Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Help and Training => Topic started by: shotgunneeley on May 01, 2010, 12:17:47 PM
-
This is a grief. No doubt about it. About 90% of my engagements with an enemy who is co-alt and heading directly for me end with me tore up in pieces. I'll come into a fight looking for someone to pick or merge with and there is always some who wants to fly directly at me with every intention of putting lead into my face. At about 1k from closing in with the enemy, I'll veer off to the right and deliberately try to put myself off from HO'ing him in order to just merge with him and begin the dogfight. But no, the jerk stays on the war path and just turns into me, guns a blazing, and forces me to fly through a hail of bullets. I mean I'm doing everything i can to avoid the HO (barrel rolling, changing alt) and I still get pegged. How does anyone ever fight and win against this without getting into a jousting match with the bigger guns winning? Or do I need to get with everyone else and start HO'ing as well because its usually the higher ranking fighters who do this mess.
-
I try to fly quite a bit to the side of the on coming con, with my nose slightly down..So the other guy has to turn into me and hopefully burning his E in his turn, to try to try give me more of the advantage at the merge. I find it works quite well for me.
-
At the speeds the planes are running a 1000 feet is too close, you'll barely get any separation. Break farther out, if the looser insists on turning his nose into you break back and go under him. It forces him to turn harder and with a dive added to it, it could cause him to red out. Another good way is to GIVE them your tail, or a rear quarter, then force an over shoot.
Don't give into the HO !!!
-
This is a grief. No doubt about it. About 90% of my engagements with an enemy who is co-alt and heading directly for me end with me tore up in pieces. I'll come into a fight looking for someone to pick or merge with and there is always some who wants to fly directly at me with every intention of putting lead into my face. At about 1k from closing in with the enemy, I'll veer off to the right and deliberately try to put myself off from HO'ing him in order to just merge with him and begin the dogfight. But no, the jerk stays on the war path and just turns into me, guns a blazing, and forces me to fly through a hail of bullets. I mean I'm doing everything i can to avoid the HO (barrel rolling, changing alt) and I still get pegged. How does anyone ever fight and win against this without getting into a jousting match with the bigger guns winning? Or do I need to get with everyone else and start HO'ing as well because its usually the higher ranking fighters who do this mess.
1) Start to avoid earlier (1,500yds)
2) Avoid in two directions, lateral offset and vertical offset by diving 1k or so beneath him and nosing up and to the side to start the fight.
-
This is a grief. No doubt about it. About 90% of my engagements with an enemy who is co-alt and heading directly for me end with me tore up in pieces. I'll come into a fight looking for someone to pick or merge with and there is always some who wants to fly directly at me with every intention of putting lead into my face. At about 1k from closing in with the enemy, I'll veer off to the right and deliberately try to put myself off from HO'ing him in order to just merge with him and begin the dogfight. But no, the jerk stays on the war path and just turns into me, guns a blazing, and forces me to fly through a hail of bullets. I mean I'm doing everything i can to avoid the HO (barrel rolling, changing alt) and I still get pegged. How does anyone ever fight and win against this without getting into a jousting match with the bigger guns winning? Or do I need to get with everyone else and start HO'ing as well because its usually the higher ranking fighters who do this mess.
You've got to live through the merge to get to the "good stuff", that's for sure.
Like grizz says, getting under your opponent is a great way to do that, and moving slightly to the left or right helps even more.
If you think about it, getting under him means he now has to lead you for the shot, since you're not flying directly at him. To do that with you in a lower position, he needs to push the stick forward, which makes the shot much tougher (if he can even do it without redding out...) As you get closer to him, he needs to push the stick even harder forward...
Now, with you slightly to one side, if he rolls his wings toward you, pushing the stick forward makes him turn away from you, lol!
All that adds up to a shot that's really pretty hard to make, which allows you to survive long enough to begin the fight... As you pass under his nose you can begin an immelman or other reversal.
Another key point in avoiding the HO is to recognize the situations that will lead to it sooner, and "adjust things" to foil it. I honestly expect my opponent to go for the HO at every single opportunity, and just fly to make it fail. If he doesn't go for it, that's fine, but I never count on that.
Avoiding the HO takes some practice to master, but once you figure it out, you'll probably reach a point where you seldom get hit by it.
-
Another tactic from a completely different angle is to wait longer before you break. If you break early you give them more time to react to your evasive and line up another shot. If you can judge accurately the moment they are going to open fire and evade at that moment, more often than not a HO dweeb will not be able to react fast enough to line up again. Also think about the profile you are giving them. If you break early and turn away you are giving them a larger target to aim at. Sometimes if you fly straight an level right at them they will miss completely anyhow. Try not to be predictable and give away your move too early. It's harder than turning early, but equally effective once mastered.
-
to add...
give the idiot what looks like a shot and don't be there when they take it.
takes a bit of practice to get the timing down but that is what I do.
you really don't have to do any super fancy or difficult moves but the timing is critical.
-
I used to demonstrate/teach HO avoidance in another game. I could usually turn someone who complained about the HO into someone who welcomed them.
There are two different HO avoidance situations and what you do in each depends on your plan for the fight.
If you plan an angles fight you want a technique that avoids the HO shot and gives you angles.
If you plan an energy fight or plan to extend through the merge you want a technique that preserves energy while avoiding the shot.
Most everyone assumes the HO situation is a co-alt level merge but this isn't always the case. There are lots of pure vertical merges in AH and they are some of the most dangerous.
The key to any successful shot avoidance is to present the enemy with what looks like a good shot while he is outside of guns range and then DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT when he reaches guns range. In a front quarter merge you don't usually have to do very much to make him miss.
The most straightforward method and easiest teaching example is one already presented here. If you get your nose low and force him to unload to keep pointing at you as he closes to guns range all you have to do is convert to any positive G maneuver as he reaches trigger time and you have a very good chance of avoiding the shot. You increase your chances of avoiding the shot if you make the positive maneuver out of the maneuver plane of the bandit. If you are both wings level and slight roll (15-20 degrees) and pull will take you out of the bandit maneuver plane and cause him to require a heavy G load to put rounds on target. At high speeds the bandit will have to be blacked out to get rounds on target in most cases (and many will do exactly that pull to blackout and hold the trigger down...thats why it is important to maneuver out of plane)
If you choose an angles fight with a guy constantly trying to front quarter snapshots you will quickly gain an angles advantage if the planes are fairly evenly matched in turn performance. This is because the act of aiming and shooting requires the bandit be maneuvering at less than maximum performance. His split second relaxation of G to take the shot gives you angles advantage if you stay flying your max performance angles fight. It takes some discipline to stay focused on flying at maximum performance, maneuvering to avoid his snapshots and avoiding the temptation to take snapshots of your own but if you have that discipline you can win angles fights against aircraft with superior performance but undisciplined pilots.
But it mostly boils down to the first step.
The first step in avoiding the HO is not participating in trying to get a shot yourself. If your focus is totally on avoiding his snapshot and maneuvering for position, avoiding the HO pretty much happens automatically. If, however, you are trying to get your own front quarter snapshot in against a guy doing the same thing and he kills you then you just aren't as good at it as he is.
