies. I was shot at by at least 4 planes and often had cons on my 6 within gunnery range.
To me this is the "missing link" in the game for most. Because a majority of players cant master this aspect they look up to those that can but dont ever evolve beyond it. It's easier to rack up 100 kills like this then notch a single scalp vs an elite stick (read Greebo. Blukitty etc) in an even fight. If this was all that there was to the game I'd have quit 12 years ago.
-
To elaborate on what snaphook was saying, I have a visual for what he was saying. I made it today in the LW defending a base on the big map. 109s are heard to fly low and slow, but, when you can get something in a vertical situation, your odds turn on your side, with almost any other plane in the game. Only problem I have is against KIs and Spits. Spits aren't as bad as KIs, they fight much superior in the vertical, than most 109s (other than the K4).
There is a lot of good points here, ammo management. If you noticed, I didn't take gondies in a G6. Also, there was a nice reversal on a zeke that tried to pull with me. I was much slower and was able to get the quick shot off on him, to light him off.
The best part about it is, there is a 2v1 against me, in a G6, and these other 2 F6Fs. I fought them off for about 2 mins. or so, then one of them hit my oil and I was forced to rtb. I was constantly fighting on an advantage if you noticed, the one that was on the attack, I reversed him and got my advantage back. The one that came back on the advantage I reversed him and was on the advantage again. When one extended though, I wasn't paying attention to where he went, were he hit me up pretty good. Also, I was constantly fighting these two F6Fs in the vertical. I know that F6Fs or F4Us cannot fight well in the vertical, and thats what I took advantage on.
http://www.mediafire.com/?5moydxxfoai
-
Bosco, I watched the 1st 8 min or so...
1) The setup and shot on the zeke was outstanding, thats the type of clip I'd cut that out and post it, almost a batfink caliber reverse.
2) No question your upping from a capped field and getting offensive and into the flow so there is some value overall...
however let me make the following observations from a former trainers perspective.
A) You get target fixated very easily, the F4U was obviously a new kid on the block, you had him in zoom forever with no SA update
B) You easily got sucked into a furball where you were defensive and ineffective. The one timer on racdog(?) was nice but just that...
C) You took fire early due to poor SA and a lack of maneuvering
D) You got bogged down into a fight beyond your ability to manage with minimal SA by the 6 min mark from a well established position after you took care of the zeke...
I think your intent and effort should be applauded and encouraged, what you need to contemplate (IMO) is exactly what your goal is when you post a film here. Ideally the clip will have a single focal point that another pilot can apply, thats why most clips are edited to a single segment of a longer flight/fight. No question you've got tremendous potential and a genuine desire to both improve and help others.
Lets try and put your clip in context with mine from the perspective of a newer player looking for info and advice. My intent was to show the realities of air combat in a multi player setting. "Dog fighting" was not a historic reality and if your attempting to "fly to live" its not really relevant unless your forced into it. Ideally you'd just bounce the unwary and go home, well in a game its somewhat unrealistic but you can maintain speed, awareness and operational control of your immediate surroundings. Now this clip was an actual training sortie, its intent was to help lay a foundation so that the player in question could progress beyond it and begin to apply the stuff he really wants me to teach him.
So we have a film that shows that very little true ACM is required to be an "ace". Any pilot in the game with 60 days of experience can take that clip and apply it to obtain a 20/1 or better K/D ratio within 90 days (if you don't die of boredom first). That does not mean the clip you posted doesn't have value but it also has areas of potential confusion and questionable tactical choices. 95% of what I film is unsuitable for the very same reasons. The simple truth is most of the time I fly stupid and have fun, for someone looking to learn emulating that isn't productive.
There is a reason that the training corps has to be so selective, its not what your trying to teach or capable of teaching that limits you. It's what you unintentionally communicate that has the potential for harm. I think that if you have a genuine interest the raw ability is certainly their, but the learning curve involved in learning to teach is often tougher then learning to do :salute
-
So we have a film that shows that very little true ACM is required to be an "ace". Any pilot in the game with 60 days of experience can take that clip and apply it to obtain a 20/1 or better K/D ratio within 90 days (if you don't die of boredom first).
You've got to quit exaggerating.
I "fly to live" some % of the time, am not an idiot, and I've never come close to 20/1 on the K/D ratio.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually posting a 20 K/D, unless it was Zazen once.
-
You've got to quit exaggerating.
I "fly to live" some % of the time, am not an idiot, and I've never come close to 20/1 on the K/D ratio.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually posting a 20 K/D, unless it was Zazen once.
Actually no, its not hard at all. Now that might be awful boring and it might not be huge numbers. Back when I was doing those training runs regularly I'd normally go 20-25 with no deaths on any given tour, now the rest of my numbers would be normal for me. You can fly 100 hops that way and never have any damage. Now its a skill like anything else and it takes time to tune your SA up, it also would require not engaging at all some flights or not even sortieing at times. Lots of score potatos fly just like that and then switch to attack mode. This is an old clip from a while ago. It was a ride along but the guy didnt have a mic so I wasn't commenting. If I recall it was one of 3 hops I did in the pony that night. Total was something like 14 kills for the 3...http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/pony%20hop.ahf
I haven't watched that one in a long time but it should be fundamentally identical to this one. The issue here is nothing other then learning the SA envelope for the plane your in and being disciplined enough to respect those limits.
