Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Toad on August 11, 2001, 10:49:00 AM
-
...are continuing a common WW2 tradition.
From Air Classics, Vol 37, #9, p.20:
"Bill Reese Doubles
Fortunately for the reader, 486th Bill Reese vividly recalls his double victory on 27 December, and shares these memories with us. "I was flying No. 4 postition with "Olaf" (Earnest O. Bostrom) as Flight Lead and LT. Bill Gerbe as Element Lead. I was flying Gerbe's wing, and saw a pair of Me-109's coming up and behind us. I called in Bandits and whipped over and out of formation. Gerbe said, 'have at them and I'll cover you,' and I did. I got the German 109 wingman in the cockpit and he immediately crashed- at this time we were only about 200-300 feet above the ground.
"The German leader was a horse of a different color. He was good! He immediately pulled up into the sun (on a nice clear day). The 109 could climb at a sharper angle than a P-51, so I just kept the plane at full bore and just above a stall. Lieutenant Gerbe tried shooting his guns, stalled and spun out, and I didn't see him again until back at Y-29 (he recovered okay, but was so low he didn't have time to get back into the action). After the German flight leader had pulled away for me a little, he did a full rudder turn and came back firing away. Fortunately he was close to a stall and he couldn't pull his nose up high enough. I could see his tracers going well under me. The first time we had this head-on confrontation, he passed about 50 feet under me, and I lost him momentarily while trying to get turned around. I found him again climbing back into the sun. The second time he came at me was an exact rerun, except we were passing each other a little closer. Again I lost him under me and then he was climbing back into the sun. I knew I had to do something to break this cycle, and I did. Next time he came charging back at me with his guns blazing, I was still in a steep climb-but upside down. This time I did not lose sight of him for even a second, and when he started to chandelle back toward the sun, I was sitting behind him firing my guns. I was still flying too slow for my sight to be much good but I managed to get a couple of hits near his canopy. The next thing I knew, the canopy came off and he bailed out."
Head-ons happened and happen.
If you find yourself in front of an enemy gun barrel, be it pointed at your derriere, your toes, your elbow, your ribs or that tiny spot between your beady little eyes ask yourself who's fault it is that there's a gun pointing at you.
"Do some of that pilot sh*t, Mav".
;)
Edited for typos.
[ 08-11-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Toad fer President!
-
hos happened but not as a matter of tactic like it is used in the main.
How many combat sorties were flown in wwii
how many resulted in someone being shot down
how many resulted in being shot down in a ho
what the total percentage of kills achieved by ho in wwii?
Now compare that with the percenatges of ho kills in ah.
Hos in wwii were a very rare. No one ever said they never occur.
Even your own post shows that after 3 ho attempts no hits were recieved by either side. It took some acm skill to get the kill.
Just a typical mindless toad thread I guess.
I have np with how people fly in the main its their choice. I have no problems countering a ho either through acm or an a8 with 30mm. Its just some use the ho as a crutch and you can usually predict what planes and what pilots will resort to it not matter what state they are in at the merge.
I usually avoid your posts because they rarely have anything to offer I can only figure I must be bored.
[ 08-11-2001: Message edited by: Wotan ]
-
Wotan for Vice President :)
Sax
-
Wotan, I am so hurt...
but I do want to point out that HO was a typical tactic in the PAC.
Further, are you somehow implying that the % of types of attack in AH should somehow match WW2? How are you going to implement that, may I ask? Give someone a "B&Z" allotment and when it's gone, no more B&Z for a while?
Go ahead, slap me around some more.
BTW, you'll note that Bill Reese never mentions shooting at the second 109 until he was behind him. :D
-
The HO was used in all theatres where you had two combatants flying aircraft equipped with balistic weapons.
-
yeah i was watching flying leathernecks the other day and the duke himself (god rest him...) not only ho'd, but also ran and rammed!
if it's ok for his dukeliness it's alright by me by cod.....
-
Of course there were hos thats a given.
Further, are you somehow implying that the % of types of attack in AH should somehow match WW2? How are you going to implement that, may I ask? Give someone a "B&Z" allotment and when it's gone, no more B&Z for a while?