-
As mentioned above avoiding a "HO" isn't all that different. The 1st thing to realize is that 90% of "Head On's" really aren't, they are actually front quarter shots of varying degree's. Most of the time we view HO's as merge specific but they can occur at anytime. I posted this clip over in the FA forum to try and answer a question on padlock views and why so many discourage the use. It does however show to potential "HO" set ups. The 1st is a vertical where the F6F goes over the top. You can see prior to that how I slide a bit right and get out of plane, notice how this adjustment gets me in a position where he has to come further around, in effect I'm denying a "HO" before it can ever happen and forcing him to break off and avoid since I'm literally sitting on his reverse.
That leads me directly to a lead to lag snap shot and lag pursuit...where I nose right over...into an inbound 110 at close range. This is the inevitable "X on 1" and you had to HO we see on 200 all the time. The reality is all he is doing is flying to the fight. You can see how easily his fixation on me as a target works to his detriment. This is a demonstration of how getting shot fixated gets you killed, however without a clear understanding of the principles and immediate action I'd have been lit up.
Any of the trainers can work with you and give you the foundation you need to turn any potential HO into an opportunity...
[url] http://beachheadcrm.info/snaphook/views.ahf/url]
-
this is from experience, I will ho any plane that comes straight at me. i dont go out of my way but if his nose is pointing at me, he's gonna get it in the face. then I hear about 80% of the guys complaining about why I ho them. I takes two, if early in the engagement you move in any direction then i wont shoot. it is just that simple, most guys that dont want to get ho'd will fly straight into somebody then whine about it.
semp
-
to add...
give the idiot what looks like a shot and don't be there when they take it.
takes a bit of practice to get the timing down but that is what I do.
you really don't have to do any super fancy or difficult moves but the timing is critical.
+ 1 timing is everything and it only comes through experience and reading what kinda speed your opponent is packing and how he flys. As a general rule the more speed he packs the less you have to do to avoid him, the more e you can retain in your evasive manoeuvres the more chance you have of surviving this relys on adapting to the situation as it happens and is especially true of you vs many cons.
The big mistake people learning evasive manoeuvring always make is bleeding unnecessary amounts of e by chopping too much throttle. It may work the first pass but further down the line it gets them too slow to manoeuvre and gets them killed.
-
This is a grief. No doubt about it. About 90% of my engagements with an enemy who is co-alt and heading directly for me end with me tore up in pieces. I'll come into a fight looking for someone to pick or merge with and there is always some who wants to fly directly at me with every intention of putting lead into my face. At about 1k from closing in with the enemy, I'll veer off to the right and deliberately try to put myself off from HO'ing him in order to just merge with him and begin the dogfight. But no, the jerk stays on the war path and just turns into me, guns a blazing, and forces me to fly through a hail of bullets. I mean I'm doing everything i can to avoid the HO (barrel rolling, changing alt) and I still get pegged. How does anyone ever fight and win against this without getting into a jousting match with the bigger guns winning? Or do I need to get with everyone else and start HO'ing as well because its usually the higher ranking fighters who do this mess.
I'm surprised you say it's the higher ranking fighters doing this to you since HOing in general is a poor tactic. All good advice above, I'll add that I usually don't have any trouble by ducking under and then reversing in the vertical. His HO will have put him out of position and I'll have gained angles and should be able to put him away. The key is to have the discipline not to HO back and turn it into a coin-flip.
-
This is a grief. No doubt about it. About 90% of my engagements with an enemy who is co-alt and heading directly for me end with me tore up in pieces. I'll come into a fight looking for someone to pick or merge with and there is always some who wants to fly directly at me with every intention of putting lead into my face. At about 1k from closing in with the enemy, I'll veer off to the right and deliberately try to put myself off from HO'ing him in order to just merge with him and begin the dogfight. But no, the jerk stays on the war path and just turns into me, guns a blazing, and forces me to fly through a hail of bullets. I mean I'm doing everything i can to avoid the HO (barrel rolling, changing alt) and I still get pegged. How does anyone ever fight and win against this without getting into a jousting match with the bigger guns winning? Or do I need to get with everyone else and start HO'ing as well because its usually the higher ranking fighters who do this mess.
I'm not sure who all has replied to your post, or what they have said, so I'm just going to give ya my tip, rolling and moving about is not going to save you from getting hit head on, if your still rolling and swinging around and going crazy, but still headed straight at him, 75% of the time your going to die and is a bad idea, reason i know this is because I've done many things about avoiding a head on, just play it smart and think, the best way to survive a head on strike is to start a (Fake Dive). drop your nose toward the ground, as you drop about 100 200 or 300 feet below from where you were at, start turning left or right very hard, which ever way is hardest for him to hit you. ( the key to this move is timing, with out that theirs nothing)
Something like this is not easy to point out on a forum, its easier just to video record it and leave it at that.
-
I'm not sure who all has replied to your post, or what they have said, so I'm just going to give ya my tip, rolling and moving about is not going to save you from getting hit head on, if your still rolling and swinging around and going crazy, but still headed straight at him, 75% of the time your going to die and is a bad idea, reason i know this is because I've done many things about avoiding a head on, just play it smart and think, the best way to survive a head on strike is to start a (Fake Dive). drop your nose toward the ground, as you drop about 100 200 or 300 feet below from where you were at, start turning left or right very hard, which ever way is hardest for him to hit you. ( the key to this move is timing, with out that theirs nothing)
Something like this is not easy to point out on a forum, its easier just to video record it and leave it at that.
Do you have any film of you doing this?
I could be misinterpreting your maneuver, but it really doesn't sound like a good idea. Sure, it avoids the HO (since you're not flying at him anymore), but it sounds like you're taking a good idea and tossing away any advantage you've built.
-
Do you have any film of you doing this?
I could be misinterpreting your maneuver, but it really doesn't sound like a good idea. Sure, it avoids the HO (since you're not flying at him anymore), but it sounds like you're taking a good idea and tossing away any advantage you've built.
Its not just dive dive dive. that would be dumb :D. you just have to dive a little to confuse your enemy then bank away hard before he starts firing. rather then staying on the same level of altitude which he is set on range, if he's skilled enough to know where the bullets will take place, he will most likely hit you, which is where this move tops both skilled and none skilled pilots. the dive makes it harder to know where the bullets might hit, there for leaving the pilot with doubt, causing him to miss his chance in order to hit his target.... make sense ?
PS if the pilot which you're facing is dumb, and just shoots, he has a 10% chance of hitting you :lol.
-
Do you have any film of you doing this?
Well i would have, but i don't record my fights all the time, usually when i record is when i make a film for youtube. :rofl
-
As mentioned, the key is to recognize that an enemy attempting a HO is an invitation for you to do a lead-turn merge and get angles on him.
-
As mentioned, the key is to recognize that an enemy attempting a HO is an invitation for you to do a lead-turn merge and get angles on him.
