Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: groundfeeder on September 22, 2009, 08:21:26 AM

Title: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: groundfeeder on September 22, 2009, 08:21:26 AM
 Well.....I know this will dredge up all kinds off excuses (pro and con) BUT, I have noticed several things about the people who whine the most in here about getting killed by a full on frontal assault. First and foremost you dint whine when YOU get the kill!!!,every single player in here has hoed someone before ,sometimes it works out sometimes not so well. :mad:
 For those who complain about getting rammed WHY THE HE!! dint you just get out of the way  :huh its not like its hard to see the ever larger object straight in front of you that's what control surfaces are for! This has been a controversy in here for years and not likely to go away anytime soon,but it is as much a part of the game as flying and dying.
One thing, no one who knows anything about combat air tactics in WWII cannot dispute is that it DID occur and fairly often, two groups of fighters approaching each other head on would squeeze off a quick burst and immediately start maneuvering for position, usually from a fair distance
the p-38 mossie and a few others weren't as maneuverable as others but had a speed advantage,the typical tactic was to boom and zoom in short the dove in, fired, and got out, It did not matter what way the enemy was pointed.....they fired and ran! Personally i try to avoid it because i usually die :cry

 next time you get killed by a ho'er salute him :salute it will confuse him long enough to up and kill HIM
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: kilz on September 22, 2009, 08:25:33 AM
yawn this is only the million and 1 post about this same old subject try searching for this next time instead of wasting space on these BBS over stupid stuff
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: groundfeeder on September 22, 2009, 08:28:03 AM
yawn this is only the million and 1 post about this same old subject try searching for this next time instead of wasting space on these BBS over stupid stuff


just throwing in my two cents worth, besides thats all it is worth
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: CAP1 on September 22, 2009, 08:49:51 AM
just an fyi........

when i do finally ho someone(i will after you've tried more than once, and that's all ya have) i DO whine about it. even if i DO get the kill.
 
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: Bucky73 on September 22, 2009, 09:06:43 AM
If a guy accuses me of INTENTIONALLY ramming him I take that as a compliment because if I can RAM your plane with mine then I shouldn't have any problem what-so-EVER to get my GUNS on him. These idiotic "why did you ram me?" post's are just plain stupid. :rofl

As far as a HO goes. I just TURN away unless I just stalled out and he is climbing to me and I pretty much have no other choice. Oh, and if it's a 262 or a Tempy I will HO your donut ALL DAY.  :salute :rock
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: CAP1 on September 22, 2009, 09:53:28 AM
If a guy accuses me of INTENTIONALLY ramming him I take that as a compliment because if I can RAM your plane with mine then I shouldn't have any problem what-so-EVER to get my GUNS on him. These idiotic "why did you ram me?" post's are just plain stupid. :rofl

As far as a HO goes. I just TURN away unless I just stalled out and he is climbing to me and I pretty much have no other choice. Oh, and if it's a 262 or a Tempy I will HO your donut ALL DAY.  :salute :rock

i don't get to fight 262's, as i fly mw.........usually when i encounter a tempest ot a typhoon, it's someone that's not willing to let go of their e, so i usually end up either on the deck(trying to get thewm to come down) with no fight or kill, or i end up with a broken cartoon plane, as i missed a dodge.  :rofl :aok
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: Masherbrum on September 22, 2009, 09:58:27 AM
Well.....I know this will dredge up all kinds off excuses (pro and con) BUT, I have noticed several things about the people who whine the most in here about getting killed by a full on frontal assault. First and foremost you dint whine when YOU get the kill!!!,every single player in here has hoed someone before ,sometimes it works out sometimes not so well. :mad:
 For those who complain about getting rammed WHY THE HE!! dint you just get out of the way  :huh its not like its hard to see the ever larger object straight in front of you that's what control surfaces are for! This has been a controversy in here for years and not likely to go away anytime soon,but it is as much a part of the game as flying and dying.
One thing, no one who knows anything about combat air tactics in WWII cannot dispute is that it DID occur and fairly often, two groups of fighters approaching each other head on would squeeze off a quick burst and immediately start maneuvering for position, usually from a fair distance
the p-38 mossie and a few others weren't as maneuverable as others but had a speed advantage,the typical tactic was to boom and zoom in short the dove in, fired, and got out, It did not matter what way the enemy was pointed.....they fired and ran! Personally i try to avoid it because i usually die :cry

 next time you get killed by a ho'er salute him :salute it will confuse him long enough to up and kill HIM

So you are a WWII aviator?   What Squadron were you with?   The 38 sure as hell was "maneuverable", the Mossie was as well.   But hey, you're the expert!   I'll never Salute a HO'er in a 1 vs 1 or when I'm outnumbered.   
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: Rich46yo on September 22, 2009, 10:00:02 AM
I lose a lot of HOs simply cause I dont see the screen that well. What I dont get is why so many chose them, against what I fly, when every aerodynamic advantage is on their side. They could easily gain advantage and win with almost no risk to themselves but instead here they come. These are the "death types". The dweebs who can do nothing but die until their two weeks are up and dont want to pay the dues in the T/A like the rest of us did.