Again these type of conclusions you make are why I rarely read a toad thread or reply.
Where do you get that inference? I am pointing out that in a game / sim people resort to hoing more frequantly then in rl. There's no hidden meaning behind that. That statement is fact and stands alone no matter what meaning you attach to it.
You use words like "typical" and "common" which implies that hos were used with some frequency. All I am saying is that given the number of a2a kills in wwii the percentage of aircraft killed in a ho disproves any notion that hos were typical or common.
Theres no other hidden meaning here as well.
People fly ah to kill they fly more agressively then rl and take greater risks. All of that makes atleast for me a fun time.
Ho don't ho I could careless.
I would never assume that I would be able to "slap you around" via a bbs forum. Especially since you along with several others have a much higher skill level then myself in this field.
I therefore resort (much like the ho) to the only effective defense I have.
To not read those threads..... :)
-
Can't we just perk the HO? That'll put a stop to it!!
-
So, let's see...
We both agree that HO's happened in WW2 ACM.
We both probably agree that there are NO meaningful statistics kept on "HO's attempted" or on "HO's successful" in the WW2 records of any side. Therefore, speculation on the frequency or success of actual WW2 HO's is pointless.
We both agree that HO's happen in AH.
We both probably agree that NO meaningful stats are kept on "HO's attempted" or "HO's successful" in AH either. Therefore, speculation on the frequency or success of actual AH HO's is pointless.
We both agree that if you have anything close to corner speed a HO is pretty easy to avoid in AH.
We both probably agree that sometimes (low E for example) you may have to take an HO shot yourself.
Neither one of us apparently cares a bit what the other guy flies or how he flies it.
So, please forgive me, what was the point of either one of your posts?
-
We both probably agree that there are NO meaningful statistics kept on "HO's attempted" or on "HO's successful" in the WW2 records of any side. Therefore, speculation on the frequency or success of actual WW2 HO's is pointless.
I assume you have no factual basis for your claim if you agree to the above statement.
So you have changed your tone from when you stated
...are continuing a common WW2 tradition.
and
but I do want to point out that HO was a typical tactic in the PAC.
Do you then agree that if hos were typical, common and a tradition you would be able to supply more then anecdotal evidence to support that?
You made a claim and I do not agree with it.
That was the point of my replies. :)
Other then that your right there is no point to my replies.......
I told you I was bored........
N. Florida weather its pouring rain and thunder storms continue to roll in ...........
I can only speculate why you started this thread. I assumed it was to counter the claim that hos were rare in wwii.
<S>
enough from me now I am even more bored :(
-
Yah gotta watch fer old Toad.. in the air or on the boards. He'll make yah think; work for your points and offers nothin up fer free.
Proceed with caution; wherever yah run ito him... and in either place, it's always a blast when yah run across him. ;)
Preach on; Brother Toad!
-
Amen Hang.
You gotta hear Toad and Rude on our squad channel.
My heart was uplifted to 35k one time while they preached thier gospel to the Tas flock :)
By the way Wotan, Toad knows what he preaches.
You just another wannabe.
Sax
-
HO's are fine with me. I regularly HO in the MA if the situation requires it. And I get my fair share of "HO DWEEB" attacks, usually from broken flaming TnB'rs as they plummet towards the virtual dirt.
I fly the Typh (mainly because not many do) almost exclusively and given the armament and toughness of the plane I have considerable success when cons initiate or accept a HO attack.
Basically there are 4 types of HO's
The Suicidal Ho'er
I'll generally only initiate or accept a HO if the opponent is a lightly armed ac ie spit, zero, yak, 205 etc. I'd much prefer to BnZ my opponents but these types of HO'ers really annoy me, they have no hope of winning yet they still HO? and usually die. Stupid, yes.
The WTF HO'er
When an AC accepts or initiates a HO attack with an AC with similiar firepower. These are rediculous and probably only occur because the combatants play quake a lot.
The Disadvantaged HO'er
You're low, slow and vs 2 AC and then a N1K suddenly arrives 5k above you. Your dead anyhow?
The Tactical HO'er
Your AC has great firepower, doe'snt turn real well and your fighting a faster, more manuaverable but lightly armed AC.
