Schweiks Sim vs. Real Flying Debate Thread

[Schweik]

Adds up

yes but it is also the adaptation by Allied pilots to Luftwaffe fighters (and I would say also to some extent, Italian fighters) that generally had a higher combat speed and relied a lot on hit and run.

You mean they were already under attack and as everything's in disarray they get blipped out by somebody?

Yes like after the bounce (by either side), and combat is swirling around a bit, it gets hard to track every threat (this is perhaps one area in which mediocre and good fighter pilots are different) the really fast planes relative to their opponents - especially those which climb well and keep a high combat speed* - excel and become particularly dangerous.

Again - this is to be taken with a grain of salt and probably will be dismissed altogether, but in Sims like Il2, in early to mid-war Allied fighters you are often safer when the combat is spread out horizontally than when it is stacked up vertically. In the latter situation you are in very bad danger when there are 109s or Fw around.

Later in the war with planes like the Spit IX, Yak 3 and Mustang Allies gain the advantage in this regard arguably.

Ambush, get the drop, and get out...

That is basically Luftwaffe fighter doctrine, but it has it's limits. As has already been mentioned, it doesn't adapt as well to an escort role as was noticed in the BoB, nor does it lend itself well to situations in which a steady attrition is not sufficient, i.e. for example when enemy fighters are attacking your base, or must be stopped from sinking a ship or something. When the fight needs to be pressed home in other words.

Then they switch to their second favorite tactic of mostly vertical slashing attacks made on a continuous basis. Hunting around the combat area, keeping speed up to avoid getting bounced, and seeking out victims for surprise attacks. This is also similar how a lot of Allied planes fought Japanese fighters in the Mid-to-Late war. It wasn't as simple as just bouncing and boom and zoom. The difference is though that only some of the Allied fighters used climb (P-38) most of the others basically extended and kept the speed up but in a more horizontal plane.

S

* which is not always the same as a good top speed

 

[GregP]

Flight Sims have nothing to do with actual combat.

 

[Schweik]

Flight Sims have nothing to do with actual combat.

I knew somebody would say that pretty quickly.

My argument doesn't hinge on "evidence" from Flight Sims, of which I said and I quote - "this is to be taken with a grain of salt and probably will be dismissed altogether"

But while I don't expect to convince anyone of this, personally and speaking only for myself, I disagree that flight sims have zero merit in understanding air combat. They use them to train pilots. Simulations are used to test all kinds of things. War games (including tabletop and computer simulated games) are used to train officers. The games we have access to today may not be up to that hard core military standard, but some of them available at the time of this posting (Summer 2018) have gotten remarkably accurate to the flying experience of 60 years ago. The flight models, engine management, ballistics, stall characteristics etc. are pretty well portrayed. I'm not a pilot myself but I do have a few hours in a log book and have flown a plane so I have some basis to compare. Others far more experienced than I have noted the same thing - including actual WW2 Aces incidentally.

What a Sim is potentially useful in doing, at least a good one like Il2, is putting realistic data together so you can experience it over time and space. It is perhaps debatable how useful it is yet, but to suggest it has no relationship whatsoever to actual flying seems to be overstating things. I will say it is educational, and sometimes compares favorably to guesswork based purely on written statistics, I'll leave it at that.

My main point is that the description by Zipper730, who if I read his post correctly dealt with numerous actual combat veterans - Aces- and even conducted a survey among them, jibes with my own reading of commentary by other pilots. I said it convinces me, I didn't say it had to convince you.

The flight sim correlation is just a little icing on the proverbial cake. Feel free to ignore it.

S

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I knew somebody would say that pretty quickly.

My argument doesn't hinge on "evidence" from Flight Sims, of which I said and I quote - "this is to be taken with a grain of salt and probably will be dismissed altogether"

But while I don't expect to convince anyone of this, personally and speaking only for myself, I disagree that flight sims have zero merit in understanding air combat. They use them to train pilots. Simulations are used to test all kinds of things. War games (including tabletop and computer simulated games) are used to train officers. The games we have access to today may not be up to that hard core military standard, but some of them available at the time of this posting (Summer 2018) have gotten remarkably accurate to the flying experience of 60 years ago. The flight models, engine management, ballistics, stall characteristics etc. are pretty well portrayed. I'm not a pilot myself but I do have a few hours in a log book and have flown a plane so I have some basis to compare. Others far more experienced than I have noted the same thing - including actual WW2 Aces incidentally.