Then you have the ones who just fly into you and will do so no matter what you do. My guess is they are responding to the squeals of their mates whose tanks keep blowing up from the NS-37s.
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: CAP1 on September 22, 2009, 10:12:54 AM
I lose a lot of HOs simply cause I dont see the screen that well. What I dont get is why so many chose them, against what I fly, when every aerodynamic advantage is on their side. They could easily gain advantage and win with almost no risk to themselves but instead here they come. These are the "death types". The dweebs who can do nothing but die until their two weeks are up and dont want to pay the dues in the T/A like the rest of us did.

Then you have the ones who just fly into you and will do so no matter what you do. My guess is they are responding to the squeals of their mates whose tanks keep blowing up from the NS-37s.

there's generally two kinds dude.

1) gamers...they wanna see the "big badaboom" as quickly as possible, with zero effort. these are the ones you see in real life that've had everything handed to em by their parents...and as adults, they still expect it.

2) the ones with seriously large egos. they can't stand the fact that they may lose a fight. i try to not be mean to em, because i think they just don't get the "fun" aspect of it. they feel if they lost the fight, that they failed, and they can't handle failure.

just my opinion.
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: waystin2 on September 22, 2009, 10:49:44 AM
Intentional ramming is near impossible, but Ho'ing is another story.  This is going to turn into...
(http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm134/waystin2/AnotherUglyHOthread.jpg)
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: Latrobe on September 22, 2009, 11:01:38 AM
Head-On shots are inevitable in a dogfight, it's just part of the fight. If you want to shoot down that enemy plane then you're going to want to turn into him to get a shot off. He's going to do the same thing, so you're going to be going Head-On a lot in a fight.

Collisions are all about being in the wrong spot at the wrong time. I've had a few situations were I'm chasing a plane and watch him turn. I think I have enough time to shoot him before he gets his nose around on me, but I misjudge it and now we're going head-on 400 apart. Of course we didn't have enough time to react and collided.

There are a few people (not many, it's not everyone doing it) that use internet lag to fly by bombers and fly away unscratched while the bombers loose a wing.
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: groundfeeder on September 22, 2009, 11:10:44 AM
So you are a WWII aviator?   What Squadron were you with?   The 38 sure as hell was "maneuverable", the Mossie was as well.   But hey, you're the expert!   I'll never Salute a HO'er in a 1 vs 1 or when I'm outnumbered.   
[/quote

The 38 up high was very manuverable, the problem was when it got low it couldnt compete as well with some of the luftwaffe aircraft , the mossie well.....read a book ill let u find out for youself
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: BiPoLaR on September 22, 2009, 11:11:30 AM
yawn this is only the million and 1 post about this same old subject try searching for this next time instead of wasting space on these BBS over stupid stuff
Joe, I love you, do you love me? yes [] no [] maybe []
Please check box
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: tokenjo on September 22, 2009, 11:25:09 AM
Ho'ing & rammming ... Ho'ing & ramming ... Navy beans
navy beans ....  Meatloaf sandwich .... Sloppy Ho ... Slop...
Sloppy Ho .....

D@mn I missed my calling

Tokenjo
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: Ack-Ack on September 22, 2009, 12:17:46 PM


The 38 up high was very manuverable, the problem was when it got low it couldnt compete as well with some of the luftwaffe aircraft , the mossie well.....read a book ill let u find out for youself

You are incorrect, P-38 was maneuverable at all altitudes, especially in the thicker air at lower altitudes.  Read a book and hopefully you'll find out for yourself.


ack-ack
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: CAP1 on September 22, 2009, 12:33:07 PM
Intentional ramming is near impossible, but Ho'ing is another story.  This is going to turn into...
(http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm134/waystin2/AnotherUglyHOthread.jpg)

dude......on one hand, these pics you come up with? funny as heck!!
on the other hand? it's a little scary that you have so many of em.  :noid
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: ACE on September 22, 2009, 12:33:57 PM
lol ack ack
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: LCCajun on September 22, 2009, 01:09:39 PM
About the only HO I can't stand is on the first intial merge. I don't understand why someone would want to HO instead of actually fighting to get on their enemy's six, but hey who am I to judge how ppl want to fly.
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: groundfeeder on September 22, 2009, 02:27:55 PM
You are incorrect, P-38 was maneuverable at all altitudes, especially in the thicker air at lower altitudes.  Read a book and hopefully you'll find out for yourself.


