Why was dogfighting a thing?

GrauGeist said:

T...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.

Click to expand...

At least in the RAF "Always turn to attack!" was hammered to fighter pilots' heads, turning away gives advantage to the attacker.

GrauGeist said:

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.

Click to expand...

IMHO not necessarily, if the attacker was flying a fighter well suited for B&Z tactic, like Bf 109, he had no reason for allowing the fight degenerate to a turning fight. Of course the B&Z worked best with good leader-wingman co-operation.

1. Terminology.
What is the best definition of the "dogfight"?
I assume it is an aerial fight where participants are either fighter aircraft or an aircraft that can if only temporarily, attack another one (becoming de-facto a fighter in this engagement).
So, fighter vs fighter is always a dogfight.
Fighter vs non-fighter is not a dogfight unless the non-fighter chooses a fighter tactic.
What I mean about the non-fighter:
- SBD or Il-2 turning in the attacking enemy fighter is in the dogfight, while Short Sunderland or B-17 that responds only with the gunners' fire, is not.
- the pilot of A-20 or Pe-2 shooting at the enemy aircraft is in the dogfight as well. If the same pilot tries only to escape the enemy attack, he is not in the dogfight.
Is my definition acceptable? Is it too narrow?

2. Other languages.
I think about how to translate "dogfight" in Russian and I find only vozdushny boy (воздушный бой) which literally means aerial combat, of any sort.
In the last 20-25 years or so "dogfight" (догфайт) without translation became a part of Russian aviation jargon but only in the meaning given in current Wiki article: "an aerial battle between fighter aircraft conducted at close range".
It's interesting to note that there was another, now obsolete, term sobachya skhavtka (literally, fight between the dogs, dogs fight) and it has appeared shortly in the Soviet literature after the air war with Japan in 1939, where VVS has got the first experience of massive combats involving several fighter squadrons at once. Later on, this term was abandoned.
What about other languages?

Dimlee,

"What is the best definition of the term dogfight"? Good question as I hadn't given it direct thought. The literal definition i would think lays in an actual dog fight. Two dogs fighting is a mess of turning and biting. Two or more aircraft would be doing the same. I would define dogfighting as aircraft maneuvering in relation to one another for a position of advantage (survival, or weapons employment). If one is not maneuvering against the other, it's being a grape and not dogfighting. The maneuvering aircraft is dogfighting.

Cheers,
Biff

Please note, that for the purpose of this thread, I meant "dogfight" in a very narrow sense: trying to outturn your enemy, to do better in a "Kurvenkampf" so you get behind the enemy via tight turns. In other words, something that the Zero excelled at. By contrast, in WWII, boom-and-zoom "energy tactics" proved superior, see the later US fighters, using your superior speed to come hot at the enemy and get out again, rinse and repeat.

Again, I understand that by the end of WWII, speed beat agility. I suspect this was not the case in WWI and wonder why.

Acheron said:

Please note, that for the purpose of this thread, I meant "dogfight" in a very narrow sense: trying to outturn your enemy, to do better in a "Kurvenkampf" so you get behind the enemy via tight turns. In other words, something that the Zero excelled at. By contrast, in WWII, boom-and-zoom "energy tactics" proved superior, see the later US fighters, using your superior speed to come hot at the enemy and get out again, rinse and repeat.

Again, I understand that by the end of WWII, speed beat agility. I suspect this was not the case in WWI and wonder why.

Click to expand...

Hi

For information here is a short section of 'Fighting in the Air' February, 1918 edition, this is on 'Single-seat Fighting' it does show what some of the air combat thinking was by that time.

Mike

A dogfight of many machines mixed up at close quarters was everyones least favoured option. In the Battle of Britain everyone was looking for a "bounce" which is an ambush. When lots of planes were involved turning and diving things were generally inconclusive with the likelihood of shooting your own side or colliding with a plane or church steeple increasing massively.

Acheron said:

Please note, that for the purpose of this thread, I meant "dogfight" in a very narrow sense: trying to outturn your enemy, to do better in a "Kurvenkampf" so you get behind the enemy via tight turns. In other words, something that the Zero excelled at. By contrast, in WWII, boom-and-zoom "energy tactics" proved superior, see the later US fighters, using your superior speed to come hot at the enemy and get out again, rinse and repeat.

Again, I understand that by the end of WWII, speed beat agility. I suspect this was not the case in WWI and wonder why.

Click to expand...

Acheron,

For the purpose of this conversation there are two types of "dog" fights. Those are rate and or radius. The Zero is or was a radius fighter, which meant it could turn tighter than most if not all its opponents (fight is done at lower speeds). The rate fight is degrees per second over time (done at a higher speeds). Imagine that a Zero is going around a circle at its min radius airspeed. It will be doing a nominal degrees per second. Now a much faster fighter is going around a bit bigger circle than the Zero. His degrees per second should be higher, and depending on the aircraft, should be able to go around his bigger circle faster than the Zero can go around his smaller circle.

