HO kills and a question about realism

[Steven]

Just two quick cites from "Fire In The Sky" - Bergerud

"Note that an aggressive American pilot welcomed a frontal, or head-on, attack against a Zero." Pg 456

"The head-on attack was part of the American repertoire of basic combat techniques since being recommended by Chennault...Richard Bong was noted for favoring the technique.  Yet the best description of a head-on attack was given by Charles Lindbergh."  Pg 491

But while we are on the subject of realism, how realistic is it to troll alone in enemy territory looking for fights?  95% of the people flying are lone-wolf with no wingmen or flight of aircraft.  HOs don't bother me.  I'll fire head-on just to get the other guy to duck before the merge and hopefully get me an angle or two.  Luckily this is just a game and we can lift off again within seconds after dying as many times as we want and this will bolden any pilot in my opinion.

[Sikboy]

As far as realism and HO's go, In Baa Baa Blacksheep, Maj. Boyington says, and I'm paraphrasing here, "I've heard a lot about Japanese "suicide tactics" and how they would sacrificie their lives for victory, but I don't know about that. When in combat, I would make passes straight at them, and they would always turn first"

Now that's just long and probably ill remembered recollection of a book with dubious historical accuracy (he wasn't a lier per say, but I'd bet he told his share of sea stories in there). But I figured it was worth mentioning anyhow.

[edit] this is in reference to the Autobiography, not the TV show or TV Movie

-Sikboy

[Sikboy]

Oooops, double post

[BotaBing]

Well this has definitely changed my thoughts about HO attacks.
Thanks everyone.

[Lance]

Botabing has come to see the head on in its true light -- a chivalric form of aerial jousting.  

[Don]

Whels:

While the diagram may show a straight across shot at the front quarter of the nme a/c, it really isnt an HO. Whats more, it is more of a hi angle shot than an HO. Further, as I posted, it was a defensive manuever used with good effect by wingmen to counter more agile zeros. Not enough there to justify the HO as a regular and effective acm manuever. In fact, in the diagram along the flight path of both a/c, there are other points where a shot could be taken at the trailing nmez 6 area as well.

[AKSWulfe]

Diagram or not, Thach actually described this manuever in a book. I don't remember which, but when he describes it, he manuvers towards his wingman and his wingman towards him. He would have a head on shot at the enemy on his wingman's tail while his wingman had a shot at the enemy on his tail. This was an account of a battle he was in.

That by definition, is a head on. Whether it's off by a few degrees does not matter, both aircraft are pointing at each other.

It was also common in the pacific to attack the japanese head on because their planes were very lightly armored while the American planes were highly armored.

Head on attacks were employed by the Flying Tigers while they were stationed in China.

It wasn't necesarily a defensive manuever, it was the only manuever to which the Americans attributed success to in the early years of the war in the pacific.

It was indeed a successful use of a head on merge, and thus it would make effective if it's successful.
-SW

[Don]

>>The Zeros made pass after pass against Thach's three planes only to find themselves head-on with the much more stoutly built Wildcats. Thach himself shot down three planes which he kept tallied on a notepad on his leg before he gave up recording. Thach said later he fully expected that his team would not make it out alive so why waste time with record keeping? <<


AKSWulfe:
What is described above is an excerp from an account written about an action Thach and 3 of his pilots engaged in during WW2.  What is described is a situation which is different than what has been discussed here and done in the MA; ie. the HO as a common method of acm.
Described above is a situation where the manuever enabled 3 outmanned and outgunned pilots, to keep from dying and to score victories against overwhelming odds. "..head on with the much more stoutly built Wildcats."  What is clear is that the Thach weave was a sound defensive manuever, and not an offensive one, as is used in AH by so many. If given a choice I am sure those guys in WW2 would rather have taken a different approach to a fight versus those zeros ie. hit em and dive away because the zero was too light to keep up with F4Fs and P-40's in a dive attitude.
In AH otoh, the HO (again, what this thread is originally about) is used by many as the acm of choice.
While the HO was used by the flying Tigers in China, from what I have read, the manuever used predominately was the bounce from above, hit and run ended by a dive away from the zeros they attacked.  Planes and pilots were precious to the Flying Tigers and were not wasted in risky manuevers like the HO.

>>It was indeed a successful use of a head on merge, and thus it would make effective if it's successful. <<


If unsuccessful, yer dead. Not a problem in AH, it's virtual but, in RL it meant a helluva lot more; totally different conditions.