-
So we have a film that shows that very little true ACM is required to be an "ace". Any pilot in the game with 60 days of experience can take that clip and apply it to obtain a 20/1 or better K/D ratio within 90 days (if you don't die of boredom first). That does not mean the clip you posted doesn't have value but it also has areas of potential confusion and questionable tactical choices. 95% of what I film is unsuitable for the very same reasons. The simple truth is most of the time I fly stupid and have fun, for someone looking to learn emulating that isn't productive.
OMG...
that claim is so much away from reality I am almost speechless. :P
I think you, having reached a skill level way above the average pilot, are not aware anymore what "little" skill actually is. ;)
Fact is, while to obtain a a 20-1 k/D you doesn't need to be the "best" dogfighter in AH, it's way beyond the capability of most AH players, especially the ones only flying for 60 days only. Even when having seen this clip and trying to follow it. It needs at least a good command of your plane, a very good SA and good marksmanship.
Many vets may be able to do it, but the average new player? No way. Any player? Never.
I remember the times when I was new. I know I was considerable above average as a two-weeker (and the stats showed), but even after having studied some very impressive similar clips, I wasn't able to reproduce it for a long time, even though I was really trying hard to boost my K/D in that way.
-
I would take a look around the 16min. mark snap, thats were the SA comes in with the 2v1 F6F fight. You said that you only watched the first 8 mins. of it right?
-
I've probably trained 50+ guys who've done it with little problem for periods of time (now this is going back a ways obviously). Most guys I got as a trainer were fairly new (lets say 60-120 days). The truly new players went to others and the really good sticks spent more time furballing with DMF, Citibria, Nash and a host of others that were regulars. The guys that got funneled to me invariably were decent sticks with limited dogfighting skills. Initially the focus was on ACM etc but as you and all the current trainers surely know the frustration level can get higher. The "trainee" takes his new found skills out to the playground and gets spanked. All of a sudden even though he's "better" he's doing worse, so I learned that as soon as I got them I needed to explain that ACM and the application of ACM is different. Further that a 1 on 1 fight (dueling or otherwise) is a contest of sorts and is different then actual "real life" air combat. While I spent 80%+ of my time teaching intermediate ACM (about my limit then and now) the other 20% or so was on this stuff. From my perspective this is actually a much simpler concept to learn (and teach). with the higher numbers the % of true 1 on 1's diminishes and the over all target environment is much higher. In the old days you had to learn to fight 1 on 1 and "small melee" engagements to get kills (AW FR at least), in here you don't ever have to fight 1 on 1 or at a disadvantage if you don't want.
Now the "60 day" statement could be misleading, I'm orienting it at the pilot with an average of 2+ hours a day and a minimum of 20-30 hours with a quality trainer. So we're looking at a 120 hr sim pilot with some structured training and a serious desire to implement those specific tactics. What i found is that few of the really good ones stuck with it more then a few weeks or a month before moving more toward the true furballer mentality. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said impressive, to me neither of those clips are. The moment you inject anything other then drive by muggings into the equation you go from scoring to fighting. I cant fly like that unless I have a reason, its just distasteful. To me its always been a stepping stone to the "artistry of air combat".
Now obviously you need the basic flying skills and the ability fly "looking out the window". Also basic comfort in a particular plane and then roughly 90 days of applied SA...again thats just 1 persons opinion but its based on actual past history as a trainer. In the current state of the MA I'd say its even easier if your not side dependent since its easy to fly with the numbers. Now it might take you 40 hops for 20 kills initially and as mentioned in the original post golden bb's and other anomalies can get you but over time you can average 2 kills a sortie with minimal risk IMO.
I think the real issue for most is going beyond whats on that clip, I'd tell trainee's to count any sortie where you took a bullet hole a death. The object is to not get shot period. To me the real difficulty is not the flying its the disipline, especially for gunnery. You can see 3-4 shots that I just missed but didn't chase. To never chase a shot, never put yourself at risk, never give in to the thrill of the fight is exceptionally hard. As always I've got no problem flying a hop or two for anyone interested anytime you see me up (unless its a SAPP night or the squaddies are doing something {you can always still tag along}).
A while back I flew a couple of 190 hops to show how you can fly it as more of an E fighter/semi furballer. Not truly a fly to live clip but you can see the same variables at work. This is where the above style breaks down as you apply true fighting to the equation. This is what normally happens IMO. You increase the fun and the challenge at the expense of sticking to the rules applied above. Now in my opinion this has a lot more "pilot stuff" but eliminates the ability to purely score...but is loads more fun.http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/190%20hop.ahf
-
I would take a look around the 16min. mark snap, thats were the SA comes in with the 2v1 F6F fight. You said that you only watched the first 8 mins. of it right?
I'll try and take a look, but understand that to someone looking to learn the entire clip is a teaching tool...so you've got guys abandoning SA becoming target fixated because you did.
-
Thanks Snap for letting me fly with you like that and try to learn more. I got the same film but watching yours with ur recorded views helps me a lot to see how you can improve ur SA, how much you look around, how much u look forward etc. You can learn a lot by riding along with a better pilot than you are. :aok Just want to add that Snap was trying to show me how to survive in that plane since i'm just starting to fly with it. He said that after i spend more time in it i will learn how to push it more and then be able to be a lot more aggressive with it. I hope it will come in time. :D
-
It was my pleasure, I hope it helps you....feel free to ride along any time. Your probably better equipped to answer this type of question then I am. As lusche said its been a long long time since I was a baby seal. I've probably flown 300+ sorties like that over the years and almost invariably the comments are how different it was then they imagined. I've always believed the issues are conceptual, we can envision ACM a lot easier then SA. So when we talk about applied SA and flying to live most people envision high alt B&Z style flying which is not really effective IMO. I'm almost never over 10k when I fly like this and rarely ever get hit let alone shot down (it obviously does happen at times). Any general comments you've got on the topic might be helpful....
