Yak-3 or Yak-9 or... something able to have a chance dogfighting vs the LW ?

[GP*]

Questioning combat maneuvers of one of the most successful allied pilot...always amusing to read such "analysis" of local armchair experten

 

 

I don't have time to address anything else in this thread right now, but I just wanted to clarify this. I am in no way attempting to question his success, tactics, intelligence, etc. I have a tremendous amount of respect for all of these pilots. 

 

With that being said, all we have is a sketch. What I'm actually questioning is the modern-day interpretation of this drawing, and the advice that's being offered based on it. If you follow the link that Lucas posted, there are tons of pictures there that really required MUCH more of a conversation before you implement those tactics. These sketches would never have been handed to inexperienced pilots with the advice of "do this." There are so many variables in air combat that no one size fits all. Additionally, nearly all of those images assume a pretty "cooperative" bandit. Stated another way, the specific image in question requires a bandit that overshoots, climbs, and lets you gain a 3/9 line advantage and go offensive. That's a pretty big BFM error. The bandit always has a "vote."

[GP*]

False alarm. I have time to talk. 

 

Questioning combat maneuvers of one of the most successful allied pilot...always amusing to read such "analysis" of local armchair experten 

 

 

If nearly 800 hours flying fighters means I'm just an armchair experten...sure. 

 

 

On the man's birthday nonetheless. 

 

 

 

What does that have to do with anything? I can't question someone on the internet with a drawing offering advice because it's the original pilot's birthday? Any other random etiquette that gets in the way of tactical learning that I should be aware of, or are you just more comfortable with no one questioning anything you say?

 

 

My guess is you take the drawing too literal and that it depicts a very different situation than it's being put here.

 

In reality pulling the stick is without doubt the easiest reaction a pilot can execute. A pilot can pull substanntial higher forces than push which provides tactical advantages.

If we translate the very same picture into the game with the situation being that the neemy has a speed advantage of min 100km/h and is just out of shooting range the chased pilot had the following options:

 

1. Push the stick or execute a split S to gain speed and / or evade the chasers flight path in a steeper dive.

2. Pull the aircraft into a sharp turn the chaser can't follow due to too high speed and force him to overshoot.

3. Pull up sharply so the chase can not gain a shooting solution because of too high airspeed leaving him unable to follow.

 

1. Is obviously not very wise unless you're facing multiple attackers and have to get out of the fight at all cost. Your enemy will retain or even gain more advantage on you due to energy loss and the prozedure will repeat in his second attack.

 

2. Is actually very common in MP. Many feel the need to drag their chasers into a turn fight even if their aircraft have inferiour turn characteristics. It may force the enemy to overshoot and get you into a favourable position but without any chance to reach up on him unless he decides to enter the turnfight.

 

3. Is actually quite reasonable since you convert your energy to altitude quicker than the enemy, whos desperately trying to pull behind you. Doing that he burns a lot of his energy and at optimal circumstances ends up in a less favourable attack position. The defender may be able to attempt a stallfight or use his higher energy to engage the chaser in a turnfight.

 

We also have to consider real pilots had very different reactions than we have ingame. There are a lot of influrences that effect a pilot's actions during flight and limits to his abilities. The way fighting can be executed in flight sims has likely not so much to do with what real pilots did.

 

 

2. Don't interpret someone turning as the defender as someone mindlessly trying to initiate the a turn fight when an attacker with superior energy is diving down on them. If initiated with the bandit outside of the defender's turning radius, this will generate significant angles that greatly exacerbate the closure problem, typically leading to an overshoot. With the defender now reversing and gaining the 3/9 line advantage, he is technically on the "offensive," but the ability to capitalize on this can be very limited. Since we don't have Archers or Sidewinders, this means the original attacker would either need to either not use his excess speed to extend out of gun range before climbing back up, or would have not had much of a speed advantage to begin with, leaving him now on the defensive.

 

3. He might be desperately trying to pull behind you, but you're also desperately pulling up to force the overshoot. Given that he started the attack with an energy advantage, unless the heading crossing angle is extreme (approaching 70+ degrees) at the overshoot, there's no way the defender is going to end up with superior energy. 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Simmer down mate, it was a light-hearted remark on the note that it is factually Aleksandr Pokryshkin's birthday.

 

Anyhow, I stand by my point, you stand by yours, and so on. Anyone who finds merit in either (or neither) of these positions can act accordingly.

[GP*]

Simmer down mate, it was a light-hearted remark on the note that it is factually Aleksandr Pokryshkin's birthday.

 

Anyhow, I stand by my point, you stand by yours, and so on. Anyone who finds merit in either (or neither) of these positions can act accordingly.

 

 

Rolling one's eyes is a sign of disrespect. Maybe that's not the case where you're from. 

[GP*]

Some definitions before the discussion begins:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Getting back to the original drawing, here's what I see actually being a plausible outcome:

 

 

 

 

Here you can see the initial setup is much like what was shown in the original image.

 

• The defender somehow survives the initial attack, pulls up, and climbs. 
• The bandit (BDT) overshoots the fighter's (FTR) turn circle, and keeps climbing.
• Because the BDT was attacking from a dive and the overshoot occurred at a relatively low aspect angle (AA) and heading crossing angle (HCA), the BDT still has superior energy.
• The bandit keeps climbing in an effort to get his energy back for another attack, and doesn't recognize that he's overshot the FTR's 3/9 line and is within gun range of the FTR.
• The FTR reverses in the vertical and achieves a gun snap.

 

The disadvantages of this:

 

• While diving, with the BDT at a low AA relative to the FTR, it's a relatively simple gun shot for the BDT. Without spoiling plane of motion (POM), the FTR is a sitting duck for much of this.
• The BDT, for whatever reason, doesn't just extend out of gun range before climbing up, which would negate any sort of reversal attempt by the FTR. 
• While the FTR has gained potential energy, his kinetic energy has been reduced. The BDT, which has an energy advantage to begin with (otherwise we wouldn't be talking about diving attacks and overshoots), will still have an energy advantage up top; it's just that both fighters will have lower kinetic energies (i.e. airspeed)

 

I really can't see how the FTR is going to end up above the BDT in this case, though. Here's what it should look like, with a dashed line for what the original drawing shows. Again, Lucas, Brano, and company, I'm not questioning Pokryshkin himself, I'm stating that we don't know enough about the scenario drawn to learn BFM principles from.

 

 

 

 

Here's a more realistic drawing of a time you may actually want to climb:

 

 

 

 

• The BDT attacks with his nose committed downhill, at a high AA. You can recognize this when you're looking more out of the "top" of you canopy rather than looking "behind" yourself. If you want a number, anything greater than 6 AA is a pretty aggressive BnZ attempt.
• The FTR puts his lift vector on the BDT and pulls (initiating a climb because the BDT is above him). This isn't with the intent to climb to preserve energy, though; it's to maximize closure and angles to make for a nasty overshoot. However, the FTR still needs to honor the BDT's gun attempt, and spoil POM before the overshoot.
• As the BDT comes off the gun attempt, the FTR will see: 1) high HCA (which will visually look like a lot of planform visually) 2) high line-of-sight-rate (LOSR) across your tail and 3) the BDT passes at a relatively close range (if you can see his aircraft markings, that's close enough). At this point, the FTR's reversal cues are met.
• The FTR reverses in the vertical, puts lift vector on the BDT, and pulls for a gun snap. Unless it's a Yak with his flaps out, it's a fleeting gun attempt before you fall off.