[Saurdaukar]

I think alot of people here are misunderstanding what "HO" is and assuming it's simply noses pointed at eachother, guns blazing.  A HO is still a HO even if both parties dont fire.  The issue here is hot merges - having both pilots fire from a North/South AoA.  The Thatch Weave, a defensive tactic employed by Wildcats in the PTO doesnt classify itself as a hot merge IMO.  Its just another form of dragging an enemy AC for a wingman to shoot.  Its similar in concept to the (forget the name) "defensive circle" formed by Me110's over Britain.  They would basically form a ring and fly in a huge circle, shooting bandits off easchothers tails.  The hot merge is not unrealistic, but the fact that BOTH pilots will 9 times out of 10 shot and shoot and shoot until they are either dead, smoking, or awarded a kill is what bugs me.  THAT is unrealistic - after all, this is a game tho and I guess some people enjoy flying to 15K for 10 minutes only to get wasted barely touching the stick on 5 seconds.  For those of you looking to aviod HO's (which I spent most of my time figuring out the past few months) there a simple tactic that works wonders.  Most of it is psychological.  First off, the best way to physically aviod a HO is to maintain forward course, thus not giving your opponent an angle on you after the merge - and go below him.  This does 2 things:  1.  Your immediately "not a dweeb" and you have confidence in your ability to outfly your advisary - psychs the guy out some and hell start doing stupid things - 2.  After you merge, pull up on stick slowly maintaining maximum E, and ride it up until stall.  He has 2 choices at this point - pull up HARD to get around on you quicker wasting his E, or continue forward.  In either case, you are now above him with more potential energy than him, you have the advantage and should close the fight.  AH is like Golf, being too aggressive is almost as bad as not being aggressive enough.  Play the numbers, energy is key, and you wont lose.  Most pilots will follow you straight up and wonder why their N1k cant follow the 190 after turning on him - hell flop over and present you with a target about as difficult to hit as a bomber hanger.  (Those of you AW 38J sticks know this ACM very well)

[AKSWulfe]

AH or real life, HOs were common. They may not have been common among certain groups- but all you have to do is pick up a couple of books and you'll read about a lot of HOs. Many of them failed attempts resulting in either no damage to the aircraft or the pilot going down.

Either way, they were common in air combat from 1914-1918 and 1939-45.

Whatever, I give up. The thread was about the "realism" of HOs, they happened in the real war- a lot of pilots also dodged them. What makes it "unrealistic" is your ability to take the head on, and then after you lose you come here and wonder about it's "validity" or "realism".... you'd be dead in the real war, so it wouldn't exactly be common for you there either.
-SW

[humble]

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Obviously I didnt fly aircraft in WWII but from what I gather - hot merges were probably common, but kills as a result were not.  I have yet to read of anyone killing a fighter HO (not a buff) in WWII.  There are a few reasons for the issue here that I have come up with:

1.  Hot merges in real life were random and unexpected  - little time was given to aim and as a result, hitting any aircraft showing its nose to you was more luck than anything else.
2.  There are no distance/ID icons in real life.  How do you know that you wouldnt be shooting at a freindly?
3.  Again, because of no distance icons, visual detection was difficult at any distance over 1000 yards (if not less) so you didnt exactly have time to manuvere your AC for a shot.
4.  Death.  You get shot down in AH, you up again, you get shot down in real life, youre dead or worse.  Im pretty sure that pilots didnt scream in at 800 knots closure with the hammer down and pass at 5-6 feet - this would be extremely nerve racking.  Im willing to bet that hot merges lasted about 1-2 seconds - one guy would find himself in firing position and the other would realize he has to move... quick.
6.  In addition to all this, if your goal is to shoot down enemy aircraft with guns, you WANT to be behind him - you can shoot him with a closure distance close to zip and he cant shoot you, period.  After a hot merge, planes would take part in the ensuing furball and then disengage after about 30-45 seconds when they found themselves at respective disadvantages.  Im pretty sure that no real life pilot wasted his time trying to reverse a disadvantaged situation - they pointed the nose down, WEPped it, and got the f@ck out of there.

Of course - if the game were like this, it wouldnt be much fun.  

Actually there are numerous accounts of Head On attacks resulting in kills and even collisions. It was not an uncommon occurance at all.

[JimBear]

_

[Daff]

The 56th FG used HO attacks to break up LW formations as their SOP and yet I've never read of a single plane damaged (friend or foe) in those situations.
There's also the somewhat well known story of Robert Johnson and his wingman going headon with 20+ 190s who are lining up an attack on a straggling B-17 and routing the 190s.
The Thatch weave as I understand it, was designed to give frontal quarter shots, which is not the same as headon shots.

Daff

[Sikboy]

Nice real life pic Jim, but in AH, it's more like this:

[Don]

Luftberies Sauer