Why was dogfighting a thing?

[Acheron]

From what I understand, the narrower definition of dogfighting means aircraft trying to out-turn each other and getting behind the opponent to shoot him down. For this, maneuverability is paramount. In WWII, aircraft designed for this were to my knowledge repeatedly defeated by aircraft focusing on speed instead of agility and using boom-and-zoom tactics and "energy management".

I think I get this, with the faster aircraft, you go in fast on the enemy, make a strafing pass and get out before he can retaliate, that is basically the idea right? But what I don't understan, why was maneuver-focussed dogfighting ever a thing then? How was it in WWI? The triplanes sacrificed speed for agility, why weren't they dispatched by less maneuverable but faster aircraft using such tactics?

 

[ThomasP]

I would say the main reason energy maneuverability was not used more in WWI is simply that the energy available was so low. The Fokker Dr.I Triplane had a Vmax of a little over 100 mph, Fokker D.VII about 130 mph, the fastest Sopwith Camel about 120 mph, the Spad XIII about 130 mph, and the Se.5a about 138 mph. The best rates of climb for any of the WWI fighters was about 1100 ft/min at sea level (with most of the better performers in the 750-1000 ft/min range) and since none of the engines were supercharged the climb rates only decreased with altitude. Time to climb to 20,000 ft was at best over 30 minutes, and some(most?) of the aircraft listed above had service ceilings of less than 20,000 ft. There was some use of boom and wannabe-zoom tactics used in the later war with the advent of the faster aircraft.

Because of the relatively low energy available to the aircraft, level and descending relatively low-G turns were available, but any kind of serious climbing turns were pretty much impossible. Half loop with roll-off was good. What was later called a high yo-yo (Immelmann) was OK. Any kind of barrel roll was problematic. If you dove on the target and went below the target's altitude to any significant degree there was a good chance you would never get back up to height and have a chance to re-engage.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

How was it in WWI? The triplanes sacrificed speed for agility, why weren't they dispatched by less maneuverable but faster aircraft using such tactics?

Technology...

 

[Snautzer01]

And tactics. Ww1 commanders are not very well known to be tactical wizards nor prone to adopt new tactics. Far from it.

 

[MikeMeech]

And tactics. Ww1 commanders are not very well known to be tactical wizards nor prone to adopt new tactics. Far from it.

Hi

I thought 'all' air tactics were 'new' during WW1 as they had no precedence to go on. Thoughts on 'air tactics' did change and alter during the war various publications of the time did discuss this. On the British side there are, for example, 'Notes on Aeroplane Fighting in Single-Seater Scouts' of November 1916, 'Fighting in the Air' of March 1917, 'Development of Aerial Fighting' of December 1917 and 'Fighting in the Air' (again) February 1918. Much of the information of these documents would have come from 'post action' discussion on the squadrons during which notes were taken and relevant information of interest sent up the chain of command to be consolidated and published. Other air arms would have been doing similar.

Mike

 

[tyrodtom]

I think you're assigning too much importance on the DR1, it was only a front line fighter for a little longer than 6 months of the war.

There were more than 10 times more Albatross DIII, and DV produced, and the Red Baron only shot down 19 of his total 80 aircraft in a Dr1.

The Albatross in it's various series would definitely be called, if they had used the term then, a boom and zoom fighter.

Once you ignore the Hollywood conception of WW1 aerial combat, and read about it in dept, you'll realize most of the aces preferred preferred to get the task over with quick, and only did any dogfighting when they had no other choice.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

"Find the enemy and shoot him down. Anything else is nonsense."
— Manfred von Richthofen

 

[fubar57]

Hauptmann (Captain) Oswald Boelcke

Dicta Boelcke - Wikipedia

 

[pbehn]

"Find the enemy and shoot him down. Anything else is nonsense."
— Manfred von Richthofen

According to this (in the last paragraph) Even the good Baron valued speed and height over turning performance. Deadly Duo: Sopwith Camel and Fokker Triplane.

 

[MikeMeech]

Hi

The 'Notes on Aeroplane Fighting in Single-Seater Scouts' of November 1916 is below. The later documents I mentioned tend to have more pages, they are all in volumes of 'War in the Air', the Official History which is also available on-line as a free download.

Mike

 

[GregP]

Look at it like this. There were two sides, us and them (didn't matter which side was "we" and which was "them").