View attachment 501413


What a Sim is potentially useful in doing, at least a good one like Il2, is putting realistic data together so you can experience it over time and space. It is perhaps debatable how useful it is yet, but to suggest it has no relationship whatsoever to actual flying seems to be overstating things. I will say it is educational, and sometimes compares favorably to guesswork based purely on written statistics, I'll leave it at that.

My main point is that the description by Zipper730, who if I read his post correctly dealt with numerous actual combat veterans - Aces- and even conducted a survey among them, jibes with my own reading of commentary by other pilots. I said it convinces me, I didn't say it had to convince you.

The flight sim correlation is just a little icing on the proverbial cake. Feel free to ignore it.

S

All good but you're missing one thing, well actually several things - the actual inner ear physical stimulus, physical loads, sights, sounds and smells of being in a REAL airplane. While it could provide you with good "by the numbers" data, in the end you'll never be able to fully simulate actual combat, and without this you could never fully model or predict how actual combat scenarios will pan out but if you want to get a close comparison, the next time you're sitting at your computer, turn the heat up in that room to 95 degrees, have some carbon monoxide from a running car piped into the room, wear a full face O2 mask, strap on a harness that restricts your head and torso moments, have someone douse you with cold water every 5 minutes and finally get a 300 pound person to sit on you every time you pull Gs. That's for starters

 

[Schweik]

All good but you're missing one thing, well actually several things - the actual inner ear physical stimulus, physical loads, sights, sounds and smells of being in a REAL airplane. While it could provide you with good "by the numbers" data, in the end you'll never be able to fully simulate actual combat, and without this you could never fully model or predict how actual combat scenarios will pan out but if you want to get a close comparison, the next time you're sitting at your computer, turn the heat up in that room to 95 degrees, have some carbon monoxide from a running car piped into the room, wear a full face O2 mask, strap on a harness that restricts your head and torso moments, have someone douse you with cold water every 5 minutes and finally get a 300 pound person to sit on you every time you pull Gs. That's for starters

I understand, believe it or not I'm not stupid. As I said before, I am no pilot but I have a tiny amount of flight time myself so I have been inside an aircraft cockpit. Simulations are very limited but can (in my opinion) nevertheless give you a sense of what it's like to fly a plane, to maneuver against another etc..

Does the navy, marines and air force use flight simulators or not?

(edited for brevity)

I know it's very limited, and I have seen before how the very concept seems to irritate people on here, but my personal opinion is that the more accurate Sims, which for me was Il2, do give you some insights. I certainly wouldn't call it evidence, it's just kind of a way to test things. For example over the years when I played Sims (I don't much any more) I was able to read tactics from personal accounts by fighter pilots and apply them in the game and they worked. For example using the Low Yo Yo against a Zero. You don't smell cordite or feel weight of turning G's on your chest but the game will black you out if you pull G's (if you black out going 300 mph it's bad) and when set to a realistic mode (i.e. with no help from icons etc.) it does a very good job of giving you the sense of danger of not being able to see behind you.

S

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I understand, believe it or not I'm not stupid. As I said before, I am no pilot but I have a tiny amount of flight time myself so I have been inside an aircraft cockpit. Simulations are very limited but can (in my opinion) nevertheless give you a sense of what it's like to fly a plane, to maneuver against another etc..

Does the navy, marines and air force use flight simulators or not?

So quit while you're ahead.

Yes, the military makes great use of simulators, but in the end your combat quals come from actual flying.

Biff!

 

[Schweik]

So quit while you're ahead.

Yes, the military makes great use of simulators, but in the end your combat quals come from actual flying.

Biff!

Fair enough. Lets stick to the point about the survey of Aces Barret mentioned upthread, which refutes the "80% of pilots shot down never saw their attacker" Trope, and in fact flips it.

My point was that if this indeed came from an Eric Hartmann memoir, that makes sense since it was German doctrine to at least try to fight that way. Hartmann was an unusually, you might say ridiculously exceptional pilot with extraordinary discipline, so maybe he really did get 80% of his victories that way. And maybe many other Experten did the same.

