"How do groups of aircraft fight?" Topic

I acknowledge that this sounds like a silly question, but give me a chance.

I want to put some airplanes on the table for dogfighting. Right now I have modern airplanes, but I hope to move into WWII. Somewhere, I got the idea WWII planes fly in groups of 4, but eventually break up into groups of 2 to fight. I also have a notion that modern airplanes sometimes fly along in groups of 2, even if there are other friendly groups nearby.

Am I right, wrong? Do other countries fight in different groupings, and did it change over time?

(As far as WWI is concerned, I assume they flew into battle in whatever group they could manage, then it was every man for himself. I may be wrong on that one too.)

Thanks for the help.

Yes, that is typically true, though some did also fight in vics of three as well.

The three aircraft formations were usually dropped, since there was usually an odd man out, unprotected by a buddy.

Some, like the Russians, and the North Vietnamese, still occasionally use three aircraft in a group, to try to catch their opponents off guard (at least it appears that they sometimes did that in the Vietnam War). Their opponents might spot the first two aircraft, but a third one, either high above, or down below might try to catch their enemy napping, and not expecting a third shooter nearby, as they concentrate on keeping their eyes on the first two aircraft.

Also, usually for large battles, aircraft would fly in much larger units of squadrons, groups, wings, etc., with 12 – 16+ aircraft in a unit, and then two to three of those in a group.

With the modern era, and longer weapons ranges, aircraft do indeed separate out further than they did in previous wars. Still though, four or more aircraft in a unit (and up to 12 or 16+ is pretty common).

Oftentimes, dogfights degenerated completely into swirling one-on-one melees with everyone looking out for themselves and their buddy as best they could.

A lot would depend on what part of the war and which country you were flying for. The Germans flew 4 ship formations of two two a/c sections from 1939. The British flew 3 plane "vic" pretty much through the Battle of Britain, although some squadrons adopted the 4 plane formation which became standard in 1941. The Japanese Navy was flying the 3 plane "vic" as late as 1945. The US flew a four plane formation, often joining two of them into an 8 plane unit.

Leaders were supposed to fight, wingmen were supposed to protect their leader's tail. This would sometimes break down but that was the wingman's job. Lone aircraft would try to pair up as quickly as they could because flying alone was a quick way to get shot down. Big swirling dogfights didn't last very long, you constantly read about pilots who were amazed at how suddenly the sky around the was empty. Here are "Sailor" Malan's ten rules of fighting;

TEN OF MY RULES FOR AIR FIGHTING

1. Wait until you see the whites of his eyes. Fire short bursts of one to two seconds only when your sights are definitely "ON".

2. Whilst shooting think of nothing else, brace the whole of your body: have both hands on the stick: concentrate on your ring sight.

3. Always keep a sharp lookout. "Keep your finger out".

4. Height gives you the initiative.

5. Always turn and face the attack.

6. Make your decisions promptly. It is better to act quickly even though your tactics are not the best.

7. Never fly straight and level for more than 30 seconds in the combat area.

8. When diving to attack always leave a proportion of your formation above to act as a top guard.

9. INITIATIVE, AGGRESSION, AIR DISCIPLINE, and TEAMWORK are words that MEAN something in Air Fighting.

10. Go in quickly – Punch hard – Get out!

The routine of a two-ship formation in fighter operations comes from a simple restriction of evolution: Humans can't see in front and behind at the same time.

The Germans twigged to the idea during the Spanish Civil War; one aircraft leads, and keeps watch out front, another follows, keeping the lead aircraft safe by taking more time to search towards the rear.

They formalised this into the Rotte. Two Rotte make a Schwarm of four aircraft, flying in a so-called 'finger four' (because the four machines take up positions similar to the fingertips of a flat hand).

The Germans found this formation was easy to fly, allowing the pilots to spend more time scanning the skies, and less time struggling to stay in formation.

The Allies adopted the Schwarm, and it was used throughout the conflict within the ETO.

A 'Vic' is a three-ship formation which, if flown loosely, is still a legitimate combat formation. In theory, it is easier to learn than the Schwarm. The problem in WW2 was that many Squadron or Flight Leaders insisted in their pilots maintaining very tight station-keeping, leading to pilots who must spend most of their time watching each other, and not the enemy.