ack-ack



I have read a book or two in my time!!!! in comparison to the enemy aircraft THEY were less maneuverable up high giving the 38 the advantage it was when they got low the other aircraft strength's outweighed their weakness namely turning. the germans just didn't go up and chase them and kept alot of their raids low to mid teens to be able to deal with the 38 easier. if a few got loose in a enemy bomber formation they would decimate the group.
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: Ack-Ack on September 22, 2009, 03:01:01 PM


I have read a book or two in my time!!!! in comparison to the enemy aircraft THEY were less maneuverable up high giving the 38 the advantage it was when they got low the other aircraft strength's outweighed their weakness namely turning. the germans just didn't go up and chase them and kept alot of their raids low to mid teens to be able to deal with the 38 easier. if a few got loose in a enemy bomber formation they would decimate the group.

This is from an old thread discussion on flaps from about 5 years ago.  One of our resident historians (CorkyJr/Guppy) posted these AAR reports from P-38 pilots that were bounced by higher German fighters and what ensued was a knock down, turn fight on the deck.  If you notice in the report, one of the P-38 still had his 500 pound bombs.



Glad you asked cause I went hunting and found what I was looking for :)

From combat reports of the 370th FG in the summer of 44.  They would have been flying P38J-10s and 15s not retrofitted with dive flaps and power assisted controls at the time. This would be what the AH P38J represents. They operated in the ground attack role and got jumped many times, and in these instances were outnumbered and the last two at least, in a furball down low.

Note in the reports, the mention of flap use.  Also note that the 370th had come to England having trained on the P47 and learned the 38 on the fly prior to D-Day so these were not high time 38 drivers.

Also be sure and note what the last report says at the end.  He sounds like he'd fit right in to the AH 38 drivers world :)

Dan/CorkyJr
Lt.Richard Berry  370th Combat report  June 14, 1944

“I was leading Yellow flight and we had completed our mission and were returning home at 3000 feet.  We had lost our flight leader in clouds and haze after an identification pass at friendly A/C.  We had just gone on instruments and were about to enter the overcast when we were bounced from 4 O’Clock by four Me 109s which had just broken out of the overcast.  Yellow 2 called for me to break right into the E/A.  The entire flight broke and I found myself after a half-turn of a Lufberry, turning inside the lead E/A.  I fired a four second burst from 200 yards at approximately 20 degrees deflection and observed strikes on the engine.  The E/A started to smoke and leveled off.  I fell into trail behind him and fired a 6-second burst at 0 Degrees deflection and again observed strikes, this time on the fuselage and right wing root.  Fire broke out and enveloped the entire right wing root as the E/A disappeared into cloud.  I did not follow him because I was low on fuel.  The other E/A disappeared into the clouds after the initial break.  We all used our maneuver flaps and had no difficulty in out turning the E/A.  I saw no one bail out from the plane I hit and in my opinion the pilot was hit and at least wounded on my first burst because he leveled off and flew at a very slight climb.”


Captain Paul Sabo, 370th FG  July 31, 1944

“I was leading Blue Flight circling the target area giving Red Flight Top Cover as they were dive bombing the target.  Circling above us at about 12,000 feet were 12 Me 109s.  I kept watching them; then 8 of them half rolled and got behind my flight.  I gave the order to jettison our bombs and break.  I dropped flaps and started in a tight Lufberry.  When I had completed one turn I was alone, and at that time I saw an Me 109 in a vertical turn coming in front of me so I started firing at him at a 90 degree deflection shot.  He flew right into the pattern and I saw strikes on him from nose to tail.  The plane seemed to shudder and slow down.  I was about 200 yards when I started to fire.  The Me 109 then made a 90 degree turn to the left and started to climb as if he was going to loop.  I followed him, closing to about 100 yards, fired and saw strikes all over his canopy, fuselage and tail surfaces.  As he was about at the top of his loop and almost on his back, I saw what looked like his canopy come off, as the plane seemed to hang there.  It looked like I had wounded the pilot during the first 90 degree deflection shot and he was rolling it over on his back to jettison his canopy and bail out.