But that doesn't make it a universal pattern for all pilots flying for all nations. Or even for the Luftwaffe.

S

 

[Zipper730]

View attachment 501413

I could just imagine a bunch of gamers thinking: "So that's the reason we've all been getting our asses whooped? Man, we lost like 50 people last time we were playing...

 

[BiffF15]

So quit while you're ahead.

Yes, the military makes great use of simulators, but in the end your combat quals come from actual flying.

Biff!

Completely concur! There is training to be gained from flying a sim, both normal and emergency procedures (as with all planes and more an operator focus) plus some combat type stuff that you "can't do" in the jet for various reasons. However the majority of your experience will come from being in and operating the jet. There is no substitute for the real thing.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Schweik]

Completely concur! There is training to be gained from flying a sim, both normal and emergency procedures (as with all planes and more an operator focus) plus some combat type stuff that you "can't do" in the jet for various reasons. However the majority of your experience will come from being in and operating the jet. There is no substitute for the real thing.

Cheers,
Biff

I never said the Sim was a substitute for the real thing - I said you (or at least, those of us who aren't pilots) can learn something from a good Sim. And sometimes you'll see the things that pilots described. That's all I said.

S

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I knew somebody would say that pretty quickly.

My argument doesn't hinge on "evidence" from Flight Sims, of which I said and I quote - "this is to be taken with a grain of salt and probably will be dismissed altogether"

But while I don't expect to convince anyone of this, personally and speaking only for myself, I disagree that flight sims have zero merit in understanding air combat. They use them to train pilots. Simulations are used to test all kinds of things. War games (including tabletop and computer simulated games) are used to train officers. The games we have access to today may not be up to that hard core military standard, but some of them available at the time of this posting (Summer 2018) have gotten remarkably accurate to the flying experience of 60 years ago. The flight models, engine management, ballistics, stall characteristics etc. are pretty well portrayed. I'm not a pilot myself but I do have a few hours in a log book and have flown a plane so I have some basis to compare. Others far more experienced than I have noted the same thing - including actual WW2 Aces incidentally.

View attachment 501413


What a Sim is potentially useful in doing, at least a good one like Il2, is putting realistic data together so you can experience it over time and space. It is perhaps debatable how useful it is yet, but to suggest it has no relationship whatsoever to actual flying seems to be overstating things. I will say it is educational, and sometimes compares favorably to guesswork based purely on written statistics, I'll leave it at that.

My main point is that the description by Zipper730, who if I read his post correctly dealt with numerous actual combat veterans - Aces- and even conducted a survey among them, jibes with my own reading of commentary by other pilots. I said it convinces me, I didn't say it had to convince you.

The flight sim correlation is just a little icing on the proverbial cake. Feel free to ignore it.

S

Flight sims are good for teaching procedures, but they do very little for combat flying. Especially the computer GAMES you are playing.

You don't get the sights, sounds, smells. You don't feel the effects on your body from turning, climbing, diving or G-Forces.

Most importantly, you are sitting in the comfort of your basement, not feeling the life or death fear of "it's him or me".

No, don't even bring up Il-2 in a serious discussion...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I never said the Sim was a substitute for the real thing - I said you (or at least, those of us who aren't pilots) can learn something from a good Sim. And sometimes you'll see the things that pilots described. That's all I said.

S

Maybe if you had a full motion sim, and then it is best for procedural things like instrument training.

PC based sims, are great and fun for being games.

 

[pbehn]

On any flight simulator run on a PC you see the enemy when the computer wants you to, eyesight was a major part in deciding who started of in the best position.

 

[Schweik]

On any flight simulator run on a PC you see the enemy when the computer wants you to, eyesight was a major part in deciding who started of in the best position.

Actually - no. In Il2 (at the high "realism" setting aka "Full Switch") you'll just see a very faint dot if they are in range to be seen (which depends on weather conditions and time of day), and IF you look in the right place at the right time and notice a tiny discoloration, which means scanning the sky constantly. It's also very hard to see things coming up behind you particularly in 'razorback' planes- so you have to rely on your wingman or other pilots to warn you via radio / coms.

You also have weather like haze, clouds and fog which will further obscure your vision. And pilots doing a bounce will often come in out of the Sun which makes them harder to spot.