 

Notice how this looks exactly like a horizontal overshoot; it's just that this last one took place going uphill. Again, the intent in both cases wasn't to gain energy; it was to take advantage of a BDT error and go offensive from an originally defensive position.

 

 

 

 

From this drawing, let's examine what turn circle entry (TCE) timing means:

 

• An on-time TCE will allow one to capture the "control zone" or elbow -- a position from which you can both employ weapons and maintain the offensive
• An early TCE (meaning the BDT just keeps pointing at you) leads to a high AA gun snap and lots of closure. This is what you see almost everyone do online -- point, point, point, point, point until shooting. People obsess about keeping the enemy under their gun cross until shooting. Recognize what this means for your attack. Furthermore, you may NEED to do this -- as a Fw190 pilot against a Yak that's aware of you, you'll have to execute early TCEs in order to bring your guns to bear and accept the inevitable overshoot, given that you can't ever hope to turn for long with a Yak. The overshoot isn't dangerous for you unless you don't have an energy advantage over the Yak.
• A late TCE leads to offset turn circles and sets you up for a rate fight. Whoever turns better over time, assuming both fighters keep turning, will start to come out on top.

 

Now, let's talk about when you would actually want to go downhill. 

 

 

 

 

• A BDT gets the bounce on you. The range back (say, within 1000m) means you have limited angles you can generate, but you can cause a closure problem. You break into him/her with a level break (OMG n00b flat turn) because you want to preserve your altitude for now (so you don't go downhill yet) but you don't climb because you need every single angle your airspeed can give you, and don't want your overall turn performance to be hindered by working against gravity
• If the BDT follows your turn and keeps pointing (pure pursuit) or immediately starts pulling lead for a gunshot (lead pursuit), keep turning! Spoil POM as he gets within gun range, get your LV on him again, turn more, maximize the closure, and get ready for an overshoot (as previously depicted)
• However, what if the BDT drives toward your turn circle for a moment and then follows you? Let's say he waits for the planform rotation to slow and for your LOSR across the horizon to start. At that point, he's hit your instantaneous turn circle. If he goes now, he's executed an on-time TCE. Now suddenly, you as the FTR see the BDT's planform steadily decreasing, range steadily closing, and LOSR slowly moving forward in your canopy. As the BDT pulls lead for the gun shot and a burst is inevitable, it's time to get out of the way.

 

 

• Going up gives the BDT no BFM "problems" that he has to solve. Reversing is easy for the BDT to follow. However, going downhill means the BDT is going to have to execute another on time TCE to stay in the "control zone." If you can't tell already, it's easy to screw this up. Furthermore, most people online are going to keep pointing at you. This is even better in the vertical! You spoil POM, keep max performing your aircraft with LV on the BDT, and wait for him to overshoot. The overshoot in the vertical is going to be a big, nasty one; one that you as the FTR can easily capitalize on. Furthermore, you can rapidly get your airspeed back, since once you reverse in the vertical and go offensive, your nose is committed downhill as well. 
• Even if you don't get the reversal cues in the vertical, you can continue to altitude compress the BDT to the point where he's nearly level with you, going downhill, and you're both trying to pull toward each other's control zone. You're basically executing a rolling scissors in the vertical, which is much better than the position you were in at the top (BDT right behind you). You can win this fight. 

 

 

 

Lastly, if the BDT climbs after shooting, the pressure is off. You can use this time to get some energy (climb while maintaining a tactical airspeed) while also rebuilding your SA as to what's going on around you (other bandits, friendlies entering the fight, your gas, your engine status, etc). Keeping yourself as close to below him as possible as you climb will ensure that, when he attacks, he'll have to get his nose way low, which means he will definitely overshoot in the vertical if you spoil his POM properly. And if he subsequently climbs back up and you don't have the energy to follow, you know he'll have less energy than he did before based on getting his nose buried so low and then now having to climb back up. 

 

Anyway, that's all I've got for now. I'm sure I'll be told how wrong I am, just as I always am, but I love talking about BFM too much to be dissuaded by these forums (as I continuously am). 

[JtD]

You guys need to get into a bar and fly it out with your hands. Paper just doesn't cut it.

[JG13_opcode]

That's a quality post. What is the black pen depicting in your definition for LOS Rate ? I've read Shaw and understand what LOS rate is, I just don't understand what your drawing is of.

[GP*]

That's a quality post. What is the black pen depicting in your definition for LOS Rate ? I've read Shaw and understand what LOS rate is, I just don't understand what your drawing is of.

 

Sorry, that must be confusing. It's meant to be a rudimentary drawing of a cockpit (lame I know). It's roughly modeled after a 109. The plane is in ~45 degrees of bank to the right, the two straight lines coming off of the curve are the canopy braces, and the small square is  the gunsight. In case there was any confusion on the green line as well, that's meant to be the horizon (and it serves as the ground in all the other drawings to signify the point of view is from the side).

 

Spoiling POM - is this best done by just rolling one way or the other as you continue to pull (and then roll back when out of WEZ)?

 

 

The most effective way to spoil POM is to roll 90 degrees out of your current plane of motion and pull -- even just one second of this will require that the BDT solves for POM again. Going down (sts) has advantages here as well, since it's harder for the BDT to bunt over to shoot versus pulling up to shoot. Also, you're more likely to get lost behind the BDT's instrument panel (as Wulf mentioned before). However, if you're close to the deck, you really can only spoil POM by going up.

 

My technique is to wait until the BDT is approaching a gun solution, then roll so my top wing is pointing at him (so I'm now inverted). I pull for just a split second, and then I'm rolling right back to get my lift vector back on the BDT so I can continue to increase angles, all while assessing what the BDT is going to do in response. Either the bandit has to come off the attack due to closure or keeps pressing the attack. If he keeps pressing the attack and isn't close enough to have overshot yet, spoil POM again (this time going up). Remember, remember, remember: even if someone is fighting "bad" BFM, you still have to honor a gun WEZ when someone's about to shoot you.

 

Additionally, before spoiling POM, as a technique, you can start to feed in a little bit of bottom rudder (i.e. rudder in the direction of the turn) which will start a gradual spiral down. You're sacrificing altitude before you technically have to, but you're making the BDT commit his nose downhill just that little bit, which will help with the overshoot. Again, all of this requires that the BDT continues in pure pursuit / lead after you break. 

[Dakpilot]

False alarm. I have time to talk. 

 

 

If nearly 800 hours flying fighters means I'm just an armchair experten...sure. 

 

 

 

I will get some flak for this but anyway, for someone of your experience you should be an outstanding asset to the community, however many of your posts seem to come with a more than healthy dose of attitude similar to your Robin Olds quote from your sig

 

On a forum this is not always the best way to treat people, a little leeway and courtesy will go a long way 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Wulf]

I will get some flak for this but anyway, for someone of your experience you should be an outstanding asset to the community, however many of your posts seem to come with a more than healthy dose of attitude similar to your Robin Olds quote from your sig

 

On a forum this is not always the best way to treat people, a little leeway and courtesy will go a long way 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Bloody-hell, I almost spilled my beer!  Are we really supposed to take that comment seriously?  Talk about pot calling kettle black. It would almost be amusing if it wasn't so sad. 

