"Combat Vics of 3 vs Sections of 2 vs Shotai of 3?" Topic

Help me understand the relative strengths and weaknesses of these various fighter formations. I guess the vic of 3 was pretty useless as the 2 wingmen were busy keeping from flying into the leader. Then again the French used it and didn't seem to do half bad. Yes, they got beat but they took some with them, right?

The Japanese shotai is a version of that but with much more flexibility built in. It also has half again as many fighters as a section of 2.

The section of 2 is supposedly superior to both, but with less fighters how is that?

Thanks!

Tactical flexibility, and the fact that the outside wingman would often be misplaced in a turn and then become a loner and get pounced on.

Robert

So that extra flexibility offsets any perceived concentration of force? I guess it would since the "odd men out" aren't contributing and become a liability.

The problem of a Vic is that in a turn, the wingmen have to track two aircraft to avoid colliding with – hard to do in the best of times. With just a pair, the wingman is free to cross over to the inside of the turn, keeping the leader in sight and not have to worry about colliding with someone. By freeing the wingman from having to watch out for a second wingman, he is more able to look out for enemies. By combining two pairs, you effectively double your abilities, whereas the vic will tend to have one wingman left out, either as a single or trying to keep up with the other two of his formation.

A pilot out of position is basically useless, you can only kill the opponent if you have him in your sights – if you spend most of your time trying to keep formation with another wingman, then you're not spending eyeball time tracking the enemy.

By the end of war, pretty much everyone had given up on the vic.

-Binhan

Kills are more influenced by the quality of your flight leaders, in general they are the ones who are doing the shooting. It is the responsibility of the wingmen to keep their leaders safe, either by watching their back and informing when they are being tailed or actually picking off enemy planes trying to get on their tail. To determine the effectiveness of the Vic, check for French losses as this is a better determination whether the defense is effective.

Another factor is that most air combats are determined by who sights the enemy first and is able to gain an advantage, either height or by approaching from a blind spot – again the advantage goes to the pair as they can spend more time looking for the enemy rather than concentrating on holding formation.

You will probably note that any country that used the Vic suffered high losses, particularly among wingmen as the singles would get picked off.

-Binhan

"It is the responsibility of the wingmen to keep their leaders safe, either by watching their back and informing when they are being tailed or actually picking off enemy planes trying to get on their tail".

Or, alternatively, to serve as less experienced cannon fodder for the enemy fighters, who usually attack the trailing plane first, and then the leader.

Note – some really experienced enemies will shoot down the leader first, knowing that the trailing fighter will usually be much easier to down later.

Vics are really only good to targeting vics of bombers, since you then get a 1 for 1 ratio of attackers to targets.

I suspect the Japanese would have been a bit more successful with their vics, had they been equipped with radios in their planes. They dumped those in order to lighten the planes further, in order to have greater maneuverability. Works fine, one on one, but not a very good idea when you need team tactics to fight your opponents.

What Binhan Lin mentions in his first post, about the wingman crossing over to the inside of a turn (when in pairs) is (to greatly simplify things) the tactic adopted by the USN and USMC with great success against the Japanese in WW II.

Pioneered by Jimmy Thach, it became known as the "Thach Weave", and was first used at Midway.

For a good, detailed explanation, read The First Team: Pacific Naval Air Combat from Pearl Harbor to Midway, by John B. Lundstrom. It's a great read (as his the second volume on Guadalcanal), and includes details on tactics, gunnery, markings, and the aerial combats of the period. If you're interested in early war USN vs. Japanese aerial warfare these are "must reads."

The second wingman has very little practical effect most of the time, so pairs is best as a 12-plane squadron gets 6 fighting elements for the price of 4…. (As an aside, take a look at "Clashes" link for how it can all go wrong, with flexible pairs becoming a rigid four, giving a squadron of 12 planes and 3 combat effectives, often as not….)

One thing to remember is that it is not just the number of aircraft, but the doctrine/tactics of the force.

As you mentioned, the RAF's vic was not as effective as a Japanese shotai. The RAF vic was very rigid and designed to fight bomber formations, while the Japanese formation was more flexible but less supportive.

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be one good book out there that describes the doctrine and tactics for various air forces.

Hi

Not really. The french weren't effective in Vic. And, the Japanese Shotai only worked when pilots attacking it slowed down to dogfight. The finger four starting in the 30s with the germans has become the standard formation for everyone, and was universal in WW2 by 43.

Radios or not, flying a vic requires watching the leader. Teh pair and the four are well spread out and the spread with assigned areas of looking for the enemy is the issue, not just the number.

A good discussion and shor explanation is Johnny Johnson's "Full Circle" which is a nice survey of the whys and wherefores here (though he doesn't really address Thatch). Galland is good. "Airwar" is a bigger history of aircombat in the period. Lots of good stuff.

Rocky

It's worth mentioning that the Japanese often flew "follow my leader" rather than vic, especially against bombers, which reduced firepower but also cut the demands on rookie wingmen.

"…the Japanese often flew "follow my leader" rather than vic…"

The Brits did that as well during the Battle of Britain, when attacking bomber formations. Apparently, they had a number of tactics for taking on the bombers, based upon one of the books I have read, which shows a variety of attack profiles.

Eventually, the British added a fourth fighter, to weave behind the vic, to provide tail cover to the unit. I imagine that position was even less popular than being a vic wingman.

They finally adopted the German finger-four formation later in the BoB, or after, depending upon the unit, and which accounts you read. Supposedly, the Germans honed their fighter tactics during the Spanish Civil War, so were a bit ahead of the curve compared to other air forces when they started WWII.

American units did as well, but not sure when that occurred.

"American units did as well, but not sure when that occurred."

Everything I've read has the Americans using divisions of 6 in 3 sections of 2 at the start of the war – 3 divisions making up a squadron. That's for both navy carrier units and army pursuit squadrons.

Hi

In 39, sure, by 41, the orgaization section was still 12 plane squadrons, but in the "rat races" the americans had read about and adoped the finger four.

One version of the story has it that amercian volunteers in spain brought it back. There is a whole sub story here with assumed names and the like because the yanks were ostensibly flying for the communists.

Rocky