These things are to confusing for new pilots to understand, its easier to learn and do it yourself, rather than take it from someone who you don't know. :D
-
Its not just dive dive dive. that would be dumb :D. you just have to dive a little to confuse your enemy then bank away hard before he starts firing. rather then staying on the same level of altitude which he is set on range, if he's skilled enough to know where the bullets will take place, he will most likely hit you, which is where this move tops both skilled and none skilled pilots. the dive makes it harder to know where the bullets might hit, there for leaving the pilot with doubt, causing him to miss his chance in order to hit his target.... make sense ?
PS if the pilot which you're facing is dumb, and just shoots, he has a 10% chance of hitting you :lol.
Yea, I understand the dive part. It's the sharp turn you mention that seems odd. Just with the small, brief dive, you've foiled most shots. Banking away hard seems to serve no purpose, scrubs E, and will likely lead to you being in a defensive, rather than offensive position. Hard for me to visualize anything else without film.
10%??? There are only a few players in this game that have a 10% chance of hitting you. Most have less than a 4% chance. On a shot like this, it's probably less than 1%.
-
10%??? There are only a few players in this game that have a 10% chance of hitting you. Most have less than a 4% chance. On a shot like this, it's probably less than 1%.
Not quite true Mtn, I don't think. Certainly very few players have a hit% of 10% or more. But the hit% is worked out by how many rounds are fired/how many rounds hit, surely. Thus a player with a 5% ratio could fire 100 rounds on the head on, hit with 5 rounds and score a kill or otherwise damage you. So hit% stats are not an acurate tool to determine the likelyhood of being hit head on.
-
Not quite true Mtn, I don't think. Certainly very few players have a hit% of 10% or more. But the hit% is worked out by how many rounds are fired/how many rounds hit, surely. Thus a player with a 5% ratio could fire 100 rounds on the head on, hit with 5 rounds and score a kill or otherwise damage you. So hit% stats are not an acurate tool to determine the likelyhood of being hit head on.
Sure its not true, if it was not why do you think i would say 10% ? :rofl I've had it happen to me before. many people have hit me a few times, being lucky :D.
Now for you mtn, i may have said things that you quite don't understand, first off, do a dive to confuse your enemy, second is a bank (turn left or right) which is used also to confuse your opponent, it helps give you a better chance of not getting hit, if you just nose downword its just going to change the range at which your opponent may be shooting from, this bank is not done hard enough to lose air speed, this tactic works, and works well, reason why ? I've done it many times, and 9 times out of 10 come out alive :x.
I call it (A trick to Fools) tactic.
-
Sure its not true, if it was not why do you think i would say 10% ? :rofl I've had it happen to me before. many people have hit me a few times, being lucky :D.
Now for you mtn, i may have said things that you quite don't understand, first off, do a dive to confuse your enemy, second is a bank (turn left or right) which is used also to confuse your opponent, it helps give you a better chance of not getting hit, if you just nose downword its just going to change the range at which your opponent may be shooting from, this bank is not done hard enough to lose air speed, this tactic works, and works well, reason why ? I've done it many times, and 9 times out of 10 come out alive :x.
I call it (A trick to Fools) tactic.
I love this, trying to explain to a "trainer" how to fly, your digging yourself a nice little hole there buck :aok
-
Not quite true Mtn, I don't think. Certainly very few players have a hit% of 10% or more. But the hit% is worked out by how many rounds are fired/how many rounds hit, surely. Thus a player with a 5% ratio could fire 100 rounds on the head on, hit with 5 rounds and score a kill or otherwise damage you. So hit% stats are not an acurate tool to determine the likelyhood of being hit head on.
True... Each round fired has a 0-10% chance to hit me, with a "likely" chance of 1-2%, and any of those 1-2% that hit me stand a "likely to cause damage or death" chance of something less than that...
But, every single plane that fires at me "could" hit me, even if it's a small chance.
I guess I just see those minute chances as nothing to worry about. As I'm sure you're aware, once you learn to recognize potential HO situations and act accordingly, they're really not that effective as an attack. I probably die to "true" HO shots only 1 or 2 times per month. I probably take a few random hits from HO's 20-25 times per month (and really, those are front-quarter not HO). I probably take noticeable non-death damage only 2-3 times per month. The can of Pepsi by my keyboard is probably a bigger threat.
-
I love this, trying to explain to a "trainer" how to fly, your digging yourself a nice little hole there buck :aok
It's not a problem sir, even a trainer can be confused or just plain "wrong".
I was really trying to find out if he was intending the "hard turn to the left or right" as a confusingly-worded reversal of sorts, or whether it was an additional "dodging" type maneuver. I didn't want to put words into his mouth, by hinting too hard at what I was looking for.
If it was meant as a "dodge" recommendation (which it appears to be, based on his next post- "second is a bank (turn left or right) which is used also to confuse your opponent, it helps give you a better chance of not getting hit") that concerns me more, and gives an opportunity for teaching/learning...
-
Sure its not true, if it was not why do you think i would say 10% ? :rofl I've had it happen to me before. many people have hit me a few times, being lucky :D.
Now for you mtn, i may have said things that you quite don't understand, first off, do a dive to confuse your enemy, second is a bank (turn left or right) which is used also to confuse your opponent, it helps give you a better chance of not getting hit, if you just nose downword its just going to change the range at which your opponent may be shooting from, this bank is not done hard enough to lose air speed, this tactic works, and works well, reason why ? I've done it many times, and 9 times out of 10 come out alive :x.
I call it (A trick to Fools) tactic.
First off, I'm a person who see's absolutely nothing "wrong" with an HO shot. That doesn't mean I take them, or train folks to take them. I just see them as a valid, valuable (from a fight-quality viewpoint) tactic. And, I see it as one of the most simple, basic tactics for putting a bullet into your opponent. It's a "low-odds" tactic though.
I see it like this- two highly experienced master-black-belt-or-whatever martial artists stand off face to face. At the instant the fight begins, one of them kicks the other in the groin, ending the fight. The guy rolling around on the ground whines "BS choice of tactics! You dweeb! You didn't even try to karate-chop me! Groin-kicking tard!" The way I see it, if one of them isn't skilled enough to recognize the most simple, obvious threat, and defend against it, the fight should be over.
That said, (Buck) your initial dive has defeated the topic of the thread. By entering your dive, you've eliminated the HO. Done deal. Of course, you've now opened yourself up to a front-quarter shot, but the HO threat is gone...
Thankfully, front-quarter shots are a lot easier to avoid than HO's. All you need to do is offset yourself a bit vertically, and ideally a bit horizontally, and you've made yourself a tough target to hit. If you can add in presenting a small profile, and doing it all while pointing your nose in a beneficial direction for a reversal, even better!. Now add doing it without scrubbing excess E. And just for good measure, lets make it tempting to the other pilot to pull hard for a bad shot, which scrubs some of his E, and since we're tempting him to point his nose where we want, let's try to make that a bad direction for him to prepare to reverse , or maybe even to maintain his SA.
Where does that leave us? In an advantaged position over our opponent, in several ways. And this has taken how long? At the expense of how much E?