[wtornado]

Going to bring back the original high jacked  topic with the YAK-9

 

It started showing up on the Stalingrad front in october.

 

All War Departments when they had a chance to throw new developed equipment to counter the enemies

weapons and technology they did.

 

@ Go-Pre

 

Monsieur Préfontaine,

 

All those maneuvers on paper at a higher alt and in a climb would need to be done with a YAK-9 model that would of been at Stalingrad to at least match a BF-109 G-2

 

 

YAK-9 bubble like canopy is excellent to for all round vision

 

 

YAK-9 Speed @ se level 520 kph     Speed at 4300m 599 kph      Climb to 5km 5.1 mins   Service ceiling 11.1kms

 

 

 

BF-109G-2 speed @ sea level 565 km/hr(Bloody fast)    Speed @4000m 515 kph( The YAK-9 is faster)   Climb to 6000m 5 min 16 secs (fast)  Service ceiling 11 km(equal)  

 

 

Stalin DEMANDS that the YAK-9 be put on the Stalingrad front or else!

Edited March 7, 2016 by WTornado

[Dakpilot]

Bloody-hell, I almost spilled my beer!  Are we really supposed to take that comment seriously?  Talk about pot calling kettle black. It would almost be amusing if it wasn't so sad. 

 

Dont worry I have a long history of courtesy and leeway, we have clashed a few times usually when you will not concede a technical point you have no experience about, it is not I who usually throws the first insult 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

 

 

 

BF-109G-2 speed @ sea level 565 km/hr(Bloody fast)    Speed @4000m 515 kph( The YAK-9 is faster)   Climb to 6000m 5 min 16 secs (fast)  Service ceiling 11 km(equal)  

 

 

 

I think you messed up with the power settings here.

[Holtzauge]

A few questions from the armchair: Assuming one does not go for the split-s or the abrupt pull-up, why not do a slightly descending turn as defence in this case? This not only creates a gradually changing out of plane motion but the bogey will in addition to having to generate lead for the turn have to gradually increase his dive making for a very difficult guns solution? In addition, theoretically this should not cost as much energy as a split-s, especially if I have a reasonably high energy status myself when I do the split-s in which case it will be costly energy wise? So assuming I survive the first pass, which IMHO seems more likely if I use this technique rather than a straight pull up, should I not have almost as good chance to survive the initial guns pass but also be in a better shape energy wise for the bogey’s probable follow up rather than if I simply did the split-s?

 

@Lucas:  Would be great to get the text associated with the figure translated because without the timeline positions it’s really difficult to understand what is going on and how that manouver is supposed to be executed and under which conditions, i.e. the energy status of both attacker and defender.

 

Anyway, do please go on Go-Pre, this has turned out to be one of those excellent threads where one learns something new.

 

BTW: What the * is my wingman doing allowing me to get jumped like this?

[Lusekofte]

Bloody-hell, I almost spilled my beer!  Are we really supposed to take that comment seriously?  Talk about pot calling kettle black. It would almost be amusing if it wasn't so sad. 

 

 

Dont get your post, what is it here? Do you know Dak? I do not, but I have encountered him in many sites, always helpful and polite. In this site however. People would make a problem of a birthday greeting . 

If you got a problem with Dak pilot you are doing it wrong

[GP*]

I will get some flak for this but anyway, for someone of your experience you should be an outstanding asset to the community, however many of your posts seem to come with a more than healthy dose of attitude similar to your Robin Olds quote from your sig

 

On a forum this is not always the best way to treat people, a little leeway and courtesy will go a long way

 

Cheers Dakpilot

You are completely correct. I can definitely be a real a$$ in some of my posts, and it isn't always my intent. After posting on flying forums for over a decade, and being the nice guy for most of that, I found "life" (online) is just easier if you directly say what you're getting at. The point I was often trying to make was just drowned out because someone else talked (posted) louder. Does it mean I'm right in being so blunt? No. I've just developed a habit of going on the offensive at the first indication of attitude / disrespect / whatever that's directed at me.

 

The quote in my sig isn't meant to be a license to have an attitude, by the way. What resonates with me is the second half -- the desire to always do well, to work hard, and never accept not giving something 100% of your effort. Which somewhat leads to my second quote, and my online name. Steve Prefontaine was a running legend in the 1970s before his untimely death, and no one (in my mind) exemplifies what it means to give all you have towards something you believe in or are passionate about. I haven't competed in cross country and track in many years, but he'll always be a hero of mine.

 

Sorry for the thread hijack.

[Wulf]

Dont get your post, what is it here? Do you know Dak? I do not, but I have encountered him in many sites, always helpful and polite. In this site however. People would make a problem of a birthday greeting . 

If you got a problem with Dak pilot you are doing it wrong

 

 

Dak and I understand each other very well I think.  There is no misunderstanding here.

[Matt]

BF-109G-2 speed @ sea level 565 km/hr(Bloody fast) Speed @4000m 515 kph( The YAK-9 is faster) Climb to 6000m 5 min 16 secs (fast) Service ceiling 11 km(equal)

 

Pretty interesting performance figures. So the G-2 is slower at 4000 meters than at ground level?

 

In any case, apart from armament, the early Yak-9 should perform about as well as the Yak-1 in BoS currently does (or worse, atleast at higher altitude).

 

Only improvement could be the armament and visibility (though the pilot might be more vulnerable with the bubble canopy and the visibility in the Yak-1 is already pretty good).

 

But it will only ever get worse for the German planes anyway, because while they also get improved performances eventually, they only benefit from that for a short time, while basically all Soviet planes starting with the La-5F will most like be able to fly with full throttle indefinitely (lend-lease excluded).

Edited March 7, 2016 by Matt

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Prefontaine, thanks for sharing these nice insights. I'm working right now so it's a little tricky to go and discuss it at length but later on I'll drop by.

 

Holtzauge, I'll translate the notes as well once I can, and see if I can find more supporting information on it.

 

This has taken a rather interesting turn from a thread that called for Yak-3s in 1942, the opposite of the trend of good threads gone bad.

[GP*]

A few questions from the armchair: Assuming one does not go for the split-s or the abrupt pull-up, why not do a slightly descending turn as defence in this case? This not only creates a gradually changing out of plane motion but the bogey will in addition to having to generate lead for the turn have to gradually increase his dive making for a very difficult guns solution? In addition, theoretically this should not cost as much energy as a split-s, especially if I have a reasonably high energy status myself when I do the split-s in which case it will be costly energy wise? So assuming I survive the first pass, which IMHO seems more likely if I use this technique rather than a straight pull up, should I not have almost as good chance to survive the initial guns pass but also be in a better shape energy wise for the bogey’s probable follow up rather than if I simply did the split-s?

 

 

Holtzauge,

 

The short answer is that there's nothing wrong with doing what you described. Ultimately, there's nothing wrong with doing anything in a defensive situation, as longs you do something, and as long as you survive. However, some options offer advantages, while others, though they may work, are much higher risk.