A lot of people can probably identify with one or more of these scenarios at one point or another during their time playing AH. Fact is that sometimes HO's are ok and other times their just silly. If you don't like them, then just avoid them.
Chow <- Austraspanglish for Cya :D
-
Sorry to disagree Wotan, but I was staying at a hotel in Detroit last year, and it just so happened there was a reunion of a P38 fighter group there.
I spent as much time as I could talking with those guys, and trying to learn as much as I could from them, when I asked them about Head On attacks.
Their responce was unanimous "We specialized in head on attacks!".
Now, I am sure you have studied WW2 tactics, but I will go with the guys who were did, who fought the fights, buried their brothers and wrote the books of history. They told me HO's were common and I believe them.
Dago
[ 08-11-2001: Message edited by: Dago ]
-
Originally posted by Dago:
Sorry to disagree Wotan, but I was staying at a hotel in Detroit last year, and it just so happened there was a reuniion of a P38 fighter group there.
I spent as much time as I could talking with those guys, and trying to learn as much as I could from them, when I asked them about Head On attacks.
Their responce was unanimous "We specialized in head on attacks!".
Dago
Dago, did they tell you why did they did that? I am dumb as dirt about this and twice as ignorant, but any maneuver which permits your opponent to shoot at you seems less than optimal -- even if you have quad hispanos and he has nothing but 7mm. One good burst through a vital airplane/body part can ruin a day, even though you just exploded his day. Just curious. :)
AKcurly
-
Originally posted by Wotan:
hos happened but not as a matter of tactic like it is used in the main.
How many combat sorties were flown in wwii
how many resulted in someone being shot down
how many resulted in being shot down in a ho
what the total percentage of kills achieved by ho in wwii?
Now compare that with the percenatges of ho kills in ah.
Hos in wwii were a very rare. No one ever said they never occur.
Even your own post shows that after 3 ho attempts no hits were recieved by either side. It took some acm skill to get the kill.
Just a typical mindless toad thread I guess.
[ 08-11-2001: Message edited by: Wotan ]
Lol Wotan - your note is the mindless one. Toad makes no claim (read his note) other than to say "HOs happened and happen." You're the guy making statements which a) can't be substantiated (what percentage of kills were achieved by HO) or b) mindless (Now compare that with the percenatges of ho kills in ah.) Get a grip, Wotan. :)
AKcurly
-
and asi have said before HOs in AH are total unrealistic in leathality. if AH had HOs that even remotely matched RL, i wouldnt mind them. but as it is, they are too deadly and hit planes too easy compaired to RL.
In RL u were more apt to collide then get hits or even kills with HO passes.
Originally posted by Toad:
Wotan, I am so hurt...
but I do want to point out that HO was a typical tactic in the PAC.
Further, are you somehow implying that the % of types of attack in AH should somehow match WW2? How are you going to implement that, may I ask? Give someone a "B&Z" allotment and when it's gone, no more B&Z for a while?
Go ahead, slap me around some more.
BTW, you'll note that Bill Reese never mentions shooting at the second 109 until he was behind him. :D
-
Curly,
Thanks for saving me some time. Well said.
Wotan,
Yes, I believe I can supply some "more than anecdotal evidence" if you will accept instructions from aces like McGuire that were meant to guide the new guys.
For example, McGuire authored a book "Combat Tactics in the Southwest Pacific Area" that was adopted by the Army Air Corps. Here is a snip on his advice about using the Head-On pass against the Japanese:
"Offered in evidence is the Japanese reaction to the head-on pass. They don't like it and nine out of 10 will break first, even before they are in range. To be sure, the head-on attack cannot be recommended when flying a plane that has little armament, no convergence of lines of fire, and light armor, but what about this shout of "Banzai" and the suicide crash? Nothing about it because the Japanese aren’t living up to dying for their propaganda. Instead they will break from the head-on pass in a vertical bank and try to come around for a tail attack. The P-38 pilot need only to keep on at the same speed or go into a shallow dive to defeat this tactic, for the enemy pilot loses speed in the bank and turn and will wind up too far behind to be a menace. In this case of the exceptional one who does hold to a head-on pass, simply push over. The Japanese pilot will invariably go up. One thing you must not do when committed to a head-on pass: you must not turn until entirely clear."