I'm going to tack a few films on here that show a few HO attempts, and if you watch closely, you can probably pick out many "HO-possibilities" that I simply don't allow to occur, due to the choices I make in maneuvering. Look at what taking the HO shot does to his position, and what dodging it does to mine in the first film.
http://www.4shared.com/file/qpAsV313/1Stblood_high_spit16_b17s.html
Kind of wrecks his chances to be a threat in the rest of the fight, doesn't it? No fancy dodges on my part, just some simple offsets. Sometimes the vertical offset needs to be below him, other times you're better off above... It depends on what?
Another one, same pilot a few minutes later. My offsets here don't even make it worth his effort to fire. But, see how he sets up his approach the same way? What was his intent? So we reverse... What's he looking for at about :55-1:00? What does it do for his position 5-10 seconds later?
http://www.4shared.com/file/Mf4Yn_DV/1stblood_again.html
And one more-
http://www.4shared.com/file/O-qfBLYs/Me_v2_F4U_and_Zeke.html
Any HO-possibilities there? They may not have taken the opportunity to shoot HO. But 2v1's are tricky... Best bet is to ALWAYS ASSUME THE HO IS A THREAT. Maneuver accordingly. But not wastefully.
-
I've done it many times, and 9 times out of 10 come out alive :x.
I call it (A trick to Fools) tactic.
So you get hit 1 out of 10 w/ this maneuver?
I would be looking into finding a new merge.
Terrible odds.
I usually get hit 3-5 times per tour when an opponent attempts a head on. (and that is out of literally 100's if not 1,000's of attempted ho's)
MY merge I am amazed when they land hits.
1 out 10 wouldn't work for me.
Pretty good explanation MtnMan on how to control your HO'n opponent. I know one of my training sessions is about how, when you are faced with an opponent that like to face shoot, you basically control their first 2-3 moves. YOU dictate their actions and if you know what you are doing (and time it correctly) your opponent does exactly what you want them to do. The key is to make sure they are putting themselves out of position for the rest of the fight by "going for it" with the HO.
-
I don't need training guys, i know what to do in a dogfight, I've played for 4 years, not 2 days.
-
I love this, trying to explain to a "trainer" how to fly, your digging yourself a nice little hole there buck :aok
I've done it, it works. leave it at that. no need for big details guys. and I'm not digging myself in a hole, quit posting your dumb comments at me Fugitive, your losing your reputation, at least with me :rofl :aok.
-
I've done it, it works. leave it at that. no need for big details guys. and I'm not digging myself in a hole, quit posting your dumb comments at me Fugitive, your losing your reputation :rofl :aok.
They're not "dumb comments". This is the Help and Training section of the forums, so that's what we're doing. Helping and Training. You claim to know what you're doing; that's fine. I'm not trying to convince you to fly differently. Heck, it's always nice to run across guys who fly that way :D
What I am doing, is correcting erroneous "help", so that others can enjoy some greater success. Your posts just made it easy to highlight some misconceptions. I wouldn't want people who are trying to learn something here trying to apply tactics that are flawed. Learning can be frustrating enough as it is...
LOL, Fugitive has nothing to fear. His reputation stands.
-
Maybe if you got rid of the "I know what I am doing" attitude and exchanged it with "is there anything you can show me to improve my flying" you might start killing more than you are dying.
Heck, i've done this more than 14 years (15?) and I am still learning.
MtnMan was correct to step in here.
You were trying to tell new players to do something that wasn't very good advice.
If I did a move that killed me 1 out of 10 I would for sure be login' the time with a trainer figuring out what I was doing wrong.
-
I've done it, it works. leave it at that. no need for big details guys. and I'm not digging myself in a hole, quit posting your dumb comments at me Fugitive, your losing your reputation, at least with me :rofl :aok.
I'm a bit curious here Buck. I've played for 15+ years and like Lute I'm still learning. While the "moves" you outline can certainly defeat a HO attempt they have significant apparent drawbacks in that the eliminate (or seem to at least) your ability to exploit potential advantages. The folks your arguing with are generally recognized as being in the collective top tier both as pilots and as students of the game. It would appear you've got a chance to expand your horizons instead of defending tactics that exchange one potential disadvantage for another. "It works" is a relative term, some things work better then others do. There is a point where sound tactics isn't quite enough. However against 95% or more opponents sound fundamentals carry the day 95% of the time.
While plane type and initial circumstance can influence the outcome sound tactics can and will carry the day a significant % of the time even when confronted by a "superior plane" in a position of advantage. As mentioned your promoting what is generally considered a less then optimal choice.
-
I'm a bit curious here Buck. I've played for 15+ years and like Lute I'm still learning. While the "moves" you outline can certainly defeat a HO attempt they have significant apparent drawbacks in that the eliminate (or seem to at least) your ability to exploit potential advantages. The folks your arguing with are generally recognized as being in the collective top tier both as pilots and as students of the game. It would appear you've got a chance to expand your horizons instead of defending tactics that exchange one potential disadvantage for another. "It works" is a relative term, some things work better then others do. There is a point where sound tactics isn't quite enough. However against 95% or more opponents sound fundamentals carry the day 95% of the time.
While plane type and initial circumstance can influence the outcome sound tactics can and will carry the day a significant % of the time even when confronted by a "superior plane" in a position of advantage. As mentioned your promoting what is generally considered a less then optimal choice.
Thanks for at least replying in a nice way humble, sure many of you have played for over 10 years, i understand that perfectly well. but i heard from someone a long time ago, say that pulling down was at most times the best thing to do if a pilot was ho'ing you from a higher level of altitude. all i can point out is, i try to dogfight the best i can, and try to plan ahead in every dogfight. I've always liked helping others learn the game better, i remember a long time ago, like 6 months into playing the game :lol, i was in the (Training Arena) just messing around, someone asked for help with tanks, i was willing and said i would help him out. with just a little help from me and what little experience i had at the time, managed to teach him how to drive the tank, an showed him how to aim and fire the gun.
Like i said, I'm just another member that likes the game very much, and offer any help i can to others if needed, i have a squad of my own, and most are rookies, i don't train, i help them. I'm not much with tactics, as you guys can tell by me making a fool out of myself by trying only to explain. i didn't know that mntman was a trainer, my apologies sir.
My I'D is (CrzyGunZ), my old one was GunOrRun.
<<S>>
-
I've done it, it works. leave it at that. no need for big details guys. and I'm not digging myself in a hole, quit posting your dumb comments at me Fugitive, your losing your reputation, at least with me :rofl :aok.
You may think they are "dumb" comments, but like Mntman said we are just trying to keep the info correct here. While you did point out diving under a HO is a good comment the hard beak is not. Seeing as this is a "training" thread the info posted here should be correct. If I post something that is wrong here I would hope someone would correct me.
-
The hardest thing to do is differentiate between advice, experience and training. I'll try and explain where the original information you got comes from (based on generally accepted ACM principles). Any merge has a couple of key components. One is the concept of separation and the second is a corresponding application of principle based on the decision of relative E state. As a general rule we want some type of offset both horizontally and vertically. In effect we don't want to fly right at the bogey. This separation is normally developed early in the merge at distance of 5.0 down to 2.5. So the concept of diving from a higher con in a merge is related to establishing that spacing.