IFF is also a challenge because you can't even identify the aircraft until it's very close.



This whole discussion of Flight Sims, while interesting, is definitely a distraction from this conversation and the OP (which is worthy of looking into) so maybe we should start another thread.

S

 

[pbehn]

Actually - no. In Il2 (at the high "realism" setting aka "Full Switch") you'll just see a very faint dot if they are in range to be seen (which depends on weather conditions and time of day), and IF you look in the right place at the right time and notice a tiny discoloration, which means scanning the sky constantly. It's also very hard to see things coming up behind you particularly in 'razorback' planes- so you have to rely on your wingman or other pilots to warn you via radio / coms.

You also have weather like haze, clouds and fog which will further obscure your vision. And pilots doing a bounce will often come in out of the Sun which makes them harder to spot.

IFF is also a challenge because you can't even identify the aircraft until it's very close.



This whole discussion of Flight Sims, while interesting, is definitely a distraction from this conversation and the OP (which is worthy of looking into) so maybe we should start another thread.

S

In an open sky your eyes focus about 20 to 40 ft away, it takes training and "genetics" to have good eye sight, this cannot be simulated on a computer, your eyes focus on the screen. This is why a high flying plane is easier to see with high cloud and why sometimes you can see a plane but if you look away it disappears, your eyes are no longer focussed at infinity.

 

[Schweik]

In an open sky your eyes focus about 20 to 40 ft away, it takes training and "genetics" to have good eye sight, this cannot be simulated on a computer, your eyes focus on the screen. This is why a high flying plane is easier to see with high cloud and why sometimes you can see a plane but if you look away it disappears, your eyes are no longer focussed at infinity.

I am not an Opthamologist, but I think the experience is pretty similar and I don't buy your argument which is only a subset of the debate over the merits of Sims, and which I think you are overstating. Yes you do need 20-20 (or better) vision to be a military pilot but that certainly isn't rare among young people - I had 20-15 vision when I was in the service and I was just a lowly medic. Learning to spot things at very long distances is also not entirely rare. If you have ever been hunting for certain types of game, or just practiced marksmanship, or if you have experience sailing or many other outdoor activities, you have probably honed this skill somewhat.

But I can see this is going to be a continual distraction on this thread, as it has been zeroed in upon instead of the main point (the larger issue per the OP, a long standing trope which I have learned in this thread may have originated from an offhanded remark in a biography of one German pilot, and the part I was interested in specifically - the Aces survey showing only about a 20% bounce rate - in the opinions of the actual combat Aces themselves).

This kind of derail into minutae is pretty typical in forum discussions and I can see I am not sufficiently respected here for an 'agree to disagree' clause on this particular side issue which I myself was foolish enough to introduce. So I'll start another thread for the debate about the merits of Flight Sims and other games in understanding air combat. I knew there were opinions on that around here but I didn't realize how strongly held.

I'll be frank though, while I don't want to get into a big argument with two mods and half of the rest of the board, and I understand there is a consensus in here on the issue, that doesn't mean it's the Last Word. I'm not a 17 year old kid, I'm not a fool, and I'm not ignorant. I've been around a bit, and I dislike being talked down to on this or any other issue, by you or anyone else.

S

 

[pbehn]

I am not an Opthamologist, but I think the experience is pretty similar and I don't buy your argument which is only a subset of the debate over the merits of Sims, and which I think you are overstating. Yes you do need 20-20 (or better) vision to be a military pilot but that certainly isn't rare among young people - I had 20-15 vision when I was in the service and I was just a lowly medic. Learning to spot things at very long distances is also not entirely rare. If you have ever been hunting for certain types of game, or just practiced marksmanship, or if you have experience sailing or many other outdoor activities, you have probably honed this skill somewhat.

But I can see this is going to be a continual distraction on this thread, as it has been zeroed in upon instead of the main point (the larger issue per the OP, a long standing trope which I have learned in this thread may have originated from an offhanded remark in a biography of one German pilot, and the part I was interested in specifically - the Aces survey showing only about a 20% bounce rate - in the opinions of the actual combat Aces themselves).