 

I'm glad you asked this question though, because it tells me I need to clarify what I've drawn. While I don't think you should climb until the BDT has come off the attack when getting bounced (and the BDT has so much energy that he's going to climb back up after the attack), I am NOT advocating that you should split S just yet either. Your overall goal should be to survive the bounce (I'll tell you exactly what I'd do in a second), and then continue a shallow climb at a tactical airspeed (300-350+ ideally, but it really depends what you're flying) while rebuilding your SA and continuing to prepare for the next bounce.

 

The split S (which technically should be called a vertical jink, because a split S is an aerobatic maneuver where you either sustain or gain airspeed for follow on maneuvers, whereas a vertical jink is a max performance hard turn in the vertical to get your nose around as  quick as possible with the tightest turn possible) is really only if the BDT is behind you, in a gun WEZ, and is committed to killing you (i.e. he's glued to your 6). This could result from a bounce where the BDT cuts power and "goes" with you, or after the second or third bounce where his energy surplus has been diminished. This is the cases where, after breaking into the BDT with your lift vector right on him to maximize closure and angles (turning into any lateral turning room if you recognize there is any), if you recognize he's just moments away from solving for lead, range, and plane of motion, you need to get out of the way. A vertical jink 1) changes the fight by a full 90 degrees 2) allows you to use radial G (God's G) to help get your nose around and 3) creates another turn circle entry problem for the BDT, and since almost everyone goes "early," is most likely going to set you up for an overshoot/reversal if you continue to honor any gun solutions that you recognize.

 

If you're fending off a 190 with a ton of energy on you, a descending spiral would work well. What I'd do in the situation, though (since I promised I'd tell you exactly what I'd do) is start a flat, energy sustaining to slightly energy depleting turn to generate angles, leading to a pretty significant amount of lead required out of the BDT. This assumes you see the BDT well outside of gun range, however. Once he's getting close to having those 3 requirements solved, I'd spoil POM by rolling 90 degrees out of my current POM and pulling just for a second -- this is enough for now. His airspeed advantage, combined with the closure generated by the angles and his lead pursuit, means he has very limited time to attempt another shot. If he does, good -- spoil POM in the other direction (if you went down, pull up next, and vice versa) and let him keep coming down to your level. He'll overshoot soon enough, and although you won't have the energy to follow him yet on his 6, you'll have preserved all the energy you can for now -- while surviving -- in order to keep climbing and chipping away at his energy advantage.

 

Now, let's say you're in a 109 and you're fending off a Yak that's closing in on you for a gun shot. Let's say he's within 1000m and, despite having a bit more energy than you, isn't really bouncing you...he's just on your tail. Here's where I'd recommend breaking into him (flat turn...climbing...descending...it doesn't matter...your LV just needs to be on the BDT) with all you've got. Max power, energy depleting pull with your lift vector right on the BDT. LV directly on the BDT will ensure you create the maximum closure possible for the angles you're able to generate. If he keeps pointing at you, keep pulling, get ready to spoil POM, and look for the overshoot -- you'll be lower on energy but you'll have a chance at a gun shot and, at a minimum, will have gained the 3/9 line advantage. If he closes in lag pursuit for a moment, then follows you, and is now closing in behind you for a gunshot at <6 AA (which is a controllable position from which to take a gunshot), this is where you need to get ready to execute the vertical jink that we've previously talked about. How can you judge a 6AA? If you're looking predominantly behind you as the BDT is about to shoot, you'll probably need to jink. If you're looking mostly "up" out of your canopy as the bandit closes, he's at a relatively high aspect angle for a controllable gunshot, and you can expect the aforementioned overshoot.

 

A few other things to note:

• Defensive BFM is really difficult. You can do everything right and still get shot, which is frustrating. None of these maneuvers are auto-saves, they're just founded in the fundamentals of BFM. Fly a few times with a friend, give him the advantage to start, and try a few things out. Hopefully you'll learn something, but overall, we always joke that flying defensive BFM is just motivation to never get in a defensive situation. It sucks. 
• I forgot to define what your lift vector is in my drawings: it's an imaginary line out the top of your canopy that's perpendicular to your wings. Imagine putting that on the BDT when figuring out where to pull to. 

[-TBC-AeroAce]

I love and respect everyone here but by George people need to step back and look at what is going down.

 

U are all veterans forged from hundreds of deaths...

 

Mhhjeh chill a bit ur not real pilots!!!

Edited March 7, 2016 by AeroACE

[unreasonable]

I love and respect everyone here but by George people need to step back and look at what is going down.

 

U are all veterans forged from hundreds of deaths...

 

Mhhjeh chill a bit ur not real pilots!!!

 

?What is going down?

 

What we have here is some hobbyists who are trying to get a handle on some relevant pictures from a book to further enhance their on-line flying - nothing wrong with that - and someone who claims to be a real fighter pilot discussing the details of air fighting and difficulties of interpreting the original drawings, in a manner which is consistent with his claim, as far as I can judge. So nothing wrong with that either.

 

I have found the discussion interesting. There is a general problem on forums that you do not really know who you are talking to most of the time, so you can only go on the content to determine who you believe has credibility, and this has been one of the better discussions IMHO even if it went a little OT. 

[LLv24_Zami]

I have found the discussion interesting. There is a general problem on forums that you do not really know who you are talking to most of the time, so you can only go on the content to determine who you believe has credibility, and this has been one of the better discussions IMHO even if it went a little OT. 

Agreed. Very interesting. 

[jaydee]

I think this Tread has been really Interesting. Thanks to all ~S~.

Also, Its great to see a  "Technical "Tread Not go South !  ~S~ to all !

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Trying to do this in parts as time allows in blocks of 10. Once I finish this, I'll reply to everything.

 

Here are his drawings and accompanying notes, with some explanations.

 

 

"The fighter pilot who observes well is invincible!"

 

 

Pair - combat front

 

 

Left echelon

 

 

(Observation in the combat front)

 

Manoeuvering to improve visibility

 

 

Profile view

 

 

Rear view

 

 

"Warring is not numbers, but wisdom." -A. Suvorov

 

 

Combat between the pair and a group

 

Notes:

 

1. Sun behind, leader initiates the attack, wingman manoeuvres to keep visual on the leader and situation around

2. Leader fires, wingman continues to manoeuvre

3. Leader climbs, wingman starts attack

4. Wingman fires, leader manoeuvres to monitor situation

5. Wingman climbs, leader starts attack.

 

Throughout the attack you can see through the traced lines that the targets are most likely to manoeuvre lower when directly under attack. Those who remain level or initiate a shallow climb to pursue the attacking friendly fighter immediately become the target of the second friendly fighter as it dives.

 

 

 

Attack from the sun

 

Notes:

 

1. Pair attacks together from the sun and climbs together

2. If the enemy survives the initial attack, the pair dives again forcing the enemy down.

 

 

"Fighter pilot, ask not how many enemies are there, but where are they?"

Edited March 8, 2016 by Lucas_From_Hell

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Attack diagrams

 

It is worth noting that Pokryshkin's science of war was based on human reaction. Conversely, the pilot must be able to initiate a manoeuvre in a way that the enemy must not immediately be able to follow, while responding instantly to any enemy manoeuvres. The latter is to be done by training, by knowing the enemy's instinctive reactions and moves, and by minding your positioning in combat to never allow the enemy to be two moves away from shooting you.

 

His formula of air combat was, in quick succession, HEIGHT - SPEED - MANOEUVRE - FIRE!