Once we have separation then we need to decide if we're +E or -E...if your -E and try and "go high" the bogey will fly up your tail. If your +E and go angles you'll most likely overshoot and fly in front. So as a general rule we make a lead turn if we're going angles...which means we use that separation to start a turn into the bogeys path before we cross. If we're +E then we fly an offset path to try and entice the bogey into pulling hard for a low % shot and following us around to set up a vertical move called a rope. Properly applied both of these choices serve to defeat a "HO" by presenting a very poor shot window...while also contributing to a winning position for the ensuing fight.
The entire idea here is not just to present a tactic but to put it in the context of "best practice"...
-
The hardest thing to do is differentiate between advice, experience and training. I'll try and explain where the original information you got comes from (based on generally accepted ACM principles). Any merge has a couple of key components. One is the concept of separation and the second is a corresponding application of principle based on the decision of relative E state. As a general rule we want some type of offset both horizontally and vertically. In effect we don't want to fly right at the bogey. This separation is normally developed early in the merge at distance of 5.0 down to 2.5. So the concept of diving from a higher con in a merge is related to establishing that spacing.
Once we have separation then we need to decide if we're +E or -E...if your -E and try and "go high" the bogey will fly up your tail. If your +E and go angles you'll most likely overshoot and fly in front. So as a general rule we make a lead turn if we're going angles...which means we use that separation to start a turn into the bogeys path before we cross. If we're +E then we fly an offset path to try and entice the bogey into pulling hard for a low % shot and following us around to set up a vertical move called a rope. Properly applied both of these choices serve to defeat a "HO" by presenting a very poor shot window...while also contributing to a winning position for the ensuing fight.
The entire idea here is not just to present a tactic but to put it in the context of "best practice"...
You don't always want separation at the merge. It depends on the fight you are planning. You wouldn't give turning room to a bandit you know wants an angles fight.
-
Thanks for at least replying in a nice way humble, sure many of you have played for over 10 years, i understand that perfectly well. but i heard from someone a long time ago, say that pulling down was at most times the best thing to do if a pilot was ho'ing you from a higher level of altitude. all i can point out is, i try to dogfight the best i can, and try to plan ahead in every dogfight. I've always liked helping others learn the game better, i remember a long time ago, like 6 months into playing the game :lol, i was in the (Training Arena) just messing around, someone asked for help with tanks, i was willing and said i would help him out. with just a little help from me and what little experience i had at the time, managed to teach him how to drive the tank, an showed him how to aim and fire the gun.
Like i said, I'm just another member that likes the game very much, and offer any help i can to others if needed, i have a squad of my own, and most are rookies, i don't train, i help them. I'm not much with tactics, as you guys can tell by me making a fool out of myself by trying only to explain. i didn't know that mntman was a trainer, my apologies sir.
My I'D is (CrzyGunZ), my old one was GunOrRun.
<<S>>
You're not making a fool of yourself, and you don't need to apologize. I'm not taking any of this personally, and I sure hope you're not either.
It can often be difficult to grasp "intent" when it comes to wording in a post. What may be meant as "funny" can easily be seen as an attack... My use of questions in my earlier post could easily be taken incorrectly. I asked those questions in an effort to get you to look at and think of things from a different perspective. Looking back now, I can see where they could have looked like I had a "snotty" attitude. Trust me, that isn't/wasn't the case.
As trainers, we see posts in this section from a slightly different perspective than most people. That's why we take pains to try to keep everything as accurate as possible, and point out "flaws" when we see them. We're not doing it as an attack. When it comes to teaching people, one difficulty we run across quite commonly are bad habits, which generally arise from following poor advice, or from having a poor understanding of what's going on, and why. It's often more difficult to "un-train" these habits than it would be to teach them better practices right from the start.
That doesn't mean your opinion and advice aren't welcome! We all started out the same way, and I've been the "target" of correction many times! I'm a believer in the idea that to truly learn something, you need to teach it. That doesn't mean that as the teacher you won't make mistakes!
It takes guts to toss your ideas out for review. Don't stop doing it. Just don't take it personally if someone else steps in to help you help others. Honestly, your point was valid, and IMO, led to a whole lot of learning opportunities in this thread. Keep at it!
-
You don't always want separation at the merge. It depends on the fight you are planning. You wouldn't give turning room to a bandit you know wants an angles fight.
Actually, you just plain always want separation, period. If you don't have separation, you both fall to the ground.
You bring up a very important point though. While separation is good, and necessary, you can have too much of a good thing! Merging too close gets you face-shot. Merging close, but with too much space can allow your opponent to turn into you using lead pursuit to gain a shot or a good position (although at a cost in E, which he may or may not be able to afford).
On the other hand, sometimes giving the guy who wants to use angles enough room to hang himself with is a great way to win as well. If I'm flying a lesser-turning plane than my opponent, keeping the fight "tight" can be suicide. In that case, I may want to open things up quite a bit.
-
You may think they are "dumb" comments, but like Mntman said we are just trying to keep the info correct here. While you did point out diving under a HO is a good comment the hard beak is not. Seeing as this is a "training" thread the info posted here should be correct. If I post something that is wrong here I would hope someone would correct me.
Roger that Fugitive, correcting i don't mind, but always make sure you don't go overboard with your correcting. I'm sure you've made some mistakes Fugitive, and been corrected as well when you first started on this forum.
-
You're not making a fool of yourself, and you don't need to apologize. I'm not taking any of this personally, and I sure hope you're not either.
It can often be difficult to grasp "intent" when it comes to wording in a post. What may be meant as "funny" can easily be seen as an attack... My use of questions in my earlier post could easily be taken incorrectly. I asked those questions in an effort to get you to look at and think of things from a different perspective. Looking back now, I can see where they could have looked like I had a "snotty" attitude. Trust me, that isn't/wasn't the case.
As trainers, we see posts in this section from a slightly different perspective than most people. That's why we take pains to try to keep everything as accurate as possible, and point out "flaws" when we see them. We're not doing it as an attack. When it comes to teaching people, one difficulty we run across quite commonly are bad habits, which generally arise from following poor advice, or from having a poor understanding of what's going on, and why. It's often more difficult to "un-train" these habits than it would be to teach them better practices right from the start.
That doesn't mean your opinion and advice aren't welcome! We all started out the same way, and I've been the "target" of correction many times! I'm a believer in the idea that to truly learn something, you need to teach it. That doesn't mean that as the teacher you won't make mistakes!
It takes guts to toss your ideas out for review. Don't stop doing it. Just don't take it personally if someone else steps in to help you help others. Honestly, your point was valid, and IMO, led to a whole lot of learning opportunities in this thread. Keep at it!
All you've said made sense and was easy to understand, but if my suggestions and idea's are mostly wrong, i don't know as if theirs any need to keep at it, because i don't want to lead anyone in the wrong direction.
-
OK semi hijack would it be considered dweebish if you HO'd a CV with torps :noid
-
You don't always want separation at the merge. It depends on the fight you are planning. You wouldn't give turning room to a bandit you know wants an angles fight.
as Mt said you 100% always want separation. Especially in an angles merge, failure to create separation in an angles merge is the #1 beginner mistake. The greater the likely hood of an E fight the more important the angle off is prior tp the merge. The greater the chance for an E fight the more you want a parallel offset vs a lead turn...