IIRC, Tom Blackburn, leader of VF-17 "Jolly Rogers" was also proponent of the HO against the Japanese. I loaned his book to my father, but it will be back soon. Blackburn pretty much advised his men to take the HO if they could get it, for the same reasons that McGuire proposed.
Then there's Erik Shilling, the Flying Tiger:
"For the most part the AVG attacked the bombers and fought the fighters when necessary. Hit and run tactics were not used against bombers, but if attacked by fighters, our P-40s made head on runs,
even turned with them as long as speed allowed, then dove away."
Also from Erik Shilling:
"To show a couple examples of attacking enemy fighters: If you attack head on, which the enemy was reluctant to do, because our guns outranged theirs, they would normally pull up."
As Curly pointed out, can you supply ANY of the numerical tally data or percentages you talked about?
-
In 'Thunderbolt', Robert S Johnson speaks of the HO being almost the preferred tactic in the P47 versus the Luftwaffe.
And in the PTO, the HO WAS a standard Allied tactic! Take a look at this:
(http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix/geschwader/images/thachwev.gif)
The Thach Weave ... perhaps the most 'famous' defensive maneuver in the PTO. A maneuver specifically designed to force the HO engagement with the less durable Japanese aircraft.
Toad's right on this one.
-
Why, thank you for your support Jekyll.
But Wotan is bored. :(
-
AKCurly,
They told me they prefered the HO against the German planes for two reasons:
1) The P38 couldnt turn very well, they said it was slow to turn and would be slaughtered if they tried to turn fight against the German aircraft
2) The P38 had great centerline guns and brought a much greater concentration of fire to bear in a HO at all ranges
I also got the impression that they felt the P38 couldnt outrun the German aircraft, so the HO was the closest thing they had to a tactic where they felt they had an advantage.
They were a blast these guys, funny, with an underlying hint of sadness for the friends who didnt come home, and those who passed away since the last reunion. It was for me an honor and a treat to meet them and hear their stories.
Dago
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Why, thank you for your support Jekyll.
:(
I always support people when they are right Toad.
-
Yes, Jekyll, so do I. ;)
Swamprat, the only thing you forgot to put in from all the previous rants was that bit about how "people who HO have no honor". ;)
No one is "cheerleading" it. It's simply ridiculous to claim that "it didn't happen" or "it wasn't a legitimate tactic" or "no one suggested it as a tactic" during the war.
People will HO. It's in the game. You can't make people fly the way you think they should fly. Never will happen. Breathe deep, relax, become one with the cosmic all.
Besides, they're so easy to dodge.
[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
The funny thing is... everyone is using WWII as the pillar for as to what can go on in this game.
If you want pathetic, that's it right there. This ain't WWII, and it never will be thankfully.
We fought the war 56 years ago, lighten up and have fun.. it's just a damn game.
-SW
-
I remember reading accounts from the LW perspective, regarding FW tactics, where the headon attack was considered an automatic victory. The FW has a relatively low profile, big guns, and the pilot is relatively safe behind a lot of metal. I would imagine Lavockin pilots felt the same way.
At any rate, I can prove that HO existed even before WWII. Hell, even before aircraft came into being. :D
:cool:
-
I guess I'm not so done with this thread but this will be my last just to address somethings.
1 I never stated hos weren't used in WW2
(i don't care either way)
2 To state that hos were common tradional or typical is wrong imo
(i guess it depends on your definiton of typical)
In my first reply to this thread I listed several questions to which you me and toad know were unanswerable. In one of toads replies I assumed he understood that
We both agree that HO's happened in WW2 ACM.
We both probably agree that there are NO meaningful statistics kept on "HO's attempted" or on "HO's successful" in the WW2 records of any side. Therefore, speculation on the frequency or success of actual WW2 HO's is pointless.
As the above quote states I do agree and so does toad. To then say that hos are typical common and traditional is not valid.
AKcurly please read it again maybe you'll understand that point.
Sax what do I wanna be? wtf?