About that time I looked in my rear view mirror and saw an Me 109 on my tail.  I dropped flaps and turned into him. He half rolled and went down.  As I rolled out I saw an Me 109 coming down in front of me.  I opened up again and gave him a 90-degree deflection shot.    He ran into my pattern and I saw strikes all over the plane.  I followed him and kept firing from directly behind him, seeing strikes on his tail surfaces.  Then he proceeded to go down in a wild dive from about 5000 feet.  I looked back in my mirror again, because all during this time I was still alone.  My flight had left me.  I saw another Me 109 coming in on my tail. I dropped flaps, leveled out and turned into him. He automatically went into a steep climb and I lost him in the sun.  When I looked I saw no more enemy and called my Flight to join me.”


Lt. Royal Madden  from the same Flight and same fight, July 31, 1944

“Approximately 15 Me 109s came down on Blue Flight and we broke left.  I then made a vertical right turn and observed Blue Two below and close and Blue Four was ahead and slightly above me.  I glanced behind me and saw four Me 109s closing on my tail fast and within range so I broke left and down in a Split S. I used flaps to get out and pulled up and to the left. I then noticed a single Me 109 on my tail and hit the deck in a sharp spiral.

We seemed to be the only two planes around so we proceeded to mix it up in a good old-fashioned dogfight at about 1000 feet.  This boy was good and he had me plenty worried  as he sat on my tail for about five minutes, but I managed to keep him from getting any deflection.  I was using maneuvering flaps often and finally got inside of him. I gave him a short burst at 60 degrees, but saw I was slightly short so I took about 2 radii lead at about 150 yards and gave him a good long burst.  There were strikes on the cockpit and all over the ship and the canopy came off.  He rolled over on his back and seemed out of control so I closed in and was about to give him a burst at 0 deflection when he bailed out at 800 feet.

Having lost the squadron I hit the deck for home.  Upon landing I learned that my two 500 pound bombs had not released when I had tried to jettison them upon being jumped.  As a result I carried them throughout the fight.”

Enjoy.

ack-ack
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: Shuffler on September 22, 2009, 03:05:50 PM
The 38 was very maneuverable for its size. It was very nimble low and slow partially due to its' lack of torque from the contra-rotating props.
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: groundfeeder on September 22, 2009, 03:19:03 PM
ok ack ack im not going to quote the entire article AS I SAID before in GENERAL the p-38 would not outturn SOME german aircraft and almost none of the pacific theater aircraft the boom and zoom was the prefered role LOOK IT UP
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: VonMessa on September 22, 2009, 03:27:59 PM
dude......on one hand, these pics you come up with? funny as heck!!
on the other hand? it's a little scary that you have so many of em.  :noid

Too much spare time + ownership of a Printing shop = Crazy Pics


(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Shrubber.jpg)

Printing is my trade........
I am a printer
My name is Way, the Printer.
I arrange,  design, and sell printings.................
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: CAP1 on September 22, 2009, 03:33:37 PM
ok ack ack im not going to quote the entire article AS I SAID before in GENERAL the p-38 would not outturn SOME german aircraft and almost none of the pacific theater aircraft the boom and zoom was the prefered role LOOK IT UP

actually, in the PAC,  believe it was more of an "E" fight that was prefered, as opposed to a BnZ fight.
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: Shuffler on September 22, 2009, 03:38:19 PM
He keeps saying look it up. We have a very nice library on 38s. We have looked it up. Would be interesting if ground would post what he has been reading. It's possible he just misread or misunderstood what he read.
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: Masherbrum on September 22, 2009, 03:38:32 PM
actually, in the PAC,  believe it was more of an "E" fight that was prefered, as opposed to a BnZ fight.

Shhhh CAP.   He's the "expert".   Are you calling shenanigans on his posts?!!!  If so, be prepared to be thrown on the rack, then drawn and quartered.    :O

Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: Masherbrum on September 22, 2009, 03:39:24 PM
He keeps saying look it up. We have a very nice library on 38s. We have looked it up. Would be interesting if ground would post what he has been reading. It's possible he just misread or misunderstood what he read.

Oh no, see NOW YOU'VE GONE AND DONE DID IT!!!!!!  :noid
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: ACE on September 22, 2009, 04:03:58 PM
The 38 was a great plane.  :aok i don't think it had much trouble outturning german planes.
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: Ack-Ack on September 22, 2009, 04:10:03 PM
ok ack ack im not going to quote the entire article AS I SAID before in GENERAL the p-38 would not outturn SOME german aircraft and almost none of the pacific theater aircraft the boom and zoom was the prefered role LOOK IT UP

You made the claim that the P-38 was not maneuverable at low altitudes and the AAR reports I posted refute that claim.  Don't try and change the argument when I showed you to be incorrect.