*** at edit ***
A couple of clarifications.
1) Separation occurs in 3D so we're looking at a combination of both vertical and horizontal components.
2) Separation is greatest well before the actual merge in an angles engagement, the entire objective of seperation in that instance is to have the room to generate a lead turn in some plane.
Tactics will reflect not only initial relative E state & positioning but plane type and pilot disposition. I often offer my 6 in an angles merge vs specific planes. One of the best examples is in a hog vs a spitfire where very few spit drivers can slow the plane down. Combine this with the perception that the hog will be fast and its easy to set up a "bad merge" that give the spit reason to pounce before the hog can run away...only to find itself in a rolling scissor immediately on the merge 75 mph too fast for the fight at hand. In that instance I'm wider and slower then normal and in a low G slightly nose down turn that screams kick me I'm a noob...
Now while it works most of the time vs the kazaa/bruv of the world it often is a tad embarrassing...
-
as Mt said you 100% always want separation. Especially in an angles merge, failure to create separation in an angles merge is the #1 beginner mistake. The greater the likely hood of an E fight the more important the angle off is prior tp the merge. The greater the chance for an E fight the more you want a parallel offset vs a lead turn...
*** at edit ***
A couple of clarifications.
1) Separation occurs in 3D so we're looking at a combination of both vertical and horizontal components.
2) Separation is greatest well before the actual merge in an angles engagement, the entire objective of seperation in that instance is to have the room to generate a lead turn in some plane.
Tactics will reflect not only initial relative E state & positioning but plane type and pilot disposition. I often offer my 6 in an angles merge vs specific planes. One of the best examples is in a hog vs a spitfire where very few spit drivers can slow the plane down. Combine this with the perception that the hog will be fast and its easy to set up a "bad merge" that give the spit reason to pounce before the hog can run away...only to find itself in a rolling scissor immediately on the merge 75 mph too fast for the fight at hand. In that instance I'm wider and slower then normal and in a low G slightly nose down turn that screams kick me I'm a noob...
Now while it works most of the time vs the kazaa/bruv of the world it often is a tad embarrassing...
Nope...That is incorrect.
He (mtnmn) stated that you need enough separation not to collide, which is a bit of humor I would think.
He implies that you have to have separation at the merge to prevent getting shot. That is demonstrably false. All you have to do to prevent getting shot at the merge is not provide the bandit a shot opportunity. That is geometry not distance. In fact, once you are inside the bandit's turn circle he CAN'T shoot you. Closer is better in this case. Maybe he doesn't know how to pass close aboard a bandit at the merge without getting shot. Maybe he does. I don't know.
I know how to do it and it is a useful tool when I want to deny the bandit turning room for a lead turn. And you want to be as close as you can when you use it because the closer you are to him when you pass the more out of position he will be if he goes angles at the merge.
It is a very big part of 2 v 1 tactics to be able to execute a merge close aboard without getting shot in the face. It is the basis for setting up most of the follow on maneuvers following an offensive split.
-
I'm sorry, one of us is clueless and I don't think its me. Separation refers to tactics in the merge prior to "crossing props". Separation is specific to either parallel offset in the case of an E merge or a lead turn for an angular merge. It in no way reflects how far planes are apart at the "merge" itself. In fact at the extreme there is actually no merge since the lead turn actually places the aggressor behind the opponents 3/9 line. As a side note it is statistically impossible to entirely deny a shot window on the merge...end of story.
What you can do is present a difficult low % shot that creates a tactical problem if your opponent pursues it. Flying close to the target on a reciprocal heading is about as inefficient a merge as possible under all circumstances...especially 2 on 1.
-
Nope...That is incorrect.
He (mtnmn) stated that you need enough separation not to collide, which is a bit of humor I would think.
He implies that you have to have separation at the merge to prevent getting shot. That is demonstrably false. All you have to do to prevent getting shot at the merge is not provide the bandit a shot opportunity. That is geometry not distance. In fact, once you are inside the bandit's turn circle he CAN'T shoot you. Closer is better in this case. Maybe he doesn't know how to pass close aboard a bandit at the merge without getting shot. Maybe he does. I don't know.
I know how to do it and it is a useful tool when I want to deny the bandit turning room for a lead turn. And you want to be as close as you can when you use it because the closer you are to him when you pass the more out of position he will be if he goes angles at the merge.
It is a very big part of 2 v 1 tactics to be able to execute a merge close aboard without getting shot in the face. It is the basis for setting up most of the follow on maneuvers following an offensive split.
No, the separation I'm referring to is the space/distance between the planes, which you obviously must have. Without separation, you have a collision. Until you collide, you have separation. After you collide, and bounce or tear apart, you have separation again. Separation can be measured in miles, meters, feet, inches, whatever. Without any separation, though, you're done fighting.
Specifically, you're describing controlling or manipulating the amount of separation present at a particular point in your merge. You have separation, and you need it, you just don't want too much for the case you're describing.
And that's where things get tricky... How do you describe separation between the different planes, and at different points in the fight? If you both took off from separate fields at the same time, you'd have maybe 25 miles of separation horizontally, but little or none vertically. During a fight, separation will shrink and expand, in three dimensions. As soon as it reaches "zero" or "none", though, you're dead.
If you look back at your own post, you'll see yourself describing separation. Words like close, close, close aboard all describe distance (separation). Can you even have geometry in a fight without distance?
-
Dwager,
I'm not trying to be confrontational, but either your approaching the same issue with different terms or something doesn't add up. In an "angles" merge the single most important variables are relative E state and degree's of angular gain at the merge. In order to generate angular gain at the merge you need to have a lead turn component. Now in "dueling" merges its often a race for the deck followed by mirrored obliques such that significant similarity exists. This is normally as much more artificial scenario then a merge between dissimilar planes with different e states. At the extreme there is no real merge, but the underlying principles still apply. I've posted this before but in my mind its a classic -E open vs a superior plane. In effect you have a move out of plane to set separation followed by a move back into plane with a lead turn so premature it effectively creates an overshoot instead of a merge. Without the jog out of plane the lead turn and overshoot isn't possible...
http://az-dsl.com/snaphook/P40vN1ki.ahf (http://az-dsl.com/snaphook/P40vN1ki.ahf)
-
Mtnmn and humble are confusing separation (the physical separation between two objects) and flight path separation, which is the difference in future position as determined by velocity vectors. In other words, if you are going to collide there is zero flight path separation. Zero flight path separation results in zero physical separation. Flight path separation greater than zero results in greater than zero physical separation.
The confusion seems to be considering everything from visual sighting to closest point of approach as "The Merge". I'm fine with that. We all use that particular terminology to describe the first part of an engagement. I break down that part of the engagement into three parts. Visual sighting and decision, Pre-merge positioning, and maneuver at the merge.
The "merge" is actually a three phase process starting at visual sighting and ending at the closest point of approach between the two aircraft.