-
I did get target fixated. Most of the time it dosn't take 2 passes and 6 cannon rounds to kill a plane, this one was an oddity. Knowing that there was no one that wasn't fighting, I took the advatage before everyone else jumped on the plane I was shooting down.
-
You ignored a higher plane to dive on a low one and flew under the other inbound cons you turned from to initially "engage" the 2 F4U's and the F6F over the water. Your flying toward the target (for the inbounds) and vulnerable to anyone rolling in or off target or looking to disengage from a higher fight. When you pulled the hi yoyo reverse over the town you had no SA at all at what was your most dangerous point of exposure. I'm not trying to knock the flying or the clip but pointing out that viewed as a training clip its got tremendous flaws....especially in an SA driven thread.
-
There was a friendly co-alt. with them and I knew from before the video, that he would have taken care for them. I also took the chance they were all high because they were dropping ords on the feild, which they were doing the whole time.
-
I enjoyed watching your fight with Shane's P-39. After flying it myself today I can appreciate the challenge of flying it against something like the 109G-2.
-
I enjoyed watching your fight with Shane's P-39. After flying it myself today I can appreciate the challenge of flying it against something like the 109G-2.
I like the D and hate the Q, no question he was at a disadvantage there. Going back to Lusches comments that little sequence is one of the "talking points" on the clip. I think that were this breaks down as a training tool is in the understanding of what the pilot (in this case me obviously) is thinking at the time. From memory we had just disengaged and were flying outward with some pursuit. I had enough alt/E to make a pass but my mind set was on not getting bogged down. Going back to Tango's excellent thread that segment was a classic 2 circle fight. I cant speak for Shane but in my mind he's initiating a classic vertical 2 circle fight from the inferior position. I cant afford to get cute since my SA is limited and being caught high & slow is a bad thing. So instead I cut the gas and worked to create a front quarter snapshot while keeping enough speed to egress. On the flip side Shane appeared to be sitting on the FQ shot looking to convert my attempt to a reverse. As often in an encounter like this I didn't land my snap shot and he didn't quite get his reverse.
Its very common to hear "HO complaints" vs the accomplished E fighters, mostly IMO because few pilots recognize the 2 circle fight and realize that it is by definition a battle of FQ shots. Its the true "gunfighters duel" in that if you don't clear leather 1st you get whacked. Now under normal circumstances I'd have fought that fight completely differently. I always enjoy the training aspect of those types of flights but actually flying like that normally holds minimal interest for me....
-
You've got to quit exaggerating.
I "fly to live" some % of the time, am not an idiot, and I've never come close to 20/1 on the K/D ratio.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually posting a 20 K/D, unless it was Zazen once.
In AW once I had 587 kills w/ 3 deaths for an entire camp. Two deaths were augers that gave no kill credit and 1 was to a bomber gunship (w/ 5 human gunners). I don't care how "timid" you fly or how choosy you are in your engagements, especially, if like myself, you do not vulch. That was no easy accomplishment. My goal was always a deathless camp, which I was never able to achieve, although I was the #1 Ranking Fighter pilot in AWFR for the better part of a decade.
In AW rank was really just a function of points which increased exponentially per kill as you lived consecutively and therefore K/D ratio. In AH on the other hand you have the K/T metric (among others) to use as a counterweight to evaluate the efficacy of a person's K/D. Although K/T is also a reflection of other things, such as the climbrate and speed of your rides, the amount of base defense and CV attack/defense you do, it's also a fair indicator of relative timidity.
For example, Pilot A could post a 100 to 1 K/D ratio but only get 1 K/H. That is not being effective, flying around for an hour to find some poor afk soul then run home to land the pelt is nothing. However, if Pilot B posts a 20 to 1 K/D and gets 8+ K/H, that's HIGHLY effective, top 1-2% calibre of effectiveness. I don't care who's actual fighter rank is higher, Pilot A sucks, Pilot B is great, even though Pilot A has a 500% better K/D ratio. This is especially true if Pilot B gets those figures without vulching or using 262's.
I have been playing the tactical fighter game for as long as I can remember. I can assure you it's not as easy as it looks. In AH you have huge hordes, deadly AA, jets, rockets, HO's , rams, buff formation lazers, runway vulchers, trophy headhunters and gobs of La7 drivers that linger around the periphery of a fight just looking for you to be rtb bingo ammo/gas so they can try to run you down. Most of that was nonexistent in the AW era.
There's an incredible amount of skill required to post something like a 20/1 K/D with an 8+ K/T without vulching or resorting to buff hunting with jets. Anyone who tells you differently has never tried it, is lying and/or is completely clueless. By my count there's maybe 20 people in the game right now that I feel confident have the SA, gunnery, flying skill and the all important mental tactical discipline to perform at that level of effectiveness, if they chose to do so, without the benefit of vulching or using jets.
-
We're introducing an awful lot of variables into the equation. Both kills over time and gunnery are in no way relevant to the statement I made and neither does "score" overall. Historically I'd say my k/h flying that way is between 3 and 6 per hour but I could see it approaching 8 or being under 1. Some variables like collisions are a very real concern. Leaving the training hops aside, the only other time I really flew this way was in the Rangoon Scenario as a scout. IMO that is as close to a "real life" counter part as you can get in a game since your one on many but have a tasking order that forces you to remain somewhat engaged. Only death I had was flying into a zeke that warped right in front of me.