 

 

The enemy enters a combat turn (chandelle).

 

Notes:

 

1. Merge

2. The enemy starts a chandelle to either side; you climb straight up (90º)

3. While the enemy completes the chandelle and you reach the top of your climb, roll to keep your lift vector on the enemy and avoid stalling

4. Your aircraft's nose brings you towards him. While the enemy is pulling hard to bring the nose towards you, your aircraft is pointed straight at them and you are already in the process of calculating a shot

 

This is a personal favourite of mine because most people instinctively hit the chandelle for all their needs. Pokryshkin explains this manoeuvre verbally in the video, with a good show of instructor hands.

 

 

Attack from behind as the enemy exits through a climb

 

Notes:

 

React as quickly as possible, and note the spacing.

 

 

The enemy performs a climb.

 

Notes:

 

1. Merge

2. The enemy starts a moderate (30-60º) climb to gain altitude. Note the intention quickly and put yourself on a vertical climb (90º)

3. As the enemy loses speed, you approach the top of your climb at low speed as well. Bring your nose towards the enemy

4. Roll over, and use the additional altitude to regain speed and increase closure

Edited March 8, 2016 by Lucas_From_Hell

[Holtzauge]

@ Go_Pre: Thanks for the input in post #145. What you write there makes sense. However, I was apparently not clear myself: I was not saying I thought you were suggesting that a split-s was the way to go but since it has been brought up as an option for the situation in the thread I thought it should be included in the discussion. OTOH does it not seem like the safest option though? At least in the short run: To me it seems all the other options: Both the climb and the various turn options still result in the BDT getting a shot in, albeit a difficult and fleeting one but you are still left to the mercy of his shooting skills. However, it the BDT has any sort of significant speed advantage and you split-s that IMHO all but nullifies his chances of a shot unless he bunts violently or rolls with you and pulls some horrendous g and sacrifices all that e which all seems like an unlikely choice.  OTOH, I guess what the BDT does if you split-s is simply pull up, reposition for another go which leaves you in the same position again but with an even greater disparity in e but you did survive the pass and he may lose you visually so maybe not such a bad option after all…… Again, just my armchair musings.

 

@Lucas: Thanks for the translations! Interesting info.  I think I get most of it and I agree that the straight pull up versus chandelle seems like an interesting idea since whichever way the BDT goes in the chandelle you just roll out of your straight pull up in the right direction and you should be behind him. As far as I can tell that trick should also work if you are co-e so pretty neat!

 

However, I still don’t get the idea behind the figure in post #99? If you do a straight pull up in front of the BDT yours and his POM will coincide which seems like a bad idea.  Maybe the idea is to do this so violently that the BDT will have difficulty to pull enough lead? If so you have to hope he does not have quick reactions and hammers you when you initiate the pull up and he still has lead. OTOH I’m probably missing something here like an out of plane motion by the defender so it would be great if you could translate the text that goes with that figure as well.

 

Anyway, please do go on both of you, I think it’s safe to say we can all learn something from active fighter pilots and Pokryshkin!

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Just to prevent misunderstandings as I was the one mentioning a split S, that "arm chair" thinking of mine was that the defender was traveling at close to manouvre speed while the attacker at above his manouvre speed and with a closure speed of ~100+km/h. In a real combat situation it really depends on how quickly you can execute the manouvre. Executing a Split S in such a situation way above manouvre speed is probably not a too good idea ("arm chair" opinion).

 

Go_Pre's insight is really interesting indeed and I definetly see parallels between this and some of my "arm chair" combat tactics.

Also thx to Lucas for the translation and analysation work.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Some more:

 

 

Attacking an enemy that is performing a combat turn (chandelle)

 

Notes:

 

1. The enemy initiates a chandelle. You quickly initiate a chandelle on the same direction, without turning as tight however.

2. As you and the enemy approach the top of the manoeuvre, you cut through, bringing your guns towards the enemy.

3. Depending on your timing, turn and initial energy, two outcomes are possible. You will either have a good snapshot opportunity at the enemy, or you will come up behind him but with some lead.

 

Whatever you do, fire at the enemy without haste. Both of you will have relatively low speeds at this point, so you will want to dispatch this target quickly and regain a good position and speed relative to the battlefield situation. At the very start of the manoeuvre, if you take too long to perform your own chandelle but insist in following, you will probably enter a lag situation at the top which allows a competent enemy to reverse and send you packing instead. Similarly, if you screw up your gunnery at the top and burn up energy trying to correct it in vain, you may fall under fire.

 

In other words, reaction time is important here. If you take time to say "oh s-" in your head you're already late, and it becomes more advantageous to climb straight up and roll onto the enemy as described in a previous figure.

 

The enemy enters a dive

 

Notes:

 

1. During a merge, to avoid a frontal pass the enemy dives instead.

2. Immediately after noticing his intention, you pull straight up, and roll to keep your lift vector and visual on the bandit.

3. Once your nose drops towards the enemy, jam the throttle forwards and use the vast altitude reserves you have to gain speed and catch up.

4. Position yourself, and fire!

 

As you dive, it is wise to observe the enemy's reactions in the meantime. If your target is flying fast but level, running for their lives, position yourself into their blind spots. That way you are more likely to get a nice, steady and long burst at them.

 

Keep your aircraft's structural limits in mind, combined with the enemy's final altitude. You want to park right on the enemy's tail without needing additional manoeuvres or overshooting, so start slowly pulling out of the dive early. If you dart down like an arrow without controlling your aircraft properly, you risk going past Vne, crashing into the ground or overshooting. Coming in at too steep of an angle will also make your gunnery solution more complicated than it has to be, and allows the enemy to easily escape your plane of manoeuvre.

 

 

Attacking a turning enemy from above/combat against a mixed group of friendlies and enemies

 

Notes:

 

(In layman's terms, attacking a furball)

 

1. A mixed group of enemy and friendly aircraft is engaged in mostly horizontal fighting. A pair of friendly fighters is hanging above them, circling.

2. The leader of the top friendly pair dives while turning with the enemy, aiming at the middle of the turn circle, with a moderate banking angle. The wingman hangs above.

3. As the altitude difference decreases, the leader continues pulling and brings the nose towards the enemy that is the most dangerous to the friendly aircraft in the area, firing a tracking burst. Note that the leader is still above the furball as a whole.

4. To avoid falling under attack from other aircraft in the furball, the leader quickly rolls to bring the wings level and pulls straight up.

5. As the leader approaches the top of their climb, the wingman dives in and repeats the process.

 

The quick succession, attacking from the middle, is meant to force the enemy to break away from friendly aircraft, from their own wingmen, and ultimately eliminate them. The enemy instantly becomes more vulnerable if one of their aircraft is hit, breaks away from the fight to avoid the initial attack or tries to pursue the leader as they evade. In this situation (4 x 2), by taking the enemy pair apart each friendly pair can essentially work on the enemies as individual units without support. The wingman hanging above must swiftly come in and exploit these cracks.

 

EDIT: You can apply this if you have 4 and the enemy has 8 for that matter. The principle remains: separate the enemy formations and shoot them down as individual targets. While the text on the image was vague and lead to my confusion, if you look closely at the drawing you can see the attention to detail involved: you can clearly make out the Soviet and lend-lease fighters, all of which had wide round wings and relatively short tails, and the Bf-109s, with their skinny frame overall.