Phase one is from visual sighting up until the initiation of pre-merge maneuvering. The first phase is the visual sighting and a decision to engage or not. This phase usually results in a period of pure pursuit in an arena with long icon range because visual acquisition and positive identification occur at long range. If both pilots start pure pursuit at 6000 yards there is 6000 yards of separation and effectively zero flight path separation.
Phase two begins with the initiation of pre-merge positioning maneuvers. As the bogeys speed towards each other the pilots decide the next phase. A pilot desiring a "hot' merge is going to keep the flight path separation close to zero in order to reduce the physical separation to close to zero with a gun solution.
An angles fighter will want to create physical separation pre-merge to set up a lead turn. This pre-merge separation is created by flight path separation. Before closest point of approach the angles fighter needs turning room so that his lead turn will apply offensive pressure on his opponent. Once the flight path separation creates the physical separation the angles fighter is going to want to reduce the physical separation in order to gain offensive position. That is the entire point of lead turning. The defense against this is to take away the physical separation by maintaining near zero flight path separation until the merge, resulting in a merge (closest point of approach) with very little separation.
Phase three is the final maneuver leading to the closest point of approach or MERGE.
A simple illustration is joining into formation on a friend that is straight and level in the opposite direction and will not maneuver. Once you spot the friend you need to reduce the physical separation. Phase one. Fly towards the friend or make your flight path separation zero. Next you want to achieve a rear quarter position going the same direction with enough energy to remain in formation. The only way to do that is to create physical separation by separating your flight path from that of the friend, PRE-MERGE and then use a lead turn to arrive with as little physical separation as possible at the MERGE or closest point of approach. The standard formation join is going to be a process of starting with zero flight path separation moving to wide flight path separation then rapidly moving back to zero flight path separation as the formation is joined.
The classic illustration of this process is the often taught and duplicated vertical merge. Both fighters are planning an angles fight and wish to create vertical turning room pre-merge. Both fighters want that vertical separation to be below the opponent as this is highly desirable because gravity reduces the turn radius. Both fighters dive as they approach. They are both trying to create physical separation by using flight path separation PRE-MERGE.
Every merge is a simple attempt to join into formation on the bandit in close trail. If the target doesn't maneuver it should be a simple matter of creating turning room pre-merge using flight path separation and then reducing the resulting physical separation using a lead turn to bring the flight path separation back to zero.
Flight path separation creates physical separation pre-merge and then you take it away at the merge using a lead turn if you are initiating an angles fight. This tactic can be countered by taking away the flight path separation.
-
I'm sort of lost here, flight path eh ? separation, not really getting the whole picture here. could you just post a film ? easier to follow.
Don't mean to butt in. :noid
-
I'm not confusing anything and I could give a rats backside what your "fine with" and your nomenclature is dead nuts wrong. Velocity vector is a component of lift vector which is what controls the possible range of movement for an airframe at any given moment. "Separation" is consistently viewed as vertical and lateral displacement of flight path. This is true if we're looking at relative spacing between wingman or in relation to a bogey. So offsetting flight path is = to separation. The merge begins the moment you sight a dot and decide if your heading toward it or away from it. Once you fly toward it your "merging". Pure pursuit means that you are chasing a bogey flying away from you with no "angle off".
Once you have the desired offset then the additional information you've collected during the 1st part of the merge comes into play and you adjust based on your intended course of action. A "merge" starts (In AH terms) the moment your in icon range. by the time you actually cross paths the fight is 90% over and one of the reals signs a pilot has evolved is his willingness to recognize a bad setup and "refuse the merge". Your "defense" to a lead turn is basically a non starter with an entirely 2 dimensional viewpoint and will get you killed in 15 seconds or less vs any competent pilot in an even merge. In fact the only time that this statement is true...
The defense against this is to take away the physical separation by maintaining near zero flight path separation until the merge, resulting in a merge (closest point of approach) with very little separation.
is if you realize that you need to refuse the merge. In this case thats exactly the correct maneuver, otherwise you are in fact simply doing what the nikki did in the clip above. In fact what your describing is exactly what not to do and the film above is a perfect example. He reorients to my altered "pursuit angle" and is suckered into a poor shot window.
The reality here is simple, if you see an enemy gain offset and then turn back into plane and you feel you are in a +E state then you rotate your lift vector away from his path of movement by 90 degree's and extend thru the "merge" and into a sustained climb. You are in effect turning behind his path (and yes this minimizes separation before expanding it) and extending and converting the merge to a rope. The goal is to make him fly the long way or burn more E reversing. If on the other hand you are -E then a move back out of plane both defends against his guns solution and creates an exploitable overshoot as per the nikki/p-40 clip above.
There is no ACM term "hot merge" I am aware of in any doctrine. Are you confusing a merge with a FQ guns solution (not mutually exclusive)?
*** at edit ***
I'll use the clip above to illustrate what I'm trying to say...
This a typical forced fight, I'm lower slower and in a plane that is close to double inferior, especially in 3 dimensional maneuvering. At the films opening (4.0) I'm sitting with him above and off my FQ...
at 6 seconds I've dropped down and put him squarely "in plane" to my lift vector" at roughly 12 seconds I turn back out of plane. At 15 seconds I'm back in plane and have created a trap. The proper course of action here is for the nikki to refuse the merge by rotating 90 degree's away and extending up...
at 17 seconds we're back in plane with minimal flight path separation. At this point the fight is effectively over unless the nikki elects to dive thru and extend and reset.
at 18 seconds I go back out of plane and off the gas and trap him into a very low % nose down shot that actually creates an overshoot within the merge itself. At 28 seconds the nikki has the option to convert to a sustained climb with minimal risk instead he continues the fight. Whats important here is that I'm influencing the fight from an inferior position.
This goes back to the heart of Mtnmans comments. I've spent literally thousands of hours trying to teach people to unlearn "stupid" ACM. There is no single "right" move, all ACM has to be viewed in the context it's applied. When we look at any type of a FQ shot it generally works against the initiator unless its viewed as a fly by shot of opportunity that does not alter the lift vector from optimum. A shot presented in proper maneuvering should be taken regardless of aspect. A shot that sacrifices superior position for an apparent gain is normally a trap vs a seasoned opponent.
I'm far from uber as a dueler but I can fly planes like the A-20 in the LWA's effectively just by applying sound fundamental ACM.
-
Mtnmn and humble are confusing separation (the physical separation between two objects) and flight path separation, which is the difference in future position as determined by velocity vectors. In other words, if you are going to collide there is zero flight path separation. Zero flight path separation results in zero physical separation. Flight path separation greater than zero results in greater than zero physical separation.
The confusion seems to be...
Yours...
You stated-
You don't always want separation at the merge. It depends on the fight you are planning. You wouldn't give turning room to a bandit you know wants an angles fight.
and-
Nope...That is incorrect.
He (mtnmn) stated that you need enough separation not to collide, which is a bit of humor I would think.
He implies that you have to have separation at the merge to prevent getting shot. That is demonstrably false. All you have to do to prevent getting shot at the merge is not provide the bandit a shot opportunity. That is geometry not distance. In fact, once you are inside the bandit's turn circle he CAN'T shoot you. Closer is better in this case. Maybe he doesn't know how to pass close aboard a bandit at the merge without getting shot. Maybe he does. I don't know.