The simple truth is that flying that way is relatively easy to learn but not easy to maintain, primarily because the pilot who can learn it rarely wont continue to try and evolve beyond it. I've always felt that at its highest form you could fly the "coffee break" theory, 1 kill on the dawn patrol and one at dusk. 60 kills on 60 sorties...
-
We're introducing an awful lot of variables into the equation. Both kills over time and gunnery are in no way relevant to the statement I made and neither does "score" overall. Historically I'd say my k/h flying that way is between 3 and 6 per hour but I could see it approaching 8 or being under 1. Some variables like collisions are a very real concern. Leaving the training hops aside, the only other time I really flew this way was in the Rangoon Scenario as a scout. IMO that is as close to a "real life" counter part as you can get in a game since your one on many but have a tasking order that forces you to remain somewhat engaged. Only death I had was flying into a zeke that warped right in front of me.
The simple truth is that flying that way is relatively easy to learn but not easy to maintain, primarily because the pilot who can learn it rarely wont continue to try and evolve beyond it. I've always felt that at its highest form you could fly the "coffee break" theory, 1 kill on the dawn patrol and one at dusk. 60 kills on 60 sorties...
Three kills/Hour is 1 kill every 20 minutes of flying. That's not effective by any stretch of the imagination. For someone to continue to fly like that with that little success per unit time would require a tolerance for boredom approaching the supernatural, which the current generation is definitely not noted for. You simply have to factor in K/T, to put K/D into perspective and context. I could train a 3 year old chimpanzee to get 3 kills per hour simply waiting for people to auto-alt off fields, that's not a "style" or a "method", it's 3rd Degree paper tiger cheese-puffery.
No one begins the game E-Fighting. It's an incredibly counter-intuitive and indirect way to approach air combat. The vast majority, even if they are flying a plane like a P51 initially, have no concept of E fighting per se, they may try a BnZ pass or two when their E state is high, but they quickly blow their E and end up turn-fighting, I see it 20+ times a day in the MA. Most quickly get frustrated of that and get into a pure TnB plane and go from there. I am a fairly observant person and I have never in my 18+ years of this seen a person go from total noob to multi-year vet using the E-Fighting methodology exclusively with any kind of effectiveness. I don't think it would even be possible unless they were professionally trained in the real world or by some miracle of comprehension read and understood the practical application of Shaw's prior to even playing or something like that.
-
No you don't, the comment was specifically that you can easily obtain a 20/1 K/D ratio. One of the 1st things I said is that boredom and a lack of challenge normally preclude this as normal practice. Now the clip I filmed today was a 38 hop with 4 kills in 26 minutes or so, when I roll an SBD I'd expect a lower total and a longer time frame but I could certainly do 20/1 in an SBD if I could stand the boredom aspect...
BTW you can train any reasonably proficient student to E fight in 60 days...I've done it plenty of times. None of the clips I'm putting up for this topic have any advanced "dog fighting" skills or really any subtle E fighting. Everything is IMO easily duplicatable by the majority of players in the game.
-
No you don't, the comment was specifically that you can easily obtain a 20/1 K/D ratio. One of the 1st things I said is that boredom and a lack of challenge normally preclude this as normal practice. Now the clip I filmed today was a 38 hop with 4 kills in 26 minutes or so, when I roll an SBD I'd expect a lower total and a longer time frame but I could certainly do 20/1 in an SBD if I could stand the boredom aspect...
The ideal situation to put up that kind of total presents itself only a couple of times a week in the MA. You can't take an isolated run of a hop or two and extrapolate that into an entire tour. You'd have to show me someone at the end of a tour. Because to do that, they would have to have had continued success in far less than ideal circumstances on a continued and constistant basis. It at those times that they would likely end up having to frequently think and fight themselves out of quagmires . It is at those times that the precision of a surgeon is required. I could fly in an ideal situation for a hop or two and get 10-12 kills in my Typhoon for each 30 minute hop, that does not mean I would be capable of that under normal engagement circumstances, which of course I am not.
-
The ideal situation to put up that kind of total presents itself only a couple of times a week in the MA. You can't take an isolated run of a hop or two and extrapolate that into an entire tour. You'd have to show me someone at the end of a tour. Because to do that, they would have to have had continued success in far less than ideal circumstances on a continued and constistant basis. It at those times that they would likely end up having to frequently think and fight themselves out of quagmires . It is at those times that the precision of a surgeon is required. I could fly in an ideal situation for a hop or two and get 10-12 kills in my Typhoon for each 30 minute hop, that does not mean I would be capable of that under normal engagement circumstances, which of course I am not.
I don't agree at all, circumstances will always vary but pilot discipline can be constant. The results will vary based on external factors but the pilot can maintain suitable rules of engagement based on plane type. The information we have available far exceeds what was available IRL, this is contrasted against the often historically unbalanced plane sets and number variations. The bottom line is that it is not difficult to avoid less then ideal circumstances.
-
I don't agree at all, circumstances will always vary but pilot discipline can be constant. The results will vary based on external factors but the pilot can maintain suitable rules of engagement based on plane type. The information we have available far exceeds what was available IRL, this is contrasted against the often historically unbalanced plane sets and number variations. The bottom line is that it is not difficult to avoid less then ideal circumstances.
That might be true if tactical discipline and adhering to a set "Rules of Engagement" alone were all it took to "effective" (good K/D achieved within a reasonable amount of time). But, that's only one facet of being an "effective" tactical pilot. The pilot also has to have phenomenal SA, nearly flawless decision making based upon that SA, very good gunnery and at least moderate flying skill accompanied by excellent comprehension and execution of Energy Fighting techniques.