In WWI, there was no radar. If we, by chance, happened across them, we attacked because we were at war. We tried to inflict maximum casualties. That's how the dogfight was born.

In WWII, the weapons were a bit faster and more deadly. Sometimes we or they, or both we and they had radar and we got vectored in by ground control to them. Other times, we happened across them by chance. However we found them, we attacked because we were at war. We tried to inflict maximum casualties. That's how the dogfight continued to be used.

It was the same in Korea and Viet Nam except, in Viet Nam, we had missiles that sometimes worked. The dogfight was still the way it was done.

It might surprise many to know there were "dogfights" between Navy Patrol Flying Boats and fighters. The U.S. Navy Flying Boats did VERY well against fighters. Their kill ratio was outstanding. The Short Sunderland was known as "the flying porcupine" for a reason and was NOT an easy target. There were fights between bombers and ships / submarines. The victor was not always the airplane. But, it was war. So, when we found them, we attacked and tried to inflict maximum casualties. Sometimes, they found us, but the result was usually the same. Both sides fought and tried to win.

It didn't matter if we had faster airplanes or they did. When we met them there was a fight. The side with the faster airplanes could break off combat whenever they wanted to. The side with the slower airplanes was in the fight until the fight was over or the faster airplanes decided to depart. Both sides tried to inflict maximum casualties whenever there was a dogfight.

Trying to tell a young, confident fighter pilot not to attack was like trying to tell a high school boy driving a sports car that he wasn't the world's best driver or lover. He just wasn't going to listen and knew better. So, being smart, the leaders tried to train the young fighter pilots fight with the best tactics they could devise at the time with the planes they were flying. But they never said, "don't go forth and dogfight" except in the case of the Japanese Zero. In that case, they said, "don't go forth and dogfight or you will die. Instead, attack a Zero in this different manner and you will do much better than in a dogfight." The "different manner" was essentially boom and zoom, or energy maneuvering. The young pilots mostly listened because they did not especially wanting to die ... mostly. Experience produced success ... mostly. Later, they KNEW how to fighter a Zero from positive combat experience. Today, we still dogfight in an aerial conflict when the politicians let us. A victory is WAY more expensive when we expend a million dollar missile for a kill, but we do it anyway when we dogfight ... mostly.

 

[Snautzer01]

Hi

I thought 'all' air tactics were 'new' during WW1 as they had no precedence to go on. Thoughts on 'air tactics' did change and alter during the war various publications of the time did discuss this. On the British side there are, for example, 'Notes on Aeroplane Fighting in Single-Seater Scouts' of November 1916, 'Fighting in the Air' of March 1917, 'Development of Aerial Fighting' of December 1917 and 'Fighting in the Air' (again) February 1918. Much of the information of these documents would have come from 'post action' discussion on the squadrons during which notes were taken and relevant information of interest sent up the chain of command to be consolidated and published. Other air arms would have been doing similar.

Mike

That is just it. Sent it in the chain blablabla 500 men lost. Remember the Fokker scource? . No. Command was fighting a 1850 war with a 1850 was machine. To bad it had evolved. But no worries only the lower classed will bleed. The 5 o clock cherry is being served. That the important bit.

 

[Acheron]

I would say the main reason energy maneuverability was not used more in WWI is simply that the energy available was so low. The Fokker Dr.I Triplane had a Vmax of a little over 100 mph, Fokker D.VII about 130 mph, the fastest Sopwith Camel about 120 mph, the Spad XIII about 130 mph, and the Se.5a about 138 mph. The best rates of climb for any of the WWI fighters was about 1100 ft/min at sea level (with most of the better performers in the 750-1000 ft/min range) and since none of the engines were supercharged the climb rates only decreased with altitude. Time to climb to 20,000 ft was at best over 30 minutes, and some(most?) of the aircraft listed above had service ceilings of less than 20,000 ft. There was some use of boom and wannabe-zoom tactics used in the later war with the advent of the faster aircraft.

Because of the relatively low energy available to the aircraft, level and descending relatively low-G turns were available, but any kind of serious climbing turns were pretty much impossible. Half loop with roll-off was good. What was later called a high yo-yo (Immelmann) was OK. Any kind of barrel roll was problematic. If you dove on the target and went below the target's altitude to any significant degree there was a good chance you would never get back up to height and have a chance to re-engage.

Thank you T ThomasP for a good theory.

