Formation Tactics

[MIflyer]

As everyone knows, the Luftwaffe introduced what became known as the "Finger Four" formation before WWII. They did so because in Spain there sometimes were not enough BF-109's available to form two "Vics" as flights of three aircraft, two following a leader, were known. The alternative was to leave one BF-109 on the ground, so they came up with flights of four. This proved to be a superior tactic, since it was as lot easier for two aircraft to stay together than it was three, and gave the wingman a chance to actually look around and spot enemy aircraft.

The RAF eventually adopted the finger four. The first day they decided to copy the Germans in that formation, Flt Lt. Alan Deere, an early advocate of the Finger Four, had a mid-air with a BF-109; this incident was depicted in box art for the Revell 1/32 Spitfire Mk I in 1990.

But the adoption of the finger four by the RAF was neither instantaneous nor universal. In his book "Woodbine Red Leader", George Loving writes that when he got to the 31st Fighter Group in Italy, flying Spitfire V's and IX's they were flying in a Vic of twos. In other words they took the three plane Vic and put two airplanes in each spot. The 31st had learned combat from the RAF, and as new USAAF pilots came into the unit and the unit transitioned to P-51's, they shifted to the Finger Four formation.

One thing to realize is that the tight four plane formations you see at airshows do not reflect the finger Four as use in combat. The airplanes in reality are in those same kind of positions but hundreds of feet apart.

Now, does anyone know just what kind of formation the Japanese were using? Did the USAAF, USN, and USMC start off with the finger four when it got into the war and where and how did they get the idea? And what kind of formation did the AVG fly in, at least to start off?

 

[cherry blossom]

I thought that I could try to answer this but I found a better answer at Reddit
www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7atb3c/how_did_the_japanese_three_plane_shotai_formation/
The linked image from Sunburst shows 30 metres and 50 metres distance between the aircraft of the Shotai but "A6M Zero-sen Aces 1940-42" by Nicholas Millman suggests a closest distance of 100 yards on page 75.

 

[taly01]

My take on it is that the VIC or 3 plane Vee, is still a great attack formation, However when the shooting war started the need in defence to have a wingman for pairs mutual protection became obvious.

In theory you could have mutual protection with 3 or more planes, but in practise a pair is all that is manageable due to collision danger and just following whats going on!

 

[MIflyer]

I think the main prewar attraction for the Vic is that it looks good in airshows.

Clair Lee Chennault even used to fly in a Vic with the three airplanes tied together with rope. The only situation I know of where a Vic is of use operationally is when you have 3 C-141's doing a combat low altitude airdrop. Modern navigation technology may even have eliminated that today.

 

[BiffF15]

There is also an efficiency angle. Two Vic's of three A/C each means two primary "shooters" and four supporting wingmen. Or 6 A/C of which two do the shooting. Switch to pairs, and your shooter numbers increase by 50%.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[pbehn]

One thing I never understood about the RAF was they often talked about wingmen but flew in groups of three.

 

[MIflyer]

Number of of shooters was a factor in RAF prewar plans. They assumed they would be intercepting unescorted bombers and came up with squadron attack plans designed to point the maximum number of guns toward the enemy, apparently rather like naval broadsides. With eight guns on each fighter (or even 12 on each ) they could fill the sky with bullets, and even the Germans admitted that the RAF's ability to hose them down was impressive.

I don't know if the Vic aided that idea, and I don't think we even know if the RAF's "broadside" attacks would have done as they envisioned if the Luftwaffe had not been so boorish as to interrupt the festivities.

The RAF's thinking was similar when it came to the Boulton Paul Defiant. Defiant turret fighters were intended to "park" just below and in front of enemy bomber formations and kill the bomber pilots at their leisure. 1930's bombers were unarmored in the front and very lightly armed forward and having them do the equivalent of walking into machine gun nest sounded like a good approach - if you don't think three dimensionally.