I see lots of people doing everything right from a tactical standpoint, but are as useless as nipples on a bull because they lack one or more of the other components to being an "effective" tactical pilot. One of two things happen, they get bored/frustrated and go back to TnB'ing or they quit fightering all together.
Initially learning how to fight by attempting to use Energy Fighting techniques tactically is no good, the shooting opportunities are too brief and infrequent. When I was a trainer I would instruct my pupils to concentrate on getting good at killing first then worry about the living part much later. The key to that is trigger-time and flying a plane you can "latch on" to someones six with. In that way everyone you fight is "training" you to perform maneuvers and giving you experience shooting at different angles of deflection thereby building up your mental library and repertoire of moves and shots.
-
This is funny.
Snaphook says, "a 20/1 kill ratio could be easily obtained by even someone new if he had the discipline to follow a set rule of engagement and flying style, but he would probably die of boredom doing so."
Zazen says, "a 20/1 kill ratio is not so easy because the rookie would get bored and resort to T'n B instead if disciplined E-fighting."
Same thing, isn't it?
wrongway
-
Zazen says, "a 20/1 kill ratio is not so easy because the rookie would get bored and resort to T'n B instead if disciplined E-fighting."
wrongway
I'm not saying the newbie would revert to TnB because he got bored during the process of actually obtaining a 20 to 1 K/D ratio. I said there's not a snowball's chance in hell he would be able to obtain it to begin with, most especially while maintaining anything vaguely resembling a reasonable K/T (5+ Kills/Hour at the bare minimum) . He would quickly get bored from trying in vain. Inevitably, out of sheer frustration, he would switch back to the much more straightforward TnB style of play..
Find me one "new" player with a 20 to 1 K/D and 5+ Kills/Hour...I'll save you the time and suspense, you won't be able to because they simply don't exist, never have and never will, it just isn't possible short of 2nd account vulching or other such subterfuge. I browsed the list of fighter pilots, I only saw 1 or 2 grizzled 10+ year vets with anything vaguely resembling that kind of effectiveness. One of those is a known "career vulcher" and the other has a high percentage of kills in a 262, so both had to "augment" themselves artifically to obtain that degree of effectiveness.
-
Going back to Tango's excellent thread that segment was a classic 2 circle fight. I cant speak for Shane but in my mind he's initiating a classic vertical 2 circle fight from the inferior position. I cant afford to get cute since my SA is limited and being caught high & slow is a bad thing. So instead I cut the gas and worked to create a front quarter snapshot while keeping enough speed to egress. On the flip side Shane appeared to be sitting on the FQ shot looking to convert my attempt to a reverse. As often in an encounter like this I didn't land my snap shot and he didn't quite get his reverse.
Its very common to hear "HO complaints" vs the accomplished E fighters, mostly IMO because few pilots recognize the 2 circle fight and realize that it is by definition a battle of FQ shots. Its the true "gunfighters duel" in that if you don't clear leather 1st you get whacked. Now under normal circumstances I'd have fought that fight completely differently. I always enjoy the training aspect of those types of flights but actually flying like that normally holds minimal interest for me....
I'm not trying to be a jerk but I don't think you quite understand what two circle geometry is if you are talking about the fight at 10:15 to 11:30 ish in the original film. That was classic nose to nose or one circle geometry. A one circle fight is determined by turn radius and your description of the fight is one of trying to minimize turn radius. So I watched the film and it is classic one circle geometry, not 2 circle. I think you may have the two terms backwards.
If you are coming nose to nose in multiple guns passes, its one circle. Flat scissors, classic multiple immelman merges and rolling scissors are all one circle.
Two circle geometry requires lift vector 180 out of phase with the bandit at the merge. In the vertical tht would be one goes up and one goes down. Its almost impossible to get into a two circle vertical fight below 5000 feet
-
I totally disagree with you, a two circle fight is defined by the two planes flying separate circles, the fact that those circles may be superimposed on each other to a degree is not especially important IMO. All you need to do is view it with tracks, thats a classic vertical 2 circle fight. At no time until my extension are we in a nose to tail configuration in plane or out. In fact you can clearly see where shane reverses into a 1 circle fight that I refuse by extending. Any fight where the intersection is front quarter to front quarter is a 2 circle fight.
-
Nose to nose geometry is one circle.
Nose to tail geometry is two circle.
Shaw (Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering) discusses it on pp. 77-82.
Its pretty simple to prove to yourself.
-
Excerpts from the Navy T-45 ACM training materials
HIGH ASPECT CONCEPTS
FLOW
As you have already seen from your reading, every engagement can be broken down in terms of the flow
that it is generating. One of the keys to gaining an advantage in high-aspect ACM is driving the fight into
flow, which will allow you to exploit your aircraft’s performance characteristics. With similar performing aircraft, recognizing flow first, and then flying your jet accordingly will achieve the advantage.
• One-circle flow occurs when one aircraft reverses at the merge, creating a fight defined by turn radius.
In a one-circle fight, the jet, which can turn the tightest circle, will achieve positional advantage. When engaged in one-circle flow, you need to collapse your turn radius as tightly as possible in order to create turning room between you and the bandit. This means transitioning to an airspeed that is both slower than his and controllable in terms of g available. 110 KIAS may well be slower than his
airspeed, but it affords no ability to turn your jet and will soon result in the loss of any position advantage gained.