During the Battle of Britain, experienced combat leaders in the RAF did experiment with the Finger Four, but the middle of a battle for survival is not the place for re-training with new-fangled formations! Quite often, RAF fighters simply flew in line astern flights, which, like the Schwarm, had the advantage of freeing the pilots to search. Unfortunately, if an inexperienced pilot fell away too far to the rear, and someone in a 109 saw them…

Bombers and attack aircraft still flew in Vics, and still do, although in the modern low-airborne threat environment, it is not uncommon for them to fly in pairs or singly.

So, all this stuff of four-ship versus three-ship really applies to fighter formations. Bomber formations are a whole different, if allied, discipline.

MacrossMartin's explanation is a great summary. In addition to the important 'easier to keep a lookout with a wingman' reason, two (or more) pilots fighting in a coordinated fashion allows for a greater variety of tactics. The Thatch Weave that the US Navy used to good effect against the Japanese was based on two aircraft constantly crossing each other's LOS to protect both aircraft from being tailed during a dogfight, as one example.

I also think that 'tight Vic' was adopted in part since in theory it allowed concentrated firepower against bomber formations. I cannot for the life of me remember where I read that though.

-Will

The Dicta Boelcke still has some valid lessons in it even for modern air combat.

It can be funny watching some air games on the table – last spring I played in a Korean War air game, three pairs of Panthers vs. three pairs of MiG-15s (one pair per player), and two of us were trying to fly our pairs per best practices, the other four threw their planes into a monstrous furball as fast as possible that saw almost all the planes either get shot down or crash into each other in two turns of actually shooting.

I picked off one survivor of that with my Panthers before my lead pilot ran out of ammo; the MiG player who was flying with a plan nailed two of our Panthers that seemed to be on a sight-seeing cruise and offered up their rear to him in the midst of the furball.

So I was happy with myself for playing with a plan based on real tactics (it's a rare thing for me), but I think the other guys had more fun making machine gun noises and blowing each other up.

I read about one formation where 4 or more aircraft circled around a lone target (you have to outnumber the enemy for this of course) leaving the target no chance to get in an attack without being attacked.

Isn't that a Lufbery Circle?

Will –

You're quite right, before WW2 the RAF, in the planning that resulted in the specifications for an 8-gun fighter, calculated that they would need tight formations to bring as many guns to bear as possible to shoot down a modern bomber.

Part of the problem was that such formations assumed that the most likely targets would be unescorted bombers flying from German soil, far from the protection of German fighters. Of course, the fall of France changed all that, as captured airfields provided 109's with the means to escort bombers to London, if only with a brief combat window.

The RAF's tactics were not without merit at the time; no-one predicted the sudden collapse of the front in France, without which, He111's and Ju88's would have struck targets in Britain without real escort, and proven the now-maligned British tactics to be sound.

Interestingly, the Luftwaffe was just as unprepared for the windfall of bases in conquered France as the RAF – they had to make up their strategy for attacking the UK as they went along, without the sound scientific, strategic planning that largely ensured the RAF's success in the Battle of Britain. In many ways, the Luftwaffe were the plucky, enthusiastic amateurs, and the RAF the hard-nosed, number-crunching professionals, which is the opposite of many people's view of the Battle.

boy wundyr – sounds like a brilliant game. What rules / scale?

mwindsorfw – the Lufbery Circle was meant as a defensive formation, which stopped an aircraft outside the circle from attacking one inside, as it could not achieve a tailing position without a circling aircraft gaining a tailing position. Worked against the slow climbing /diving machines of WW1, but pretty useless from 1940 onwards. Was commonly tried by Me110 units early in the war, without much success. Attacking while diving through the circle seems to have been a pretty sure way of defeating it.

Have not heard of the tactic Dynaman alludes to. Anyone else know more?

The best results come when you can stay in pairs/fours. If two aircraft can attack the tailing a/c of the enemy pair they have a good chance of shooting in down [or chasing it off].

There are some good videos on youtube that were made to instruct pilots that show how the formations were supposed to work.

It's basically come in from higher up – dive on the rear quarter, pick on a single target and have all your aircraft blast it. Move one to another target if you can but usually it's better to quit while you're ahead.

Our image of a 'furball' is not typical and means something went seriously wrong. They seem like they're more fun for wargamers – but IMO they are too random.