 

[Ascent]

Ok it's Wikipedia but this seems to make sense about the use of the Vic.
Vic formation - Wikipedia

 

[Barrett]

Some USN VFrons entered combat with four-plane divisions (flights) but others did not. Probably similar with USMC VMFs. Am not sure how widely that applied but undoubtedly John Lundstrom's "First Team" series addresses it. My impression (emphasis added) is that more squadrons went to war with two-plane sections than with fully developed four-plane divisions but the experience in combat nudged things toward what we call finger four. (BTW, Molders gets nearly all the credit but he had help in Spain, notably Gunther Lutzow IIRC.)

RAF evolution was Darwinian. Sometimes a lone trailer was assigned as "high weaver" to warn the chaps of danger, and often did so by converting to heat & light.

Henry Sakaida was Da Man on IJN fighters, and IIRC he said it took into 1943 for Zero-etc units to convert from three- to four-plane flights. (Don't quote me but I vaguely recall something about Four being the Japanese equivalent of Thirteen.)

 

[ODonovan]

I like what this has to say. The Vic (3 planes) and Finger Four (4 planes) proved to be a liability in combat.





-Irish

 

[cherry blossom]

....(Don't quote me but I vaguely recall something about Four being the Japanese equivalent of Thirteen.)

Sorry to quote you but there is a Wikipedia article on Tetraphobia Tetraphobia - Wikipedia explaining the problem, which is due to shi meaning both death and four.

 

[ODonovan]

I'm glad I'm not Japanese. That would be a bit frightening for a little kid just learning to count.

Teacher: "Repeat after me, class...one, two, three, death."





-Irish

 

[bobbysocks]

I like what this has to say. The Vic (3 planes) and Finger Four (4 planes) proved to be a liability in combat.



-Irish

I don't know of them using this in the ETO...maybe except for pictures The turning aspect of this seems pretty complicated and prone to collision. one flight pulls up, one slips down during the turn. when escorting bombers fighters zigzaged over top of the bombers. that is a lot of turning in the couple hours of escorting until you get over the target area. one brain fart and its all over. I know the finger 4 was used...and tail end charlie was a dangerous position. combat itself usually became a furball or rat race ( term of that day ) with lead and wingman (hopefully) going after targets.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

Some USN VFrons entered combat with four-plane divisions (flights) but others did not. Probably similar with USMC VMFs. Am not sure how widely that applied but undoubtedly John Lundstrom's "First Team" series addresses it. My impression (emphasis added) is that more squadrons went to war with two-plane sections than with fully developed four-plane divisions but the experience in combat nudged things toward what we call finger four. (BTW, Molders gets nearly all the credit but he had help in Spain, notably Gunther Lutzow IIRC.)
RAF evolution was Darwinian. Sometimes a lone trailer was assigned as "high weaver" to warn the chaps of danger, and often did so by converting to heat & light.
Henry Sakaida was Da Man on IJN fighters, and IIRC he said it took into 1943 for Zero-etc units to convert from three- to four-plane flights. (Don't quote me but I vaguely recall something about Four being the Japanese equivalent of Thirteen.)

Sure, Lundstrom set the Matter in "First Team" but if don't recall in a bad way, USN started using Vic formation and moved towards Finger Four in the early months of war albeit more in a custom way in some flattops and spreading after Midway.

 

[MIflyer]

I think that with the Finger Four in combat they tended to break up into two plane sections pretty quickly - at best. Many are the tales of pilots finding themselves alone in what had been a sky full of aircraft a very few minutes before.

 

[ODonovan]

I don't know of them using this in the ETO...maybe except for pictures The turning aspect of this seems pretty complicated and prone to collision. one flight pulls up, one slips down during the turn. when escorting bombers fighters zigzaged over top of the bombers. that is a lot of turning in the couple hours of escorting until you get over the target area. one brain fart and its all over. I know the finger 4 was used...and tail end charlie was a dangerous position. combat itself usually became a furball or rat race ( term of that day ) with lead and wingman (hopefully) going after targets.

That formation wouldn't be used after contact with enemy aircraft, but while in transit, to keep from getting jumped by enemy aircraft en route. The Vic or Finger Four wouldn't have been used during actual dogfights either.