Also realize that there are variables which will cause a Zero / highly maneuverable fighter to get out turned by a supposedly lessor turning fighter. An example I have seen many times is a maneuverable fighter is low on energy and is bounced by a lower agility fighter with a high energy state (high speed). The more maneuverable aircraft turns and pulls to its min radius speed. It's circle is at its smallest, and should he pull harder will only get bigger as he goes down the backside of the lift over drag curve. The less agile but high speed fighter commences the attack from astern and immediately starts his pull, going not to his best rate, but pulling so tightly he loses / exchanges energy for higher turn rate. While he is outside the circle of the Zero he will cover more degrees per second and should if properly flown arrive at a position to employ the gun. This is sometimes spoken to with a tactics or flight manual telling guys to only turn with a Zero for 180 or 270 degrees. The amount of turn depends on many variables and speed is only one of them.

Also realize that an aircraft or fight is NOT locked into one method or the other. They often switch back and forth as move followed by counter move occurs, or as they jockey for a position of advantage.

One last thing is something called the control zone, saddled up or riding position. It's possible to be saddled up on a more maneuverable aircraft with a lessor maneuverable one and the more agile aircraft will be unable to get away. It's like having your knee in the back of your opponent while he is face down on the floor.

It may seem like nuance but I think you are focused on agility / radius fights under the broader umbrella of dogfighting.

Cheers,
Biff

Excellent post, Buff

Acheron said:

Again, I understand that by the end of WWII, speed beat agility. I suspect this was not the case in WWI and wonder why.

Click to expand...

In WWI, aviation was still in the cradle and the technology behind building and powering an aircraft was fairly primitive.

For example: one of the deadliest fighters of the Great War was the Fokker D.VII and it had an engine that was rated 175hp (Mercedes engine) or 185hp (BMW engine). It's rate of climb to 10,000 feet took nearly 15 minutes and had a top speed that was less than 125mph.

Since the art of aerial warfare was an unknown art at the start of the war, techniques for engaging enemy aircraft was a work in progress.
As I mentioned earlier, head-on attacks were risky and often resulted in both fighters being damaged, pilots injured (or killed) and often a collision.
The obvious alternative was to get on your opponent's tail for the attack and their reaction would be to turn away from the attack and then do what they could to avoid being shot up and get beind their attacker and shoot them down.
The aircraft of that time were slow but exceptionally agile and could do acrobatic maneuvers that would rarely be seen 20 years later (except the battles between CR.42s, Gladiators and Hs123s - but that's good for another thread).
Since these biplanes (and triplanes) were much slower, they didn't have the ability to "boom and zoom" unless you consider screaming out of the sun at terminal speeds of about 130mph or so "booming" - keep in mind, these planes were primarily wood and doped fabric and could not withstand a great deal of abuse.

The A6M may provide an insight to this, because it was very capable of turning at low speeds and in WWI, that is what won a fight.

Hi

Other British 'Training Aids' for air fighting:



Mike

Thank you all for your help. I think I am starting to get it: for boom-and-zoom, you needed a decisive speed advantage. In WWI, this was probably not there, not only were the aircraft slower, but given their lighter weight and weaker engines, their speed was much more variable, depending on wind, diving and such. IIRC, during one battle, one side was favored by strong winds blowing towards their frontline, making their getaway that much easier.

Acheron said:

Thank you all for your help. I think I am starting to get it: for boom-and-zoom, you needed a decisive speed advantage. In WWI, this was probably not there, not only were the aircraft slower, but given their lighter weight and weaker engines, their speed was much more variable, depending on wind, diving and such. IIRC, during one battle, one side was favored by strong winds blowing towards their frontline, making their getaway that much easier.

Click to expand...

Hi

Not one battle, the prevailing winds were blowing to the east so towards the German side, so in many air battles it was likely to 'blow' the aircraft further over the German side, making it more difficult for 'Allied' aircraft to return.

Mike

Dimlee said:

1. Terminology.
What is the best definition of the "dogfight"?
I assume it is an aerial fight where participants are either fighter aircraft or an aircraft that can if only temporarily, attack another one (becoming de-facto a fighter in this engagement).
So, fighter vs fighter is always a dogfight.
Fighter vs non-fighter is not a dogfight unless the non-fighter chooses a fighter tactic.
What I mean about the non-fighter:
- SBD or Il-2 turning in the attacking enemy fighter is in the dogfight, while Short Sunderland or B-17 that responds only with the gunners' fire, is not.
- the pilot of A-20 or Pe-2 shooting at the enemy aircraft is in the dogfight as well. If the same pilot tries only to escape the enemy attack, he is not in the dogfight.
Is my definition acceptable? Is it too narrow?