 

 

Turning combat with the "Me-109"

 

Notes:

 

1. You enter a flat turn combat with a Bf-109, with the enemy ahead of you but outside of guns range or in a lag pursuit situation.

2. Pull some some lead to cut through the enemy, fire.

 

Mind the speeds and distances involved to avoid overshooting. You want to make this a swift manoeuvre, and finish the job quickly since it involves trading speed for angles. If you are flying too close to the enemy or don't act decisively enough, you give them an opportunity to turn the tables.

 

 

The best position to initiate an attack

 

Notes:

 

1. Your aircraft is 1000-1300m above the enemy, within the 40 and 60º zone.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Lucas_From_Hell

[Luger1969]

Very nice and thought prevoking discussions here. 1 of the best forums that i have read in the 2 years that i have been on bos. I have learned a lot...a lot. I def now have more options to think off. Please keep on going guys.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I think whatever the case the spirit of the thread is nice because people come here, share and discuss tactics for the benefit of the community instead of hiding them under a rock for personal advantage.

 

 

However, I still don’t get the idea behind the figure in post #99? If you do a straight pull up in front of the BDT yours and his POM will coincide which seems like a bad idea.  Maybe the idea is to do this so violently that the BDT will have difficulty to pull enough lead? If so you have to hope he does not have quick reactions and hammers you when you initiate the pull up and he still has lead. OTOH I’m probably missing something here like an out of plane motion by the defender so it would be great if you could translate the text that goes with that figure as well.

 

The caption to it says "Exit of climb (lit. "hill", how a steep climb is called in Russian) with an attack" I'll get to the notes and etc. on those diagrams over this weekend. I am learning a lot about these diagrams by translating them and analysing everything to the last detail (with the help of a couple of household objects and hands to get everything right), so it's been rewarding. The situation dictates how it's best to do it really, you want, of course, to go where the enemy won't so it doesn't hurt to bank a slight bit and do it.

 

Perhaps relevant story in practice:

 

Today I was flying in an ad hoc pair (on a LaGG-3, flying together with a Yak-1), and after a first kill and cruising around for a while we bounced a 109 flying at 1300m from 2000m. The Yak-1 went straight for him while I climbed straight up then followed them from about 800m. higher. While the Yak-1 was in a tail chase just outside guns range, the Bf-109 pulled up sharp and lost the pursuing Yak-1 since he took a split-second too long to react.

 

In this situation the pilot in question screwed up badly because I was sitting about 600+m behind the Yak-1 and 800m above, closing in at 600km/h. At the top of the climb the Bf-109 hung nearly motionless in the air. It was like strafing a ground target, I just pointed the nose at him and pew-pew, smoke everywhere then a parachute. He lost the Yak instantly, but flying without knowing who's hanging about resulted in certain death, as it does in most cases. If a manoeuvre rids you of one pursuer or puts you behind one enemy it remains useless if another 3 are going to kill you within 15 seconds.

 

EDIT: Changes to the third to last diagram, misinterpreted it.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Lucas_From_Hell

[Mac_Messer]

The simple truth is, in the right hands and conditions the Yak is very competitive.

 

It is up to the pilot to create the conditions for success. The Yak is only slightly inferior in most respects to the 109......BUT, if you are in the envelope and can convince the 109 jockey to dance with you outside of HIS envelope it will be a very dynamic fight. If you can't, it may be a short or very drawn out fight and the advantage will remains with a good Luftie pilot throughout.

 

Choose your fight when you can and choose your tactics well. Otherwise perish.............only to respawn at the forward airbase without energy or altitude. As a Luftie I always come in with altitude to spare and pick my fight. I never understand guys who race in at 1000m. The Soviet side seems to do it far more than the other guys. If you start at altitude it gives you so many more options to engage/disengage/make decisions. Or, just keep the stick in your lap and wonder why it goes your way so infrequently. I play for a solid KD much more than points or outright wins. Maybe it's an outdated philosophy though.

Looks to me you don`t improvise too much, or maybe the BoS multiplayer doesn`t place you in such situations.

It is easy to come in with alt/E advantage and pick targets but historical coop scenarios rarely are that simple or easy. Your skills as a pilot are tested when you are covering Stukas at 2000m and must stick to them and then a 2nd flight of 4 Yaks comes in @3500m.  Then you are in trouble and have to give your best.

 

But I say again, it has to be a relatively realistic environment to place you in such a situation.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Mac_Messer

[Mac_Messer]

I will get some flak for this but anyway, for someone of your experience you should be an outstanding asset to the community, however many of your posts seem to come with a more than healthy dose of attitude similar to your Robin Olds quote from your sig

 

On a forum this is not always the best way to treat people, a little leeway and courtesy will go a long way 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Does he mean ~800hrs online or real? Cuz online I`m nearly the same experience and I don`t know the half of what he cought up!

 

Stalin DEMANDS that the YAK-9 be put on the Stalingrad front or else!

Dude! I wanted to fight the damn Nine with my G2 for so long but all I had against it was a G6Early or a FW190A4. And still I made it work many times.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Your skills as a pilot are tested when you are covering Stukas at 2000m and must stick to them and then a 2nd flight of 4 Yaks comes in @3500m. Then you are in trouble and have to give your best.

 

You guys have it easy, try escorting a flight of Il-2s at 1000m with 109s coming in from 3+km I kid of course, escort in all its forms and shapes is tricky business.

[Holtzauge]

The caption to it says "Exit of climb (lit. "hill", how a steep climb is called in Russian) with an attack" I'll get to the notes and etc. on those diagrams over this weekend. I am learning a lot about these diagrams by translating them and analysing everything to the last detail (with the help of a couple of household objects and hands to get everything right), so it's been rewarding. The situation dictates how it's best to do it really, you want, of course, to go where the enemy won't so it doesn't hurt to bank a slight bit and do it.

 

Thanks for taking the time to do the translations and posting all the above info Lucas. It's a very interesting insight into Pokryshkin's view on air combat and on what to communicate to fellow pilots. Will be great if you could get to those additional diagrams (especially the one in post #99 because I still find the defenders pull up in front of the attacker prior to the overshoot strange) during the weekend. However, the more one looks at the figures the more important it seems to get the text that go with them to be able to decipher what he is trying to convey so again great that you are taking the time to do this!

 

Isn't it kind of strange that no mention is done as to identifying your opponents ride or energy state relative your own to determine your move? I mean, surely you would in a head on merge maybe use different tactics depending on your opponents ride? Does Pokryshkin say something regarding how you should handle the situation in those figures if you have a power loading or wing loading advantage relative your opponents ride or are the tips given more as a general guideline?

 

For example, say you are in a LaGG and you meet a Fw-190 head on like in the second figure in post #154, I don't see it as good advice to pursue the Fw-190 in the dive? I mean while the text seems to suggest you pull up and come around and "jam the throttle forwards and use the vast altitude reserves you have to gain speed and catch up". To me this seems rather pointless in this particular case since there is no way you will catch up with a Fw-190 that has his mind set up on extending by diving? In fact it's worse that pointless because you are sacrificing altitude and will be in a very bad spot when you realize that you are never going to catch up and find yourself at low altitude with even more altitude above yourself.....