Toad offers anecdotal evidence to prove hos happened but I've agreed and conceded to just that. But to make the claim as too typical common and traditional is wrong.
I dont care how versed you are in wwii history.
Jekyll the thatch weave despite what you posted was not used to entice the nme into a ho shot.
It was a "drag manuvre" used to drag the more manuverable zeros through the gunsite of a freindly less manuverable wildcat.
Thatch Weave (http://www.ixpres.com/ag1caf/navalwar/frames.htm)
<EDIT> Sorry bad link
goto Tactics and Methods
then to Fighter Defense
you can see by the illustration why in fact they call it a weave.
Dago can you be more specific?
Again the popularity contest that takes place on this board is imo boring. Do any of you think Toad needs help stating his opinion. Its always the same group scrathing each others back or dare I say "reach around" :)
Nothing posted here proves hos common typical or traditional.
As for hos being "unhonorable" bs
You gotta dance with the one who brung ya. I will ho you in a second if it means me being shot down in the main.
However I do get bothered by it in places like scenarios and have been frustrated in CT when hoed. But the fact that they happen in Ah real life or where ever doesn't mean typical common or traditional.
<S>
Wotan
[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: Wotan ]
-
Wotan, you don't accept McGuires book, which was adopted by the AAF as anything more than anecdotal?
I'm sort of thinking if they went to the trouble of printing it and distributing it to the pilots that it qualify as procedure or policy.
Typical or common fits, in my point of view.
I understand you disagree.
-
Weren't the majority of victories in WW2 against aircraft that never saw the attacker coming?
Well, to take a correlation on this HO debate...shouldn't we then get upset because everyone is maneuvering around and making it difficult to get a shot off?
;)
-Puke
332nd Flying Mongrels
-
One more to clarify.........
No McGuires book is not anecdotal nor is dagos claim that actual p38 pilots hoed.
But do you think either one of these statements equate to typical common or tradtional.
Do you think that they represent a circumstance or situation where a ho may be an option or a solution?........or desired?
Do believe a pilot (any pilot) upped for a sortie looking for a ho shot?
This seems be getting out of hand and maybe I am resposible for that (I don't care).
Nevertheless we disagree probrably more on phrasing then anything else but so what ....
:)
-
I've read dozens of stories from 8th AF pilots who say they commonly HOed the LW. LW did not have the balls to HO and would turn away, giving the Yanks a free shot.
And there are a lot of accounts of US pilots scoring HO kills in the pacific. Against flimsy jp planes they took any shot they could get.
-
I'll take a HO over a HE any time.
AKDejaVu
-
ALL of you are still making the mistake of comparing WWII to a game.
I don't like scripted fights, I like surprises and I most of all enjoy it when someone goes for the head on. No matter what plane I am flying or what plane he is flying, I have only lost a head on when I was going for the head on.
I play online to play against humans, not against AI.. if I wanted a scripted opponent I could play offline games for a lot less than 30$/month.
-SW
-
Be nice to see a change in HO lethality, which would reduce its effectiveness.
The chances of glancing shots I would imagine were very high HO. Perhaps the mine shell was less susceptible to this I dunno. It just seems weird losing wings and tail planes HO.
I can accept engine hits...
SKurj
-
The discussion about HO's in the game really do crack me up.
They happen, always have, always will.
There are two type of people in the HO, those who do it and accept it will happen, and those who do it and blame the other guy for the HO.
Nobody has to ever be in an HO. All they have to do is turn and place their tail in front of the enemy. Problem solved. Thats right, give the enemy your 6, and you will not die in an HO. You will die, but not in an HO. hahahahhahah
Funny, I have never seen even one single plane HO. Why is it, that to have an HO, both planes must do it, but some guys whine when they die in it?
Blame it on a guy who dives at the front of your plane? Well then, dive away. Turn, pull up, but if you go nose to nose with someone using a poor tactic, then you are just as much to blame as the guy who did it.
So, avoid them if can, dispise them if you want, but please dont whine when you die in one. You are just as much to blame as the other guy.
And dats all I gots to say about dat.