2. Other languages.
I think about how to translate "dogfight" in Russian and I find only vozdushny boy (воздушный бой) which literally means aerial combat, of any sort.
In the last 20-25 years or so "dogfight" (догфайт) without translation became a part of Russian aviation jargon but only in the meaning given in current Wiki article: "an aerial battle between fighter aircraft conducted at close range".
It's interesting to note that there was another, now obsolete, term sobachya skhavtka (literally, fight between the dogs, dogs fight) and it has appeared shortly in the Soviet literature after the air war with Japan in 1939, where VVS has got the first experience of massive combats involving several fighter squadrons at once. Later on, this term was abandoned.
What about other languages?

Click to expand...

I like your definitions.

Only thing I would add is that a dogfight by definition involves both opponents being aware of the other. 60% (or whatever percentage is correct) of the victims never were aware of their opponent until shells hit their airplane. IMO they were not in a dogfight.

tyrodtom said:

...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.

Click to expand...

I generally agree, and Albatrosses were used that way, but especially V was not ideal in that because it suffered wing flutter at high speeds and there were several catastrophic wing failures.

IIRC in the RFC/RAF there were two schools, those used to Sopwith fighters stressed dogfight and those flying SE 5as "boom and zoom" and claimed that their tactic was much more effective.

But in the end it was to trying to play on one's plane strong points and trying to prevent the enemy utilize his plane strong points.
During the beginning of the Continuation War Finnish Brewster pilots tried to use boom and zoom against very maneuverable I-153s but tried to suck MiG-3s to turning fights.

Someone once wrote that to recreate the WWI pilot experience take your favorite sports car (preferably open top) find a twisty, hilly country road and drive 80 -90 mph.

A lot of WW1 aircraft had problems with structural failures.
The Albatross V strut fighters from design issues with the single spar lower wing.
The Fokker Dr1 from quality control issues with the wings.

A WW1 pilot could never be completely comfortable with their aircraft, engine failure, structural failure, at any time, then if the gun did fire, the gun interrupters weren't perfectly dependable, so you might shoot a hole in your prop.

WW1 planes were also pretty fragile and I'm sure it was pretty easy to exceed structural limits in both speed and Gs when using BnZ tactics.

JCH said:

WW1 planes were also pretty fragile and I'm sure it was pretty easy to exceed structural limits in both speed and Gs when using BnZ tactics.

Click to expand...

Were they all, IIRC S.E.5a was a sturdy plane and Wiki, I know, seems to confirm that. "". Sholto Douglas who commanded No. 84 Squadron RFC which was initially equipped with the S.E.5a, listed the type's qualities as being: "Comfortable, with a good all-round view, retaining its performance and manoeuvrability at high level, steady and quick to gather speed in the dive, capable of a very fine zoom, useful in both offence and defence, strong in design and construction, [and] possessing a reliable engine."

And after the WWI Finns bought Martinsyde F.4 Buzzards, which just missed the war. The RAF got 57 F.4 Buzzards before the end of the First World War, but these did not reach operational squadrons. Finns used them as fighters up to 1929 and then as trainers up to 1939, and thought that it was good and sturdy plane.

Juha3 said:

Were they all, IIRC S.E.5a was a sturdy plane and Wiki, I know, seems to confirm that. "". Sholto Douglas who commanded No. 84 Squadron RFC which was initially equipped with the S.E.5a, listed the type's qualities as being: "Comfortable, with a good all-round view, retaining its performance and manoeuvrability at high level, steady and quick to gather speed in the dive, capable of a very fine zoom, useful in both offence and defence, strong in design and construction, [and] possessing a reliable engine."

And after the WWI Finns bought Martinsyde F.4 Buzzards, which just missed the war. The RAF got 57 F.4 Buzzards before the end of the First World War, but these did not reach operational squadrons. Finns used them as fighters up to 1929 and then as trainers up to 1939, and thought that it was good and sturdy plane.

Click to expand...

How did ww1 pilots handle G-forces?

Hello JCH, interesting link.
But as remembered S.E.5a was a sturdy plane suitable to boom and zoom and Buzzard missed the WWI only because of engine shortages and I'm pretty sure that also it was capable of boom and zoom tactics. The FiAF first purchased French Gourdou-Leseurre GL.22 fighters, it was the cheapest candidate, but soon found out that it was too fragile to Finns and our rough airfields and then bought Buzzards which seems to have been able to take all the abuses.