 

PS: I'm of course not taking the dive angle in the figure literally but assuming a more shallow dive by the Fw-190 since leaving an opponent high and doing a steep dive yourself would be suicide since your opponent can catch you by initiating a more shallow dive aiming to reach you where you level off.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Isn't it kind of strange that no mention is done as to identifying your opponents ride or energy state relative your own to determine your move? I mean, surely you would in a head on merge maybe use different tactics depending on your opponents ride? Does Pokryshkin say something regarding how you should handle the situation in those figures if you have a power loading or wing loading advantage relative your opponents ride or are the tips given more as a general guideline?

 

Pokryshkin - as most Soviet air force tacticians and strategists - doesn't really play the performance game the way most virtual pilots do. While I have not found a straight-up answer to it, I can safely assume that it is because the Soviet and lend-lease aircraft he flew (MiG-3, Yak-1 and P-39N) and other Soviet mainstay fighters of the time were on the same level as their German counterparts, and the results of the engagements were ultimately down to the employment of appropriate tactics. Personally speaking I entirely relate to this approach. While knowing yours and the enemy's aircraft is imperative to victory, having confidence in yours is equally important, and by all means I think a lot of virtual pilots focus too much on the aircraft and not enough on the pilot.

 

Comparing in-game data for the commodity:

 

Fw-190

Ground speed at sea level, engine mode - Combat: 530 km/h

Maximum ground speed at 1200 m, engine mode - Combat: 557 km/h

Maximum ground speed at 6000 m, engine mode - Combat: 618 km/h

 

LaGG-3

Ground speed at sea level, engine mode - Nominal: 505 km/h

Maximum ground speed at 2000 m, engine mode - Nominal: 548 km/h

Maximum ground speed at 4000 m, engine mode - Nominal: 573 km/h

 

While the Fw-190 is faster across the board, the LaGG-3 pilot can easily offset the enemy's advantages by having the slightest altitude advantage, and by flying clean (i.e. avoiding manoeuvres that bleed more energy than needed, and being familiar with the aircraft).

 

 

The energy states are not mentioned, I assume, because Pokryshkin held it imperative to always have speed and altitude to work with. A pilot who for any reason has lost their speed and altitude already has screwed up, because keeping a good energy state is not a tactic but a basic fundamental of combat flight, just as important as knowing how to make a turn. With this mindset, these tactics are meant for pilots who have done their homework and are able to preserve and expand those by whatever means available.

 

For example, say you are in a LaGG and you meet a Fw-190 head on like in the second figure in post #154, I don't see it as good advice to pursue the Fw-190 in the dive? I mean while the text seems to suggest you pull up and come around and "jam the throttle forwards and use the vast altitude reserves you have to gain speed and catch up". To me this seems rather pointless in this particular case since there is no way you will catch up with a Fw-190 that has his mind set up on extending by diving? In fact it's worse that pointless because you are sacrificing altitude and will be in a very bad spot when you realize that you are never going to catch up and find yourself at low altitude with even more altitude above yourself.....

 

PS: I'm of course not taking the dive angle in the figure literally but assuming a more shallow dive by the Fw-190 since leaving an opponent high and doing a steep dive yourself would be suicide since your opponent can catch you by initiating a more shallow dive aiming to reach you where you level off.

 

In that engagement I described a while before (#156) was a more or less similar situation: LaGG-3 vs. Bf-109.

 

I had a 700m altitude advantage but no extra speed. The Yak-1 that was with me peeled off and engaged while the 109 started a shallow dive. I climbed vertically to 2500m or more (like in the diagram), and gave chase too. The Yak-1 wasn't going to catch up, and they were nearly flying level at this point. I, however, had a lot of altitude to boot and could dive at a steeper angle than both of them. As it were, I was doing about 600km/h while they were probably slightly above the 500km/h mark - in other words, I would have caught up quickly. Just as I started to reach the Yak-1 the Messer pulled up and, as it were, landed right into my sights.

 

The diagram as far as I know does demonstrate a steep dive, not a shallow one. You see lots of those online when people get scared and try to gain speed as soon as possible, quickly becoming targets.

 

But if we were to assume the Fw-190 merge you describe, at an average combat altitude (i.e. 2000m) and without additional air assets, I can only speculate unless somebody goes online and tries it out really quick. If the Fw-190 starts a shallow dive to gain speed, and the LaGG-3 performs said climb before giving chase it should, in theory, be possible for the LaGG-3 to engage by entering a steeper dive and (if the altitude allows) going below the Fw-190's level to close in and shoot at the enemy's belly from below and at a considerable distance.

 

This, if possible, works only hypothetically of course, in a case where the Fw-190 is riding the bee line and is not very interested in checking their six.

 

In a real situation with a clean Fw-190 running away it is only ever worth pursuing if it becomes imperative that you either catch the Fw-190 or at the very least offer a hot pursuit to effectively block it from making turns to attack their target (be it bombers, tanks, an airbase or whatever). For example, Kozhedub's Me-262 victory came because it initiated a turn, allowing the La-7 to draw into range. If they are returning to base you are better off leaving them be and employing your aircraft somewhere more useful. By most means at this point you have either succeeded in your mission since you scared them off, or failed already because they have completed their attack and are running.

 

If the Fw-190 is loaded with bombs it loses between 43 and 85km/h before and 11 to 41km/h after the drop (DD data), thus making it effectively slower than a clean LaGG-3 at relevant altitudes and allowing a pursuing fighter to force it to choose between jettisoning the bombs or getting shot down.

 

Also, if you've done your homework you would enter the steeper dive while leaving a wingman in a shallow dive to cover you, effectively impeding the Fw-190 from gaining altitude since it would now be sandwiched between the pursing fighter and the covering wingman. If your task was to stop the Fw-190s from performing their mission, the manoeuvre is still by and large successful even if you fail to bring the enemy down since it forces them to effectively run straight and level.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Lucas_From_Hell

[GP*]

Sorry I have been away from the thread so long. I'll have time to post tomorrow or Monday to the points raised since last weekend

[Holtzauge]

Pokryshkin - as most Soviet air force tacticians and strategists - doesn't really play the performance game the way most virtual pilots do. While I have not found a straight-up answer to it, I can safely assume that it is because the Soviet and lend-lease aircraft he flew (MiG-3, Yak-1 and P-39N) and other Soviet mainstay fighters of the time were on the same level as their German counterparts, and the results of the engagements were ultimately down to the employment of appropriate tactics. Personally speaking I entirely relate to this approach. While knowing yours and the enemy's aircraft is imperative to victory, having confidence in yours is equally important, and by all means I think a lot of virtual pilots focus too much on the aircraft and not enough on the pilot.

 

Comparing in-game data for the commodity:

 

Fw-190

Ground speed at sea level, engine mode - Combat: 530 km/h

Maximum ground speed at 1200 m, engine mode - Combat: 557 km/h

Maximum ground speed at 6000 m, engine mode - Combat: 618 km/h

 

LaGG-3

Ground speed at sea level, engine mode - Nominal: 505 km/h

Maximum ground speed at 2000 m, engine mode - Nominal: 548 km/h

Maximum ground speed at 4000 m, engine mode - Nominal: 573 km/h

 

While the Fw-190 is faster across the board, the LaGG-3 pilot can easily offset the enemy's advantages by having the slightest altitude advantage, and by flying clean (i.e. avoiding manoeuvres that bleed more energy than needed, and being familiar with the aircraft).