Dago
-
Is it just me or does it sound like that fight was more in the vertical than a flat out HO situation?
I've taken to HOing Nikis now. I find that 70-80% of them go for the HO, those that do are mostly lousy shots. The good shots don't take the HO. Plus the tiffie is tough enough to take a few rounds happily. Since I've started doing this my survival rate against Nikis has shot up.
The other funny thing is a lot of Nikis have started performing bizarre evasives at the sight of a Tiffie coming headon at them :)
WW2 anecdotes on HOs are IMHO hard to balance and take seriously. We only get to hear of the 'success stories' - if you know what I mean.
-
If I'm not mistaken, and I'm not cause I just checked, in CFS2 there's an intro to a scenario replicating a P38 Ace Dick Bong's mission and it says that his favorite tactic was the head on. Now, what dweeb in here wants to make the claim that they know more about air combat than Dick Bong a man who got 21 kills in WW2, eh?
Beeg
-
Wish I had Tom Blackburn's book here. :)
Yes, some guys went looking for the HO. There was one guy in particular in the Jolly Rogers that went for the HO and he's mentioned in the book. Blackburn told his guys to take it if they got a chance, IIRC.
Then you've got McGuire writing a book for all of the AAF fighter pilots in the Pacific.
Basically, both of these (and many other books written by the guys who were there that I've read that you would undoubtedly call anecdotal) present the HO as a solution to the superior turning ability of the Japanese aircraft. The inferior Japanese armor and shorter gun range left an opening to exploit. McGuire, Blackburn, Shilling along with many others pointed to that opening.
You can choose to ignore it and use semantics as your cover.
Or you can accept that "common" is accurate.
-
Hos were not the common a2a tactic in world war 2.....
That statement is 100% accurate. For every story you have of a "ho" There are hundreds of accounts of attacks/passes/kills that did not involve a "ho".
Zeros/109s would just fly level waiting to be hoed? If a pilot could work hi out of the sun to bounce a nme he would look to "ho"?
No doudt that ( I think you would agree) that if a situation evolved where a pilot could use a "safer" method to attack a nme he would?
I stand by what I say
Hos (while certainly a part of a2a combat) were not common nor traditional nor typical.
now given a situation where the pilot faced a "ho" (and I think by your own quotes you agree) he would it take to force the nme into a predictable response in order to gain the advantage.
Now I've read many times where the majority of kills in wwii were achieved by an unseen unknown attacker? is this wrong?
I've read few that were the direct result of a "ho". Most that I've read about hos were
1. desperation
2. to force an opponent into a predictal flight path to gain the advantage.........
I dont doudt that there was some instruction as to what to do given a situation where a "ho" would be the only viable option.
I do not accept that the "ho" attack was the typical or desired type of attack at the beginning of any a2a combat.
I don't need to cover anything I made it perfectly clear ...........
<edit> spelling
[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: Wotan ]
-
It's all semantics.
How many instructions to/accounts from pilots do you need before it's "common"?
It certainly can't be considered "uncommon". Just about every WW2 fighter pilot I've ever talked to mentions them.
Argue all the semantics you like.
-
See Rule #13
-
You realize this post is almost 7 years old?
-
hehehe but the talk is the same
-
So you just blatantly ignore rules?
-
I see no rule i broke but in the other hand 6- Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". Issues with any breach of rules should be brought to HTC's attention via email at
-
13- Do not punt topics. Punting would be making a non-substantive post for the express purpose of bring the thread to the top of the thread list.
There ya go. :)
-
6- Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". Issues with any breach of rules should be brought to HTC's attention via email ...and i just thought the thread had good points
-
See Rule #6
-
See Rule #2
-
I tend to take any shot an enemy gives me and I expect to be HOed so I either go for the HO or avoid it. Just depends on the situation.
-
Sunka don't be a necrophiliac and go raising dead posts.
Yes you were right in your other post, it has all been said before.
But no reason to raise this one to prove it. We agree, its all been said before and said better for the most part.
-
. I was still flying too slow for my sight to be much good but I managed to get a couple of hits near his canopy
hijack in progress......
does the accuracy of the sights change with speed? is so, do ours ingame do the same?
-
See Rule #13