Trust me, there is nothing you can tell me about the P-38 that I already don't know.  However, I can tell you plenty about the P-38 that you don't know.


ack-ack
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: CAP1 on September 22, 2009, 04:14:38 PM
Shhhh CAP.   He's the "expert".   Are you calling shenanigans on his posts?!!!  If so, be prepared to be thrown on the rack, then drawn and quartered.    :O



HHMM....THE RACK? sounds like fun! :noid :rofl :noid

actually i phrased it as i did, hoping that the OP will go read up, and he'll learn the difference. it seems most people don't know the difference :aok
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: CAP1 on September 22, 2009, 04:15:41 PM
You made the claim that the P-38 was not maneuverable at low altitudes and the AAR reports I posted refute that claim.  Don't try and change the argument when I showed you to be incorrect.

Trust me, there is nothing you can tell me about the P-38 that I already don't know.  However, I can tell you plenty about the P-38 that you don't know.


ack-ack

he's taking lessons from diehard. lose the argument, so change it slightly...... :noid
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: groundfeeder on September 22, 2009, 05:27:26 PM
You made the claim that the P-38 was not maneuverable at low altitudes and the AAR reports I posted refute that claim.  Don't try and change the argument when I showed you to be incorrect.

Trust me, there is nothing you can tell me about the P-38 that I already don't know.  However, I can tell you plenty about the P-38 that you don't know.


ack-ack


Good lord man!!!!!!!! I should have clarified my initial statement in the first post!!!!!!!!! get over it! I like the 38 love to fly it in the game but facts are facts also the skill of the pilot has a he11 of alot to do with it!
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: groundfeeder on September 22, 2009, 05:30:24 PM
Also ack ack if u look it was late in the war on your post, the germans had lost alot of thier vets by then who's to say who was in the enemy aircraft!
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: CAP1 on September 22, 2009, 05:31:23 PM
Also ack ack if u look it was late in the war on your post, the germans had lost alot of thier vets by then who's to say who was in the enemy aircraft!


read the link.

the 38 drivers were new to their aircraft.
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: groundfeeder on September 22, 2009, 05:42:35 PM
read the link.

the 38 drivers were new to their aircraft.
\

ok i give up!!! what do u think the level of training was at that time in germany???you have all the answers .....im just saying look it up! you will find out in general i am right! our training was far superior by this point in the war this will be the last response to this
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: Bronk on September 22, 2009, 05:44:01 PM
\
 this will be the last response to this

No it wont. ;)
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: CAP1 on September 22, 2009, 05:49:43 PM
\

ok i give up!!! what do u think the level of training was at that time in germany???you have all the answers .....im just saying look it up! you will find out in general i am right! our training was far superior by this point in the war this will be the last response to this

 i have
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: Ack-Ack on September 22, 2009, 06:09:31 PM
Also ack ack if u look it was late in the war on your post, the germans had lost alot of thier vets by then who's to say who was in the enemy aircraft!


And who was to say what level of pilot skill were in the US aircraft at the time?  In the pilot reports I posted, those pilots were trained to fly the P-47 and just prior to the D-Day landings transitioned to the P-38, with only a couple of months of training in the Lightning, and most that flew the P-38 didn't receive proper training in 2 engine aircraft before being shipped off the combat zone.  The reports refute your claim about the P-38s maneuverability at lower altitudes.

Spin it however you like, it doesn't take away the fact you were incorrect about the P-38's maneuverability.

ack-ack
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: uptown on September 22, 2009, 06:45:02 PM
Me and Skiman collided twice in a row last night. Neither one of us meant to do it bit we were bound and determined to pull the tightest turn  :lol The 1st time kind of pissed us off, but the 2nd one made me realize it was just the heat of the fight and poop happens. We kind of laughed it off.

But I've seen Ghi many many times fly a IL2 on the deck and pull straight up into guys.  :furious
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: Masherbrum on September 22, 2009, 11:21:10 PM
\

ok i give up!!! what do u think the level of training was at that time in germany???you have all the answers .....im just saying look it up! you will find out in general i am right! our training was far superior by this point in the war this will be the last response to this

You're still wrong. 
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: Mar on September 22, 2009, 11:54:55 PM
Wow, after reading into this thread for a while I forgot the tile was ho'ing and ramming! :lol
Title: Re: ho'ing and ramming
Post by: Yarbles on September 23, 2009, 01:41:49 AM
yawn this is only the million and 1 post about this same old subject try searching for this next time instead of wasting space on these BBS over stupid stuff

1) Space isnt limited ;)
2) It was obvious from the title what it was about and you still read it and then called it stupid :confused:

 :rolleyes: :rolleyes: