Posted by: -sick- [CO/487th FS]

Posted on: 04:24:21 9/04/98

Message:

while chatting with Bob Shaw at the CON, i got a chance to ask him the question thats been nagging me ever since i first read his (brilliant) book. why does he only detail horizontal merges? the WB's duellist knows well that the horizontal merge dooms you rather instantly, and yet, as Mouse [Bob Shaw] quickly pointed out to me, he not only doesn't detail vertical merges, but actively advises against them.

i pressed him a bit on the subject, and he said that the problem has to do with energy state analysis. essentially, its very dangerous to go vertical if you aren't certain of your opponents E state, and Mouse said it generally takes a turn or two before you can accurately evaluate your opponents E state (i.e. by their performance in the turn and their choice of high or low yo-yo rather than a flat turn).

are we sim flyers willing to go vertical simply because if we *do* misread the opponent's energy state, the punishment is ephemeral at worst? my suspicion is that there's a bit of a game of cosmic chicken waiting to be played out on this one. if both guys play by the rules and go flat, its a safer encounter. if one guy (only) breaks the rules and goes vertical, he's almost guaranteed to kill the other fellow. but if both guys go vertical, it can become a very dangerous crapshoot indeed.

not to be overly philosophical, but Rousseau's Hunt Theory applies excellently here, and tends to indicate that a pilot should choose the vertical. of course, ye ol' pucker factor says stay flat. the whole thing is intriguing. anyone else thought about this? its the most fascinating paradox of Shaw's book, at least to me. any comments on the matter would be appreciated.

-sick- [CO/487th FS]

p.s. and yes, this *is* a blatant attempt to bring back the A.G.W of yesteryear...

Posted by: jedi VF-17

Message:

You're probably right. If your REAL butt is on the line, and both pilots go vertical, in a piston-engined plane, you're going to very quickly find out who dies and who lives, because one guy will still be able to go up when the other has to go down.

If both guys do some kind of horizontal move, the potential for "skill and cunning" (and of course the intuitive "I can out-turn you" tendency) to determine the outcome is there.

Seem to recall reading the almost mythical account of Cunningham vs Toon in Vietnam where they were in some sort of vertical scissors battle, each looking up at the other through the canopy as they went up and up. The MiG ran out of zoom first, and died.

An interesting phenomenon. When I worked at Red Flag, it seemed like even today, with the high-powered machines available, the guys tended to use the horizontal for their offensive moves, and the vertical more to extend. That may have been due in part to the ROE, and the fact that a lot of Red Flag is at low-level, so not much vertica available, but still, you fly like you practice, and if you always practice horizontal tactics...

We tend to think in terms of aerial chess, and not life and death.

--jedi

Posted by:Funked

Message:

I think two things make vertical post-merge moves very effective in Warbirds.

1. Icons - having a number to indicate range allows much more accurate estimates of closure rates than what I think a real pilot could make. We can obtain closure estimates from 7,000 yards all the way to the merge. I doubt Mouse or any of his colleauges can do that with the Mk1 Eyeball.

2. What you mentioned - we don't really get shot, burned etc., so we are comfortable with risks that no fighter pilot would consider. Also, when we take a risk and get burned, we live to fight again. If a real pilot misjudges E states just once, he is history, toast, blammo. We on the other hand, can repeat the exercise over and over and over until we find that fine edge between a suicidal move and a perfect set up.

In the real world of air combat, the pilots who survive to accumulate a lot of kills, train pilots, and write textbooks are those who fly and fight conservatively. The guys who fly like most WBers are either weeded out/corrected in training or quickly killed in combat.

Funked

Posted by: -eadg- [XO 487th FS]

Hmmmm. I use a vertical merge whenever it's appropriate, whether h2h or in the arena, and it was actually Shaw's merge that was the basis for the move. His co-alt merge tactic calls for a shallow zoom to slow to corner speed, and then a reversal (I use an oblique reversal) at corner velocity (maximizing both energy in the zoom and angles in the corner velocity reversal). This is the BEST possible co-alt merge in planes of roughly the same characteristics. If the enemy(-ies) go low or flat turns (most newer pilots will do this), you are in complete control (even 1 vs many, where you can use =drex='s pateneted top-down attack to surgically remove 1 enemy at a time). If the enemy uses a hard vertical reversal (immelman or pitchback), You will have built an immediate and decisive energy advantage, and at the top of your sustained zoom, will be able to drop for the kill. The only other option for the enemy is to do exactly what you've done, and in that case you will be about co-e, in which case you know youre in for a whale of a fight. In any event, if executed properly, this merge CAN'T lose and at worst will leave you co-e and neutral angles.

: not to be overly philosophical, but Rousseau's Hunt Theory applies excellently here, and tends to indicate that a pilot should choose the vertical. of course, ye ol' pucker factor says stay flat. the whole thing is intriguing. anyone else thought about this? its the most fascinating paradox of Shaw's book, at least to me. any comments on the matter would be appreciated.

Heheheheh. Shaw DOES make a great point about reading the energy state of the opponent and the difficulty it often presents. The merge I describe above is unparalleled when you know the general state of the enemy (easy in h2h dueling, or when you are noticably +e in the arena, etc.). The bigger challenge comes when you are near a large furball, and you are forced to select between and among an ever-changing set of targets. In this scenario, nme e assessment is critical and VERY difficult, and is what separates good pilots from great ones. That spit 14 may be d20 below you, but hes been laying low, looking to zoom on you when you think hes low and slow, but youve been so bz with the whirring battle below you that you have no idea hes doing it. -Sick-'s "swoop" (go visit http://xevious.stanfoprd.edu/ho ) is the perfect method to take a look, maybe make a guns pass, and egress, and try to feel the nme out. Judge how well he evades, follows, retains e, etc. Ask yourself what happens to YOUR e when you make the moves HE is making in defense. Roll all of that assessment together and you have a decent picture of mr. nme's e state, and you are equipped to make a good decision about your next move.

Damn, sorry for the long-winded post. Hope it helps someone.

eadg

XO 487th FS

Posted by: No.6 (-bcnu-) CO Fourth Fighter Group

I think there's a vast difference between modern fighter combat and prop-based fighter combat right there.

Two factors make the flat break more inviting in the modern era:

1. Vastly improved thrust/weight ratios

2. Vastly longer-range weaponry

In a prop plane, once you commit with a flat break, going vertical is definitely going to mean surrendering angles.

In a jet, you can go flat and maintain corner velocity and still have enough thrust left over to pop into the vertical if need be.

In a prop plane, if you misjudge the opponents' state but retain enough smash to get beyond guns range, you're clear or at least clear enough to set up a good drag. You did bring a wingman, right?

In modern combat if you get beyond guns range with the bogey on your 6 you get a missile looking for some Stimpy action :)

-----

In a multiplane fight, particularly "one life" SLs or scenarios, the turning fight is something I desperately avoid. Wulfie's right -- if you train with a duelist's mentality, you'll tend to go into dueling mode when the action is heavy, and doing that over Berlin is not a good idea if you fancy the idea of seeing England again.

The Fourth trains high-altitude escort because that's what we want to be ready to do. The JGs train bomber attack, et cetera. What you want to be good at, practice.

For general purpose survival training, I recommend signing yourself up (and yea I know you're signed up Sick, talkin to everyone here) for the Yak Challenge as a yardstick.

Posted by: Alleycat (==ac==)

I personally prefer vertical moves... and there is a good reason for that...

Most guys cant/dont fight in the vertical.... they tend to overreach their A/C's capability leading to a stall and we all know in a 1 V 1 neutral fight what happens after a stall.... the other guy kills you.

I think if one where to compare WB to real life yes... maybe I would not tend to fight vertical as much...(somthing about point a plane straight down in WEP that would feel a bit scary in RL).

One of the biggest mistakes I see guy do at the merge is a flat turn.... I follow this philosiophy..... If I am going to bleed E in a max turn I want to get somthing out of it i.e. Alt..... No use in trading E for nothing in return... at leas if all else fails I can convert the alt. I obtained in the intial reversal back into E if I need to.

Alleycat

Warbirds Training Staff

WB: ==ac==

Posted by: -daff- SBM

Hmm quite interesting. I actually find that mistakes are more costly in the horizontal plane than in the vertical, so I consider horizontal merges to be more dangerous than verticals, even if both go horiz. A minor mistake in the horizontal plane can easily cost you 30 degrees, a minor mistake in the vertical, will maybe cost you 10 degrees and a couple of hundred feet.

I also find that vertical fights are a lot easier to disengage from than in the horizontal plane. Having said that, unless I plan to commit to a pure E-fight, I always try to use a oblique merge, as it makes you a lot harder to read. But I also think it has a lot to do with the arena. First of all, we got the icon to give us a good idea of the closure speed. Secondly, most horizontal fights tends to drag you down lower and in the arena that is probably a bigger risk than misreading the opponents E-state in a vertical fight. (There is -always- someone higher than you)

Finally, it seems like there's only a relativly few number of pilots who actually got good merge tactics in the arena, which makes the vertical (lead) merge even more effective.

Daff

Screamin' Blue Messiahs

Posted by:Mike ('wulfie', 2./JG 14)

I see a lot of guys stress 1 on 1 dueling in Warbirds.

It's a good training tool, but in my opinion that's about all it is.

How many fights in real life were 1 on 1 where both guys were flying identical aircraft, started at the same altitude, same speed, and both guys *knew* that there were no other enemy aircraft in the area?

None? That's what I think.

If you want 1 on 1 practice, drag a guy alone far out to sea in the main arena and kill him.

If you can reverse the tables when someone is on your '6' at 2000 yards, odds are you will be okay if you merge head to head in the horizontal, no?

Also, 2 great duelers will get whooped by 2 good duelers who fly as wingmen alot.

And you are right on the money - if you lose a 1 on 1 ladder duel, so what? You fly another. About the closest we can get to 'real life' in Warbirds is a cool high tension scenario. Here's why...

So the P-47C and the Fw 190A-4 merge at 26,000 feet over Germany. The Fw190A-4 is on the hunt for B-17s, so he has a few choices to make...

1. Dive for safety, and making himself a mission kill, while being 1 less target for American escorts and thus putting all his still flying LW wingmen more at risk.

2. Fight his way thru the P-47C. ...now why are scenarios the greatest thing that ever happened to Warbirds (with the exception of the modeling of the Fw 190D-9)? There are far more than 2 outcomes here. The Fw 190A-4 could win, but be dragged down while doing so. He wins the engagement, but is a mission kill. Or, he could win the fight and keep his altitude - best possible outcome for him. But what is the *best* part? Both guys are probably flying like it counts - if that P-47C takes an oil hit or any real damage, he is going to dive for home. If the Fw 190A-4 takes an oil hit, he will have to dive home. And *neither* pilot has the totally unrealistic luxury of *knowing* that no other enemy aircraft are going to wander by.

I've been in almost ever major Warbirds scenario over the past 3.5 years. Speaking for Pointblank (the most recent scenario only), I was in numerous fighter versus fighter engagements. None of them started with me and the enemy at equal speeds and altitudes. Rarely were they 1 on 1 (although a few were 2 or 3 or 4 or 8 on 1! with me being the 1! gulp!). The aircraft were never identical. And (shock!) not every engagement ended in a kill for one side or the other!

Sound a little bit like real life?

I love scenarios. People fly like it matters. They do not push for every shot despite the risk of collision (I've seen this happen *all the time* in 1 on 1 duels - I guess those guys are thinking "I'll either shoot him down or we both collide and I get another chance to win"). And if you damage a guy badly and he has to dive for home - that means something, as it should.

Dueling is not bad in any way - it is a great tool for guys to learn basic and advanced ACM in a stable learning environment. But the main arena - with all the chaos, bad odds, weird matchups, etc. is the place to really train for excellence. Maybe it's this - there is this negative connotation when you lose a 1 on 1 duel. What people should be focusing on is *what they learned*, not where on the ladder they are, no? When dueling becomes a means to get a reputation or a title and stops becoming a learning tool, it loses all value to me.

Think about all the really well respected pilots in Warbirds - they didn't get that reputation from meeting a guy at the same altitude and same speed in the same aircraft and winning. They got it for when they get jumped by 2 aircraft, while they are on the deck, and they are the only guy who lands, or other such insane situations.

And they learned how to pull rabbits outa' there hat on those bad nights in the main arena. 8)

Think of it this way - you fight how you train. If all you do is stress 1 on 1, co energy/altitude/speed/aircraft dueling, you are probably hosed when the odds are against you. Train for the worst fight you can imagine - then you'll probably be okay when it is 'for real' (a scenario, squadron duel, strip warbirds at the con, whatever).

See you up there you SICK BOY,

Mike ('wulfie', 2./JG 14)

Posted by: -eadg- [XO 487th FS]

Message:

: I see a lot of guys stress 1 on 1 dueling in Warbirds.

: It's a good training tool, but in my opinion that's about all it is.

As always my well-respected brother, you present a solid case. And in most aspects I agree with you. "Pure" h2h dueling is non-historical and "staged". OTOH, I contend it's the single greatest learning tool in the game, whether for newbie OR master pilot. It's a way to watch, learn, listen, and learn some more; it allows you to practice gunnery, view manipulation, ACM, merge tactics, etc., all in a live-fire setting that you just can't get in the offline games.

: And you are right on the money - if you lose a 1 on 1 ladder duel, so what? You fly another. About the closest we can get to 'real life' in Warbirds is a cool high tension scenario. Here's why...

Absolutely. I guess what it really boils down too though wulfie is personal preference. Some guys just thrive on the personal, intimate 1 vs 1 dueling format; I count myself among them. I've also noticed that many of the pilots on Deft's ladder are brand new pilots; what a great training resource! I'll go a few rounds with these guys every chance I get, offer some tips based on what I see, and then send them to the WB Training Staff for even more help. I also have a rule when I duel that the goal is for us both to have fun and to learn. If it becomes more than that, I stop the duel.

: Dueling is not bad in any way - it is a great tool for guys to learn basic and advanced ACM in a stable learning environment. But the main arena - with all the chaos, bad odds, weird matchups, etc. is the place to really train for excellence. Maybe it's this - there is this negative connotation when you lose a 1 on 1 duel. What people should be focusing on is *what they learned*, not where on the ladder they are, no? When dueling becomes a means to get a reputation or a title and stops becoming a learning tool, it loses all value to me.

Fair enough, and I concur completely. But as I said before, dueling (and -sick-) taught me to become a MUCH better arena pilot. I think it appropriate to try and use it the same to benefit others. Also, in all fairness to the pilots on all the duelling ladders I know of, I have NEVER seen a post at AGW or the NG eschewing the prowess of such-and-such a h2h stud or so-and-so dueling master.

: Think about all the really well respected pilots in Warbirds - they didn't get that reputation from meeting a guy at the same altitude and same speed in the same aircraft and winning. They got it for when they get jumped by 2 aircraft, while they are on the deck, and they are the only guy who lands, or other such insane situations.

Again, I totally agree. But I'll also tell you that MANY times in the main arena, more than I used to think, I encounter a situation right out of a h2h duel; level merge, +e or -e situations, HO avoidance, defensive flying (spirals, scissors, etc.) and their counters, and so on. Even in tight squad formation, the chaos you describe so well often deteriorates into 1 vs 2, 2 vs 2, 2 vs 1, etc., and the skills of e retention, merge tactics, and sound thoughtful combat are the biggest tools you can have on your side.

Bottom line - I love h2h for lots of reasons, but it's just personal preference. I respect your position and your right not to fly h2h, just as I'm sure you respect the same for those who do.

Here's hoping we meet again soon (hopefully with me on the happy side of a 3 vs. 2 ;)

Good hunting

eadg

Posted by:Mike ('wulfie', 2./JG 14)

Message:

I like 1 on 1 fights. Head to Head is cool by me. When I have a buddy new to Warbirds we fly a great deal of head to head.

Everything you said is right. Here's a story for you. I was new to a squadron. They instituted a dueling ladder. I had a new ID. One of the other new guys in the squadron (who thought I was another new guy) challenged me to a duel. I beat him. Now, he was so depressed/embarrased/whatever about losing to a 'new guy' that he was going todrop off the ladder. He was really upset about this, and on an average day this guywas not the 'sensitive type'. It took me the better part of 30 minutes to explain to him that I would rather keep dueling and *screw* reporting the results for the purposes ofthe ladder. We were busy learning! Get it!?!?!?! 8)

Look, a H2H ladder is a cool thing. Because some people are driven by seeing their name in a field that says 'winner' - if those some people are students, great use of motivation to teach in my book.

But I am a teacher in real life. I have been for a long time. I know students - all different types. And for every 3 guys that will stay up until they pass out to win 1 duel so they can have a star by their name on a ladder (once again - NOT a bad thing), there are 3 guys who desperately want some 'competition time' just for the sake of learning.

Tell you what - I'll come fly in the head to head ladder. Where do I sign up?

What they should start doing is a Squadron dueling ladder. Each squadron divides itself into 2 man elements, and when they fight another squadron those 2 man elements are randomly paired off against each other.

Dueling is cool - but some people lose perspective on it I think.

See you up there,

Mike ('wulfie', 2./JG 14)

Posted by: Jester ~Hell's Aces~

Message:

:So far I've found 1v1 just yank and bank. It's fun for alittle but :gets boring real quick. Your SA doesn't have to be at it's peak :since there's no one else. Now 2vs2 is much more interesting and fun.

there are 2 aspects of piloting

1) how well u fly ur plane

2) how well u fly ur plane with a wingman

They are 2 totally different things

1 vs 1 and the MA are great for gaining the skills needed to be able to handle engagements or if someone got on your 6 and u need a reversal

2 vs 2 and the MA / scenarios are great for learning improv skills and to get better working as a team. (communication; drag/bag; rope; etc)

Jester ~Hell's Aces~