I know how to do it and it is a useful tool when I want to deny the bandit turning room for a lead turn. And you want to be as close as you can when you use it because the closer you are to him when you pass the more out of position he will be if he goes angles at the merge.
It is a very big part of 2 v 1 tactics to be able to execute a merge close aboard without getting shot in the face. It is the basis for setting up most of the follow on maneuvers following an offensive split.
...and now you seem to have realized how that looks, so have launched into "flight path" separation.
Which is fine I suppose, but you never mentioned "flight path" separation, so we didn't infer that you meant "flight path" separation. And then you re-state what we've stated, in an attempt to show that we're confused?
If both pilots start pure pursuit at 6000 yards there is 6000 yards of separation and effectively zero flight path separation.
And build on our "confusion", by supporting my statement...
You bring up a very important point though. While separation is good, and necessary, you can have too much of a good thing! Merging too close gets you face-shot. Merging close, but with too much space can allow your opponent to turn into you using lead pursuit to gain a shot or a good position (although at a cost in E, which he may or may not be able to afford).
with...
An angles fighter will want to create physical separation pre-merge to set up a lead turn. This pre-merge separation is created by flight path separation. Before closest point of approach the angles fighter needs turning room so that his lead turn will apply offensive pressure on his opponent. Once the flight path separation creates the physical separation the angles fighter is going to want to reduce the physical separation in order to gain offensive position. That is the entire point of lead turning. The defense against this is to take away the physical separation by maintaining near zero flight path separation until the merge, resulting in a merge (closest point of approach) with very little separation.
Beyond that, we're talking about defending against the HO. Reducing your "flight path" separation would seem to "fly in the face" of that idea...
You make some good points, which could be discussed. I believe Shaw even goes into those ideas in his book if I recall correctly (it's been a LONG time since I read it). However, that's not the topic of this thread, so I've been avoiding get too detailed there.
Not a big deal... Your earlier posts just left out some information vital to their proper interpretation..
-
Shaw covers the issue on multiple occasions and in various manners. As always nothing is absolute since all ACM has to consider both circumstance and adversary. As a single example you can refer to pages 74-77 where lead turns are initially introduced and the concept of flight path separation is first (to the best of my recollection) broached. As always with Shaw (appropriately) nothing is absolute. flight path separation is great...unless it's to much....but its not really required at all since you can be to early, to late or just right. It all depends on what your flying, what he's flying and the day of the week.
The biggest problem with ACM is that whats "correct" in one instance is incorrect in another and sometimes more then one solution exists to the same "problem". In addition each segment of the book will layer options. If we look at page 76 right above figure 2-9 he discusses minimizing separation by attempting to pass as close as possible....which is especially important when one plane is diving toward a front quarter pass vs a climbing adversary. Now if we just stop there we have a conundrum. Any reasonably competent stick is well aware of the benefit of winning the under in a merge and the perils of a "top down" shot...yet here is shaw discussing a diving FQ shot vs a climbing adversary.
He then advocates pulling thru the shot window with minimal separation above the bogey "as closely as possible". This line of reasoning is not pursued in detail here but obviously approached in detail from a variety of tactical positions later. Anyone who's attempted a mid merge rope and had the con fly up his tailpipe realizes what a judgement call this tactic is. Obviously Shaws book is a masterful work far beyond my ability to comprehend in total since various elements are layered (for lack of a better term). Every chapter builds on and subtly alters what you already have digested.
Go further to chapter 3 page 101 figure 3-1 and digest his guns only angles fight and contrast that to a typical duel here. In fact take it to the DA and try it out and vary it. Can you make it work....sure. In fact go dig up some old film of Cretons merges and you'll find a variation on that tailored to the more correct merge you'll normally see. But imagine trying to make that work vs Drex, bighorn, blukitty or any other big league dueler...your not gonna see 1,2,3 flat turn with me are you?
So my issue when I see this out of context "absolute" approach is that its taking very good complex layered advice and bastardizing it to the lowest common (and incorrect IMO) denominator. As a side note and to clarify an earlier comment the only place I think I "disagree" with Shaw is his use of velocity and lift vector. To me the 1st is a component of the 2nd and a planes potential movement is limited by its abilty to orient its lift vector. The 1st is essentially two dimensional and the 2nd 3 dimensional. Almost all "dogfighting" terminology that I'm aware focuses on relative lift vector....including Shaw. Most other places Shaw will talk about rotating the lift vector and I think in the example specific to flight path seperation that would have been best. Anyone who's had an initial "lesson" from me over the years knows the 1st thing I cover is down to but never below. Always maintian the advantage and drive the bogey down. Never turn a mugging into an even fight. So you have a "dive down" a 90 degree rotation away and zoom to the perch in a series of decreasing high yoyo's (I may have a film or two I could post).
I'd have to dig thru but Shaw explains it much better later in the book IMO....
-
As a side note and to clarify an earlier comment the only place I think I "disagree" with Shaw is his use of velocity and lift vector. To me the 1st is a component of the 2nd and a planes potential movement is limited by its abilty to orient its lift vector. The 1st is essentially two dimensional and the 2nd 3 dimensional.
Sorry Snaphook, but you're contradicting physics here. Shaw's use is standard physics use. They are separate vectors. The velocity vector is the direction the aircraft is moving. The lift vector is perpendicular to the wings and velocity vector. Period.
If you think of a vector as an entity with direction and magnitude (i.e., a line or arrow), all vectors are clearly one dimensional objects in multidimensional space (could be 3 which is the case for dogfighting, or an infinite # in the case of quantum mechanics).
What you are thinking about is the PLANE OF MOTION IN A TURN (don't know the technical ACM term if there is any) which is the plane (a two dimensional surface) defined by the velocity and lift vectors.
Edit: but of course this is wildly off topic.
-
This is a grief. No doubt about it. About 90% of my engagements with an enemy who is co-alt and heading directly for me end with me tore up in pieces. I'll come into a fight looking for someone to pick or merge with and there is always some who wants to fly directly at me with every intention of putting lead into my face. At about 1k from closing in with the enemy, I'll veer off to the right and deliberately try to put myself off from HO'ing him in order to just merge with him and begin the dogfight. But no, the jerk stays on the war path and just turns into me, guns a blazing, and forces me to fly through a hail of bullets. I mean I'm doing everything i can to avoid the HO (barrel rolling, changing alt) and I still get pegged. How does anyone ever fight and win against this without getting into a jousting match with the bigger guns winning? Or do I need to get with everyone else and start HO'ing as well because its usually the higher ranking fighters who do this mess.
Tired of being picked :D
-
Personally i love these monkeys ho'ing my P-47 when they have 2-4 50's,#1 try to get off the side of his ho,it will force him to bank hard to merge with you.As you have already turned to reach his 6 in a vertical,however i see people trying to win ho's when they have a fighter with superb manuverability.Although they dont have the guns or armour to win a ho 'against a heavy fighter like a P-47.