Am I right, wrong? Do other countries fight in different groupings, and did it change over time?

Yes. Increasing speed caused a continual change in tactics. While in WW1 large formations proved effective but in WWII the increasing speed meant, as one pilot put it, the aim was to creep up on the enemy and stab him in the bag before he even realised you were there. Different countries experimented with different approaches. Bombers and fighters use different formations as they are aiming to do different things: bombers are aiming to max out defensive firepower and bombing effects whereas fighters are aiming to max out killing potential.

I also think that 'tight Vic' was adopted in part since in theory it allowed concentrated firepower against bomber formations. I cannot for the life of me remember where I read that though.

Perhaps in THE MOST DANGEROUS ENEMY by Stephen Bungay

Our image of a 'furball' is not typical and means something went seriously wrong. They seem like they're more fun for wargamers – but IMO they are too random.

I think turning dogfights are over-represented in air wargaming because of the edge-of-the-world problem. We play our games on fairly small tables. Representing flight physics requires that airplane models must constantly be in motion, can never stand still and fire, must fall out of the sky if they stall. So constantly moving model airplanes quickly reach a table edge, and must turn to stay in the game.

The problem can be made worse by a poor choice of scales. Bigger models tend to imply a bigger ground scale, and to move farther in a turn, and so to run out of table space sooner, but the sky is so big and our tables are so small that the problem is present in all miniature-based air wargaming.

So, miniature air wargames over-emphasize turning dogfights, favor airplanes that turn better, and offer little scope for boom-and-zoom tactics. There isn't room to zoom and still stay in the game.

Admittedly, boom-and-zoom tactics imply that one side gets bounced, and that experience is more fun for the bouncer than for the bouncee.

But in a large, multi-squadron game of, say, a big historical bombing mission with escort, there is scope for both sides to bounce and be bounced, and more important, to *maneuver* to bounce and to avoid being bounced.

Maneuvering, staying high until it's time to attack, keeping a top-cover reserve, become important in this context. But there isn't room on our tables to play this kind of game using toy airplanes.

That's a very good point about table space. But I also think it is because players want to enter a turning fight and often don't understand the use of the third dimension. Many rules can't handle this aspect well either.

There is also the aim of attrition – you can't kill them all or stop the enemy mission but you can inflict unsustainable losses. You often do this by a short sharp attack that maximises your exchange rate. If you kill 1 for zero losses it's probably better in the long run than killing 3 for 1.

Jowady. Somebody read his Boelcke. yep.

I've always been interested in jet vs jet dogfights, and have just about finished a 3D table top dogfight game using 1/144 jets on a 5 second game turn. Maneuvering is important. Cannon combat or very early IR missile combat only. The jet model only shows what the aircraft is currently doing (i.e. its current attitude and banking) not the ground/altitude scale which is much smaller (at around 500 feet/inch ground scale, altitude in 500 foot increments). Play testing has been encouraging – is anyone interested in having a look at the game?

I'd like a look, TJRaymond.

@MacrossMartin – sorry for the late response, it with was Check Your Six, Jet Age rules, and 1/285 aircraft (GHQ I think). Have some photos somewhere, not up on my blog yet.

TJRAYMOND
I'll take a look. I was part of the play testing for Canvas Falcons.
warbirdsgs.com

Wolfhag

Ok – I'll pretty it up with some photos and place it up on my site in the next few days.

runtus.org

That's a very good point about table space. But I also think it is because players want to enter a turning fight and often don't understand the use of the third dimension. Many rules can't handle this aspect well either.

To be fair, wanting to enter into a turning fight even when you shouldn't is a mistake that a lot green fighter pilots make as well

@MacrossMartin – sorry for the late response, it with was Check Your Six, Jet Age rules, and 1/285 aircraft (GHQ I think). Have some photos somewhere, not up on my blog yet.

I love CY6 and Jet Age as well. Had a similar experience at a local con; the pilots who stuck together (myself included) inflicted most of the causalities.

-Will

Yes – another good point about green pilots and turning fights. It hadn't struck me.

The USN adopted two plane flights, early in the war with Japan, that was how my father trained.

Technically, I believe at the beginning of the war, when VF squadrons were 18 planes, the USN had 6-plane flights, composed of 3x 2-plane elements.

Just in case you missed it, the Jet Combat rules are up on my site and are free.

runtus.org