 

 

The energy states are not mentioned, I assume, because Pokryshkin held it imperative to always have speed and altitude to work with. A pilot who for any reason has lost their speed and altitude already has screwed up, because keeping a good energy state is not a tactic but a basic fundamental of combat flight, just as important as knowing how to make a turn. With this mindset, these tactics are meant for pilots who have done their homework and are able to preserve and expand those by whatever means available.

 

 

In that engagement I described a while before (#156) was a more or less similar situation: LaGG-3 vs. Bf-109.

 

I had a 700m altitude advantage but no extra speed. The Yak-1 that was with me peeled off and engaged while the 109 started a shallow dive. I climbed vertically to 2500m or more (like in the diagram), and gave chase too. The Yak-1 wasn't going to catch up, and they were nearly flying level at this point. I, however, had a lot of altitude to boot and could dive at a steeper angle than both of them. As it were, I was doing about 600km/h while they were probably slightly above the 500km/h mark - in other words, I would have caught up quickly. Just as I started to reach the Yak-1 the Messer pulled up and, as it were, landed right into my sights.

 

The diagram as far as I know does demonstrate a steep dive, not a shallow one. You see lots of those online when people get scared and try to gain speed as soon as possible, quickly becoming targets.

 

But if we were to assume the Fw-190 merge you describe, at an average combat altitude (i.e. 2000m) and without additional air assets, I can only speculate unless somebody goes online and tries it out really quick. If the Fw-190 starts a shallow dive to gain speed, and the LaGG-3 performs said climb before giving chase it should, in theory, be possible for the LaGG-3 to engage by entering a steeper dive and (if the altitude allows) going below the Fw-190's level to close in and shoot at the enemy's belly from below and at a considerable distance.

 

This, if possible, works only hypothetically of course, in a case where the Fw-190 is riding the bee line and is not very interested in checking their six.

 

In a real situation with a clean Fw-190 running away it is only ever worth pursuing if it becomes imperative that you either catch the Fw-190 or at the very least offer a hot pursuit to effectively block it from making turns to attack their target (be it bombers, tanks, an airbase or whatever). For example, Kozhedub's Me-262 victory came because it initiated a turn, allowing the La-7 to draw into range. If they are returning to base you are better off leaving them be and employing your aircraft somewhere more useful. By most means at this point you have either succeeded in your mission since you scared them off, or failed already because they have completed their attack and are running.

 

If the Fw-190 is loaded with bombs it loses between 43 and 85km/h before and 11 to 41km/h after the drop (DD data), thus making it effectively slower than a clean LaGG-3 at relevant altitudes and allowing a pursuing fighter to force it to choose between jettisoning the bombs or getting shot down.

 

Also, if you've done your homework you would enter the steeper dive while leaving a wingman in a shallow dive to cover you, effectively impeding the Fw-190 from gaining altitude since it would now be sandwiched between the pursing fighter and the covering wingman. If your task was to stop the Fw-190s from performing their mission, the manoeuvre is still by and large successful even if you fail to bring the enemy down since it forces them to effectively run straight and level.

 

OK, thanks for the additional information Lucas. It looks like the text that goes with Pokryshkin’s figures is rather sparse then and that they therefore need to be interpreted much in the way you do which unfortunately leaves them a bit ambiguous IMHO. I still find this a bit strange because I still think that what you should do in a merge depends on your assessment of your relative e and your airplanes relative performance and it’s odd that this piece of advice is missing.

 

Regarding the LaGG Fw-190 merge: Sure, if the LaGG has an e advantage as in the picture you paint then of course he can catch the 190 but if they are co-e he never will. So that is why I think that that figure should come with the caveat that you should bear in mind your own e and your own planes performance relative your opponent so you don’t come around in your LaGG and dive down on a Fw-190 that is extending unless you had a margin in e at the merge. In addition, basically all your own statements above talk about the importance of having an e advantage and that this is the key. I have to say I agree completely with this which makes it all the more strange that Pokryshkin makes no mention of it in conjunction with the figures.  In addition, if an ace like Pokryshkin is passing out advice, I would think it would be especially important to cover the co-e or even sub-e engagements as well and what you do then since if you already have a substantial advantage in e you’re golden anyway.

 

This brings us to the subject of pilot ability and I don’t see how this adds anything to the discussion other than to conclude that most likely the better pilot will win all other things being equal? Come to think of it, I do think there is advice to be given in this case: If you have sparred with your opponent for a while and you conclude that he seems like a noob then of course no problem, finish him of. However, if it looks like he knows his stuff, i.e. for example the healthy e advantage you had in the merge has been lost in manouvering and you are now close to parity you may want to consider to disengage because you have met your match. Again, the options here will be different if you are sitting in the LaGG or the Fw-190. So again, I think relative e state and relative aircraft performance are key in many situations and I still find it strange if Pokryshkin went to all the trouble of doing the figures but then accompanies them with such ambiguous text. To be honest, I would have expected more from the texts that go with the figures because as it stands now the figures seem quite open to interpretation as witnessed by the very discussion we are having about the second figure in post #154 where you assume a steeper dive and an e advantage whereas I can’t see that the figure dissuades from the manouver if you are co-e and meet someone with a higher power to weight ratio? OTOH I guess Pokryshkin’s figures also need to be seen in a historical context and with the military situation being what it was even though caution and an disengagement may have been the prudent course of action from a logical perspective in some cases I can still see why Pokryshkin would place more emphasis on the offensives in his advice under the prevailing conditions.

 

BTW Lucas, I noticed you left out an answer to my question about Pokryhkins figure in post #99? I’m assuming this is because you have not gotten around to translating the text that goes with that one yet? Will be interesting to read this because I still have a hard time figuring out the thinking behind that pull up in front of the attacker prior to the overshoot…..

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Haven't gotten around to that one just yet unfortunately, work and a possibly failed hard drive have been keeping me - rest assured I will.

 

I'll reply to the rest of your post later, but a note that might help: these are drawings from Pokryshkin's own personal notebook. Thought he lent access to those to his fellow pilots and visited different regiments to explore his tactics and disseminate them, these in particular are scans from his notebook, and he probably felt little need to list the specifics since he knew them.

[Holtzauge]

Haven't gotten around to that one just yet unfortunately, work and a possibly failed hard drive have been keeping me - rest assured I will.

 

I'll reply to the rest of your post later, but a note that might help: these are drawings from Pokryshkin's own personal notebook. Thought he lent access to those to his fellow pilots and visited different regiments to explore his tactics and disseminate them, these in particular are scans from his notebook, and he probably felt little need to list the specifics since he knew them.

 

Ok that was good to know: I actually thought the figures were from some sort of compendium or handouts meant to be read but if they are from his own personal notebook then I can understand why they are a bit cryptic when seen in isolation and as you say, in that case they were most likely for his personal use then and maybe used as bullet points when explaining things and talking to other pilots. I mean in that sort of situation you can always make sure you get your message across and explain what you mean by the figures and add such things as the e state and how to handle combat between dissimilar aircraft etc. Looking forward to some more info on figure in post #99 later then.