(http://home.comcast.net/~micelihouston/2circl2.gif)
Two-circle flow occurs when both aircraft turn across each other’s tail,
forming a fight defined by rate. When engaged in two circle flow, the jet with the greatest turn rate will bring the nose to bear first while at the same time, achieving weapons separation. With your nderstanding of T-45 performance characteristics, you know that your greatest turn rate will be achieved at the g limit at approximately 410 KIAS. But you’re not going to be able to maintain this pull for long. Unless time to kill is exceptionally short, the aircraft with the greatest sustained turn rate will win two-circle fights. When you recognize that the flow is two-circle, attempt to capture your Tactical Turn
Rate airspeed band and make energy excursions as required to gain angular advantage.
(http://home.comcast.net/~micelihouston/2circl1.gif)
-
Excerpt directly addressing vertical tactics and geometry
FIGHTER NOSE HIGH
In general, when we go nose high, we will be collapsing the fight as our airspeed decreases.
Vs. Nose High - the bandit has chosen to go up with us in one circle fight. In this case,
think like you have entered a flat scissors and fight a tight radius fight. Lift Vector placement and AOA/airspeed control will be critical here.
Vs. Nose Level - the bandit is not using altitude to assist his fight. Use it against him by
fighting the one circle fight aggressively in the vertical, thus collapsing your turn radius
with respect to his and managing your airspeed by climbing. Recognize that you’re outside his turn circle, get back in, then work behind the post, but don’t get buried nose low in your pursuit of two-circle glory. With sufficient turning room, you may be able to turn behind the bandit’s post and transition to a two-circle fight while accelerating in a descent. If not behind the bandit’s post, use good one circle mechanics: Early turn to get in phase, maintain weapons separation and control your airspeed and nose attitude.
Vs.- Nose Low - If you can reverse and make this a one-circle fight, you will be highly offensive; if this continues two circles you will be on the losing side of the rate war. It is crucial that you make this one circle fight early. Then transition as stated above. If you don’t reverse, you will be setting yourself up for a vertical merge, a bad vertical merge.
-
In pages 77-82 shaw discusses the two options both parties have when meeting in a front quarter pass. No where is a discussion of the definition or application of 1 vs 2 circle fights. A flat nose to tail chase is the easiest visualization of a 1 circle fight. both planes are flying a circular "racetrack" trying to gain an angular advantage. This is the classic "dog fighting" image most people have. Out of plane does not disrupt this "one circle" fight unless the planes then convert to a nose to nose interaction. The easiest example of a 2 circle fight is the "figure 8" where the only interaction is at the junction of the 2 circles. Again an overlap or modification of this does not eliminate the nature of the fight unless the parties convert to a tail chase of some type. When Shane pulls up into me he is initiating a nose to nose turn in the vertical. Had I dropped in and then pulled back up into a rope I would be attempting to convert to a one circle fight. I chose to accept the 2 circle fight and then Shane converted it to a one circle fight with his reverse which I refused.
-
I've always felt what your showing is a very limited and bastardized explanation (and IMO totally wrong) write up. In fact I think it shows exactly what forced shaw to write his book. This is the type of drivel that led to the total degradation of our dog fighting capabilities. While figure 2 is certainly a classic 2 circle opener off of an even merge lets look at figure one. We have an absolutely poor merge with minimal efficiency "countered" by a tweener merge that creates a fleeting snapshot with an impossible AOT and almost no chance to continue the fight without an overshoot. IMO the last thing the aggressor wants to be is in plane, ideally I'd guess he'd be in a vertical lag roll looking to secure a suitable AOT. The entire concept of the "one circle fight" is to obtain an AOT that allows for a tracking guns solution. A 2 circle fight is any fight that keeps an opponent at bay by forcing a nose to nose interaction. Figure 2 shows the classic example...both planes arrive back in a nose to nose configuration....which is identical to figure 1. The true defining indicator is lift vector orientation not geometry.
-
So, you don't have a clue about fight geometry is or you can't admit to a mistake.
Those are your choices here after several posts.
It would have been simpler for you to admit the mistake.
You are confusing several different topics. When you are in the saddle you are in a 2 circle fight in the control position (Nose to Tail geometry)
I can see it will be pointless to go any further.
-
One circle
Two planes merge with lift vectors oriented in the same direction and enter immediate turns.
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/acm-merge/merges2.jpg)
This is a geometry that gives advantage to the better turn radius. Since this is with identical planes, both planes need to turn at least 180 to gain the opponent in their front quarter. 180 each makes 360 which is one circle, which is also demonstrated visually.
Two circle
Two planes merge with lift vectors oriented at each other (or lift vector in opposite directions) and enter immediate turns.
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/murdr/2circle.jpg)
This geometry favors the better turn rate. Since this diagram is with identical aircraft, both planes turn 360 (360x2). That's two circles. Not only visually in diagram, but in gross angle change before either gain the opponent in their front quarter.
-
I've always felt what your showing is a very limited and bastardized explanation (and IMO totally wrong) write up. In fact I think it shows exactly what forced shaw to write his book. This is the type of drivel that led to the total degradation of our dog fighting capabilities. While figure 2 is certainly a classic 2 circle opener off of an even merge lets look at figure one. We have an absolutely poor merge with minimal efficiency "countered" by a tweener merge that creates a fleeting snapshot with an impossible AOT and almost no chance to continue the fight without an overshoot. IMO the last thing the aggressor wants to be is in plane, ideally I'd guess he'd be in a vertical lag roll looking to secure a suitable AOT. The entire concept of the "one circle fight" is to obtain an AOT that allows for a tracking guns solution. A 2 circle fight is any fight that keeps an opponent at bay by forcing a nose to nose interaction. Figure 2 shows the classic example...both planes arrive back in a nose to nose configuration....which is identical to figure 1. The true defining indicator is lift vector orientation not geometry.