To the rest: I brought up the Fokker Dr I as an example of an aircraft of which it must have been obvious that it would be slower than contemporary biplanes. That it was build and introduced (in an elite unit nonetheless) indicates to me, that the disadvantage in speed was not considered decisive.
Early in WWII, there were many a fighter optimized more for agility than speed, correct? If you develop such a fighter, you probably envision close-turns-combat instead of boom-and-zoom.

WWI pitted the industrial and scientific strength of major powers against each other for years. So I wonder why boom-and-zoom didn't come to pass a war early. That none of the major powers figured it out by a fluke just doesn't seem likely to me, so I suspect that the difference in the aircraft used forced other tactics.

 

[pbehn]

Thank you T ThomasP for a good theory.

To the rest: I brought up the Fokker Dr I as an example of an aircraft of which it must have been obvious that it would be slower than contemporary biplanes. That it was build and introduced (in an elite unit nonetheless) indicates to me, that the disadvantage in speed was not considered decisive.
Early in WWII, there were many a fighter optimized more for agility than speed, correct? If you develop such a fighter, you probably envision close-turns-combat instead of boom-and-zoom.

WWI pitted the industrial and scientific strength of major powers against each other for years. So I wonder why boom-and-zoom didn't come to pass a war early. That none of the major powers figured it out by a fluke just doesn't seem likely to me, so I suspect that the difference in the aircraft used forced other tactics.

It doesn't work so well on low powered, low weight high drag bi and tri planes, like making a clock pendulum with a tennis ball.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Today, we still dogfight in an aerial conflict when the politicians let us. A victory is WAY more expensive when we expend a million dollar missile for a kill, but we do it anyway when we dogfight ... mostly.

Actually we DON'T want to dogfight when politicians allow us to engage. The million dollar missile pricetag is irrelevant with regards to combat effectiveness and completion of the mission and more important the survival of the pilot. In today's world if you're in a VR dogfight it's because you're restricted by some politician's ROEs or something went very wrong and if it's the latter you pissed away several million dollars worth of technology. AFAIK there hasn't been a VR gun kill in a modern large scale engagement since before the Israel/ Syrian conflict and during that conflict, all Israel's aerial victories were accomplished with missiles. During the Gulf war there was one in close VR "dogfight" occurring between Col. Cesar Rodriguez and Captain Jameel Sayhood. Sayhood was driven into the ground trying to evade Rodriguez. IIRC there have been several BVR kills since that time. There have been A-10 gun kills against helicopters but I don't think we can really place those chance encounters in this category.

Does all this mean we forget about the traditional dogfight? No. We still need to train for the classic air to air engagement should one have to go to plan C. Must we efficiently use our weaponry to the fullest advantage to quickly neutralize an opponent? Absolutely! And right now the most efficient way to accomplish this is with an air-to-air missile(s). Should the gun go away? IMO at this time, no, it's a final option and a necessary backup.

We need to detach ourselves from the romantic dogfight and understand that in this day and age a BVR engagement will be the norm, especially if you factor in UCAVs.

Three interesting documents addressing this;

https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/Air-to-Air-Report-.pdf

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/06.pdf

Usefulness of BVR combat

 

[pbehn]

Actually we DON'T want to dogfight when politicians allow us to engage. The million dollar missile is irrelevant with regards to combat effectiveness and completion of the mission and more important the survival of the pilot. In today's world if you're in a VR dogfight it's because you're restricted by some politician's ROEs or something went very wrong and if it's the latter you pissed away several million dollars worth of technology. AFAIK there hasn't been a VR gun kill in a modern large scale engagement since before the Israel/ Syrian conflict and during that conflict, all Israel's aerial victories were accomplished with missiles. During the Gulf war there was one VR "dogfight" occurring between Col. Cesar Rodriguez and Captain Jameel Sayhood. Sayhood was driven into the ground trying to evade Rodriguez. IIRC there have been 4 BVR kills since that time. There have been A-10 gun kills against helicopters but I don't think we can really place those chance encounters in this category.

Does all this mean we forget about the traditional dogfight? No. We still need to train for the classic air to air engagement should one have to go to plan C. Must we efficiently use our weaponry to the fullest advantage to quickly neutralize an opponent? Absolutely! And right now the most efficient way to accomplish this is with an air-to-air missile(s). Should the gun go away? IMO at this time, no, it's a final option and a necessary backup.

We need to detach ourselves from the romantic dogfight and understand that in this day and age a BVR engagement will be the norm, especially if you factor in UCAVs.