-Irish

 

[BiffF15]

I don't know of them using this in the ETO...maybe except for pictures The turning aspect of this seems pretty complicated and prone to collision. one flight pulls up, one slips down during the turn. when escorting bombers fighters zigzaged over top of the bombers. that is a lot of turning in the couple hours of escorting until you get over the target area. one brain fart and its all over. I know the finger 4 was used...and tail end charlie was a dangerous position. combat itself usually became a furball or rat race ( term of that day ) with lead and wingman (hopefully) going after targets.

Bobbysocks,

We probably need clarification from Bill however this formation is still in use today. Once you do it for an hour or two it's fairly easy, and gets easier the more you do it.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[MIflyer]

Despite all my decades of reading about aerial combat it was a relatively few years ago when I realized that airshow finger four formations and combat finger four formations were two separate things entirely.

I live about 7 miles from the center of an AFB and was puzzled to see the fighters coming over inbound widely separated, as in 500 ft or more apart. I finally realized that was the normal combat formation and they closed it up tight to fly over the base. Knowing that they were separated by that distance was key to realizing they had enough room to maneuver.

 

[bobbysocks]

That formation wouldn't be used after contact with enemy aircraft, but while in transit, to keep from getting jumped by enemy aircraft en route. The Vic or Finger Four wouldn't have been used during actual dogfights either.



-Irish

No. after contact it usually broke down to the lead element going after a target while his wingman providing cover. many times it was mass confusion and could get spread out over miles and various altitudes. a lot of times leads and wingmen were on their own on flight home.

 

[Greyman]

Clair Lee Chennault even used to fly in a Vic with the three airplanes tied together with rope.

Reminds me of another anecdote from Wing Commander (then Pilot Officer) High Godefroy, RCAF;

In our flight there were two Poles who didn't speak a word of English. They had flown in the Polish Air Force defending Warsaw. The Flight Commander, in desperation one day, said to me:​

​

'Godefroy, take these two Poles up for an hour's formation, there's a good chap.'​

​

'They don't understand a word I say, Sir.'​

​

'I'm not surprised,' he said, 'but go on, do the best you can, you do all the nattering with Founder. At least these fellows understand the standard hand signals, that's a start, isn't it? Get cracking then.'​

​

I took the two Poles into a corner, and after elaborate exchanges of courtesy, I tried to get down to briefing, confining myself to hand signals and grunts. Surprisingly enough, we seemed to establish complete understanding so we got into our Hurricanes and taxied out.​

​

I felt a little conspicuous with them taxiing in formation on me. We took up half the field. I turned around into the wind and stopped. They crossed over behind me and stationed themselves in V-formation about two-and-a-half wingspans out. I waved them to come a little closer. They both turned around and, this time, came in so close that our wings overlapped -- their props ticking over frighteningly close to my wing tips. There was only one way out of this mess, I thought, straight ahead. I briskly opened my throttle in the hope of leaving them behind. To my alarm, I found that they had managed to stay with me, their props still turning a hair's breadth from my wing tips. At first, I was afraid to do anything but go straight ahead. Gradually I started turns, shallow at first, and then into a full ninety degree bank. They were there, as if bolted to my wing tips. Finally, I came back across the field down wind and gave them the horizontal half-circle wave that means 'break off and land independently.' They never budged. I did several circles of the field while pointing down and repeating the signal. They still didn't budge. At this stage of my career I had never landed in formation. Hoping they would understand, I put my wheels down. So did they. I led them around until I was on final approach and put my flaps down. Still attached to my wing tips like a couple of lampreys, so did they. At this point, I was thoroughly unnerved. Aware of my own limitations, I realized that if I didn't land smoothly straight ahead, we would all end in a chewed up pile of rubble. Fortunately for me, it was one of my 'greasers.' When I stopped rolling they were still in formation with me and proceeded to taxi with me back to Dispersal in the same order. ​

​

When we got out they came over to me with broad grins, and nodding their heads, said: 'Good?'​

​

'Too good,' I said.​

​

​