By the way, the manual I quoted is the 2007 edition of the US Navy T-45 ACM manual and the diagrams are from the US Navy Instructor Lecture Guide. In other words they are current US Navy doctrine influenced by Shaw and Boyd.
I would have posted my own material that I have taught for over a decade but I thought you would accept the US Navy a little more readily. Murdr has now posted identical information to mine so maybe that will be the end of the confusion.
Flow or fight geometry is really only relevant in a high aspect angle fight. Once the angle has been reduced (i.e. you have gained an offensive position or the bandit has) the fight either results in a snapshot or the offensive fighter is using applied pursuit curves to arrive and remain in the control position or saddle. The fight could quickly degenerate into high aspect again and often does.
But for clarity of discussion, nose to nose maneuvering in the horizontal or vertical plane is a one circle fight favoring the fighter achieving the smallest turn radius. Nose to tail maneuvering favors turn rate. The two situations require different actions.
And there can be multiple swaps of fight geometry (or flow as the Navy calls it) in a very short period of time.
In a 1 v 1 similar aircraft fight it is rare to see two circle geometry unless one of the pilots is pretty savvy.
In a dissimilar aircraft fight, the smart pilot will recognize pre-merge which geometry favors him and try to steer the fight into that geometry.
And to avoid confusion (The intent of all my posts in this thread, it isn't personal), Figure two in my post is a ONE CIRCLE merge (supported by Murdr's post (In case you don't believe the USN)(excellent graphic BTW Murdr).
Its clearly marked "one circle fight"
-
By the way, the manual I quoted is the 2007 edition of the US Navy T-45 ACM manual and the diagrams are from the US Navy Instructor Lecture Guide. In other words they are current US Navy doctrine influenced by Shaw and Boyd.
Ahhhh, just for historical accuracy's sake...Shaw wrote an interesting book but you've got the sources reversed here. These things were all being taught in the Navy before Shaw wrote his book, he documented what we already knew (and were doing) in an interesting, well written (and unclassified) book for the general public, he didn't invent this stuff nor influence fighter tactics development. On the other hand, Boyd was a true innovator and much of his original work on energy fighting was influential in Navy TACMANs and NFWS syllabus.
BTW Dawger, just curious but where did you get a T45 TACMAN and the "lecture guide" you mention?
-
BTW Dawger, just curious but where did you get a T45 TACMAN and the "lecture guide" you mention?
P-1289 (Rev 2-07) (https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/pubs/folder5/T45/P-1289.PDF)
-
Thanks Murdr. My son is at Kingsville right now waiting to class up for the T45, I don't think they've been clued in on what's available for study while he's waiting so thought he might want to take a look at it.
-
Ahhhh, just for historical accuracy's sake...Shaw wrote an interesting book but you've got the sources reversed here. These things were all being taught in the Navy before Shaw wrote his book, he documented what we already knew (and were doing) in an interesting, well written (and unclassified) book for the general public, he didn't invent this stuff nor influence fighter tactics development. On the other hand, Boyd was a true innovator and much of his original work on energy fighting was influential in Navy TACMANs and NFWS syllabus.
BTW Dawger, just curious but where did you get a T45 TACMAN and the "lecture guide" you mention?
I didn't mean to imply that Shaw was the originator. I was responding to a comment in another post implying what I posted pre-dated Shaw. My only intention was to show it was published after Shaw. Shaw got it from the Navy (obviously, since they trained him).
Pretty much everyone agrees nothing much has changed in a pure dogfight since they were invented in 1914. The biggest confusion has to be that the names of stuff constantly evolves. Folks were flying all of the maneuvers and tactics described in current publications in 1943 (with the exception of vertical extensions going up) but they certainly weren't calling them by their modern names.
Here is the url for the T-45 Strike p-pubs page
https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/pubs/ppub_t45_str.htm
Lots of T-45 stuff there...not just ACM.
I stole from Shaw liberally (with permission...he is a nice guy) rewriting down to a more layman level when I was developing training materials a decade ago in Warbirds.
All of the Navy stuff that is out there now has me revising my training website I started several years back, stealing liberally from the Navy (again). I'm building a lesson by lesson approach going from setting up views through primary manuevers, formations, BFM, 1 v 1 high aspect ACM and on into many plane engagements.
I'll post a link to it when I get it fairly squared away through BFM.
-
Folks were flying all of the maneuvers and tactics described in current publications in 1943 (with the exception of vertical extensions going up)
I couldn't help but immediatly recall Bud Anderson recounting what was essentially trading vertical extentions with a 109 :) From his point of view though, he was doing the only thing he could think of to stay out of guns (ie. it just happend as opposed to being a premeditated tactic).
-
I would have posted my own material that I have taught for over a decade but I thought you would accept the US Navy a little more readily.
I looked in the Navy and Air Force materials I had on hand first, but I figured that identical plane diagrams might be the best way to remove any ambiguity about it.
-
I didn't mean to imply that Shaw was the originator. I was responding to a comment in another post implying what I posted pre-dated Shaw. My only intention was to show it was published after Shaw. Shaw got it from the Navy (obviously, since they trained him).
Pretty much everyone agrees nothing much has changed in a pure dogfight since they were invented in 1914. The biggest confusion has to be that the names of stuff constantly evolves. Folks were flying all of the maneuvers and tactics described in current publications in 1943 (with the exception of vertical extensions going up) but they certainly weren't calling them by their modern names.
Here is the url for the T-45 Strike p-pubs page
https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/pubs/ppub_t45_str.htm
Lots of T-45 stuff there...not just ACM.