Three interesting documents addressing this;

https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/Air-to-Air-Report-.pdf

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/06.pdf

Usefulness of BVR combat

With WW2 fighters doing a nominal 300MPH if they go in opposite directions for 10 seconds they are a mile apart, and close to "beyond visual range" which is why pilots so often found they were suddenly alone in the sky.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

With WW2 fighters doing a nominal 300MPH if they go in opposite directions for 10 seconds they are a mile apart, and close to "beyond visual range" which is why pilots so often found they were suddenly alone in the sky.

Yep and that was a dynamic of that era. Many pilots would not even engage unless they knew they were in an optimum tactical position. Being alone in the sky and attempting to chase an adversary that you just lost sight of was a recipe for disaster.

 

[BiffF15]

Actually we DON'T want to dogfight when politicians allow us to engage. The million dollar missile is irrelevant with regards to combat effectiveness and completion of the mission and more important the survival of the pilot. In today's world if you're in a VR dogfight it's because you're restricted by some politician's ROEs or something went very wrong and if it's the latter you pissed away several million dollars worth of technology. AFAIK there hasn't been a VR gun kill in a modern large scale engagement since before the Israel/ Syrian conflict and during that conflict, all Israel's aerial victories were accomplished with missiles. During the Gulf war there was one VR "dogfight" occurring between Col. Cesar Rodriguez and Captain Jameel Sayhood. Sayhood was driven into the ground trying to evade Rodriguez. IIRC there have been several BVR kills since that time. There have been A-10 gun kills against helicopters but I don't think we can really place those chance encounters in this category.

Does all this mean we forget about the traditional dogfight? No. We still need to train for the classic air to air engagement should one have to go to plan C. Must we efficiently use our weaponry to the fullest advantage to quickly neutralize an opponent? Absolutely! And right now the most efficient way to accomplish this is with an air-to-air missile(s). Should the gun go away? IMO at this time, no, it's a final option and a necessary backup.

We need to detach ourselves from the romantic dogfight and understand that in this day and age a BVR engagement will be the norm, especially if you factor in UCAVs.

Three interesting documents addressing this;

https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/Air-to-Air-Report-.pdf

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/06.pdf

Usefulness of BVR combat

FBJ is correct. Engaging in a WVR (with in visual range) fight is to increase the risk of being successfully targeted by your opposition. BVR (Beyond Visual Range) is optimum. However we train to both. The odds of us ending up in a battle with similar numbers is low, so the WVR battle is taught and practiced. There are also a number of reasons one could end up in a visual fight (lame duck / damaged aircraft, non-working ID systems and a must defend target, superior numbers, electronic attack, stealth). Example of a must defend target, think aircraft carrier that is damaged, or a non movable target.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[FLYBOYJ]

FBJ is correct. Engaging in a WVR (with in visual range) fight is to increase the risk of being successfully targeted by your opposition. BVR (Beyond Visual Range) is optimum. However we train to both. The odds of us ending up in a battle with similar numbers is low, so the WVR battle is taught and practiced. There are also a number of reasons one could end up in a visual fight (lame duck / damaged aircraft, non-working ID systems and a must defend target, superior numbers, electronic attack, stealth). Example of a must defend target, think aircraft carrier that is damaged, or a non movable target.

Cheers,
Biff

"Must defend target." Excellent point!!

 

[GrauGeist]

There was more to having a maneuverable aircraft than just being able to turn in a fight.
An example, "Swede" was able to spoil his attackers (who were VERY maneuverable) by turning into them and thus staying alive just a little longer each time.

In WWI, the first "dogfight" were a running battle between two observation planes, each observer shooting sidearms at each other as their planes flew alongside each other. As the airwar progressed, new tactics had to be adopted and this was most often trial an error.
Head-on attacks were risky as hell, attacking from begind (especially if the opponent was unaware) was far safer. However, the vast majority of pilots didn't like the idea of being shot down, so they'd turn away from the aggressor, who would follow: Voila! The dogfight was born.

WWII saw alot of the older techniques being used and refined along with new techniques (Thatch Weave is a good example) to even the odds against a superior opponent.

With "boom and zoom" tactics, all is fine until your opponent spots you and either turns into your attack or spoils your shot and waits for the over-shoot to engage - in either of those two instances, a dogfight is inevitable.

The one clear disadvantage to a turning fight, is that it bleeds off a great deal of energy and things can go wrong in a hurry.