This kind of derail into minutae is pretty typical in forum discussions and I can see I am not sufficiently respected here for an 'agree to disagree' clause on this particular side issue which I myself was foolish enough to introduce. So I'll start another thread for the debate about the merits of Flight Sims and other games in understanding air combat. I knew there were opinions on that around here but I didn't realize how strongly held.

I'll be frank though, while I don't want to get into a big argument with two mods and half of the rest of the board, and I understand there is a consensus in here on the issue, that doesn't mean it's the Last Word. I'm not a 17 year old kid, I'm not a fool, and I'm not ignorant. I've been around a bit, and I dislike being talked down to on this or any other issue, by you or anyone else.

S

You don't have to buy my argument, my uncle was in the ROC and explained it to me.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am not an Opthamologist, but I think the experience is pretty similar and I don't buy your argument which is only a subset of the debate over the merits of Sims, and which I think you are overstating. Yes you do need 20-20 (or better) vision to be a military pilot but that certainly isn't rare among young people - I had 20-15 vision when I was in the service and I was just a lowly medic. Learning to spot things at very long distances is also not entirely rare. If you have ever been hunting for certain types of game, or just practiced marksmanship, or if you have experience sailing or many other outdoor activities, you have probably honed this skill somewhat.

But I can see this is going to be a continual distraction on this thread, as it has been zeroed in upon instead of the main point (the larger issue per the OP, a long standing trope which I have learned in this thread may have originated from an offhanded remark in a biography of one German pilot, and the part I was interested in specifically - the Aces survey showing only about a 20% bounce rate - in the opinions of the actual combat Aces themselves).

This kind of derail into minutae is pretty typical in forum discussions and I can see I am not sufficiently respected here for an 'agree to disagree' clause on this particular side issue which I myself was foolish enough to introduce. So I'll start another thread for the debate about the merits of Flight Sims and other games in understanding air combat. I knew there were opinions on that around here but I didn't realize how strongly held.

I'll be frank though, while I don't want to get into a big argument with two mods and half of the rest of the board, and I understand there is a consensus in here on the issue, that doesn't mean it's the Last Word. I'm not a 17 year old kid, I'm not a fool, and I'm not ignorant. I've been around a bit, and I dislike being talked down to on this or any other issue, by you or anyone else.

S

You don't need 20-20 vision to be a military pilot. As long as they are correctable to 20-20 with corrective lenses.

And actually there is a technique that must be learned and taught for scanning and viewing. All pilots and aircrew are required to learn it. I learned as a flight crew member in the military and as a civilian pilot.

You don't get that viewing from a flat screen TV sitting 20 inches in front of your face. It simply is not the same thing.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Just stumbled on this thread, and my blood pressure is up! One parting shot before the flight sim discussion goes away. As a career pilot and former flight sim technician, it's clear to me that non-aircrew people HAVE NO CREDIBILITY in a discussion of the applicability of civilian flight sims to understanding combat flying!!
I ran an F-4 radar interception simulator. I've been in the back seat of an F-4 and an A-4 engaged in ACM training. I've maintained and flown a B727 simulator and have had hundreds of hours on PC flight sims and thousands of hours in the air and taught several hundred people to fly. Adler's right. Sims are good for procedures and crew training, but they "ain't real"!
Cheers,
Wes

 

[BiffF15]

I am not an Opthamologist, but I think the experience is pretty similar and I don't buy your argument which is only a subset of the debate over the merits of Sims, and which I think you are overstating. Yes you do need 20-20 (or better) vision to be a military pilot but that certainly isn't rare among young people - I had 20-15 vision when I was in the service and I was just a lowly medic. Learning to spot things at very long distances is also not entirely rare. If you have ever been hunting for certain types of game, or just practiced marksmanship, or if you have experience sailing or many other outdoor activities, you have probably honed this skill somewhat.

S

Schweik,

I'm going to disagree with part of your comments. First I agree it can be learned, and second I disagree it's the same as learning to spot things at a distance on the ground. Looking at the sky in a scan allows your eyes to focus on nothing, which in turn makes it difficult for long range tally's. Eyes spot movement first or most easily, but a bug spot, glare, dust, etc., all make it difficult to get and maintain a long range tally. Over the ocean it can be more difficult due to no discernible horizon at times. Add boredom, the mind wanders and again it's easy to miss a guy at you visual limit. Trust me I used to teach this.

Cheers,
Biff