I stole from Shaw liberally (with permission...he is a nice guy) rewriting down to a more layman level when I was developing training materials a decade ago in Warbirds.
All of the Navy stuff that is out there now has me revising my training website I started several years back, stealing liberally from the Navy (again). I'm building a lesson by lesson approach going from setting up views through primary manuevers, formations, BFM, 1 v 1 high aspect ACM and on into many plane engagements.
I'll post a link to it when I get it fairly squared away through BFM.
Rgr that, thanks dawger and I look forward to seeing your website.
-
The moment you view it as your "having shots" is the moment you lose effectiveness. While you can maneuver to your advantage the reality is that you don't create shots, you exploit the opportunities presented. The moment you start to work for shots your dead and just don't know it.
I have to disagree with this and offer the opinion that combat effectiveness is lost when offensive tactics are put on the back burner.
Whether we look at 1942 doctrine:
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/murdr/tactics.jpg)
or modern day:
Airforce:
The primary consideration in offensive BFM is to kill the bandit by arriving in lethal weapons parameters as soon as possible and take the shot. Understanding the concept of turn circles is mandatory to assessing which BFM discussed in this chapter will work in which instances. It should be remembered that BFM is not a fixed set of maneuvers, but rather, combinations of rolls, turns, and accelerations that have been optimized for certain situations and named for the sake of discussion. Since the end goal of any offensive engagement is to kill the bandit, BFM is designed precisely to do just that with minimum time and energy expended.
The first and primary goal of offensive BFM is to kill. In order to kill, the fighter pilot must recognize weapons parameters and employ ordnance once in those parameters. If he cannot shoot, he must reposition until he can employ ordnance.
Navy:
The ultimate goal of Offensive ACM, as in all ACM, is to kill the adversary as quickly as possible. If this primary goal is not achieved, ensure a positional advantage is maintained for follow-on weapons employment. Finally, if time to kill is up or you are losing the advantage, separate prior to becoming neutralized. Simply put, the goals of Offensive ACM are, in order:
Kill the adversary
Maintain an Offensive Position
Separate prior to being neutralized
Personal security is balanced with initiating, maintaining, and employing offensive capibility. I agree it's advisable to consider factors all around you when considering whether to press an attack. But to by default, not even consider pursuit of achievable weapons employment is ineffective IMO.
-
Great discussion guys. I hope others are checking this out.
-
Maybe some day I'll read all this stuff... yanno, when I'm old and blind and without any reflexes and stuff...
:noid
<edit> oh, and I like the 1943 language better.
-
One can get plenty of kills with just BFM.
Fancy flying is nice but not required to have fun and get kills. I swear, in the LW I feel like I'm invisible most of the time.
IMHO, SA is the singlarly most neglected skill in the game.
All the fancy flying in the world won't bring you success if you are blundering around without a clue.
This is a film from last night and fairly typical, except on my last kill I suddenly lose calibration on my stick, adding a bit of a twist to the fight.
I should call it: The invisible pony.
Honestly, it's not too unusual.
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=0971ffc480d28e54e5c3dee5769931ece04e75f6e8ebb871 (http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=0971ffc480d28e54e5c3dee5769931ece04e75f6e8ebb871)
-
Maybe some day I'll read all this stuff... yanno, when I'm old and blind and without any reflexes and stuff...
:noid
<edit> oh, and I like the 1943 language better.
The reading and use of language is completely unnecessary until you are trying to convey the information to another person.
That's when language becomes vitally important. That's the point and importance of making sure terminology is correctly applied.
And there is no such thing as "fancy flying". Every maneuver can be traced back to two simple maneuvers, the roll and the pull.
Situational Awareness is the entire fight. Maneuvering without reference to the bandit(s) is an airshow not BFM.
Good SA makes the "tactical extension" the most important maneuver in the toolbox.
Poor SA results in posts about "Cherry picking, HO, ganging, alt monkey, timid flying and Real Men fly Slow".
An old saw from real world flying applies " Superior pilots rely on superior judgment to avoid using their superior skills"
-
Poor SA results in posts about "Cherry picking, HO, ganging, alt monkey, timid flying and Real Men fly Slow".
I have a thought on this.
I can avoid bounces by keeping a look out, I can generally avoid HOing in the same way, I can get someone with more altitude by climbing myself or making them loose their energy and attack me, I can chase down the timid by flying a faster brick instead of just puttering about in my uber-turner complaining about runners...
BUT...I'll be damned if there is anything one can do about the mindset that absolutely refuses to engage except 3v1 or the like and which leads to an MA of "gang or be ganged".
-
One can get plenty of kills with just BFM.
Fancy flying is nice but not required to have fun and get kills. I swear, in the LW I feel like I'm invisible most of the time.
IMHO, SA is the singlarly most neglected skill in the game.
All the fancy flying in the world won't bring you success if you are blundering around without a clue.
This is a film from last night and fairly typical, except on my last kill I suddenly lose calibration on my stick, adding a bit of a twist to the fight.
I should call it: The invisible pony.
Honestly, it's not too unusual.
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=0971ffc480d28e54e5c3dee5769931ece04e75f6e8ebb871 (http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=0971ffc480d28e54e5c3dee5769931ece04e75f6e8ebb871)
I enjoyed watching this film, I try to fly the pony this way and yet I find it very difficult to get high quality shots. Not only do I find it hard to line up for a decent shot (without burning too much E in a turn) but shooting properly itself. Anyway, thanks for sharing that Steve - it really gave me an incentive to learn the Pony again. :aok