VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION

"Gordon" wrote in message
ups.com...
Mistaking an F-4 for a Scooter or a MiG 21 is like mistaking an 18-
wheeler for a Hummer. Sure, a moron could do it.

Actually, an F-4 in planform at about 4-5 miles looks a lot like an A-4 at
3-4 miles. It's easy to VID when your looking at pictures in a book, not so
easy when the aircraft is near the limits of vision (sun position, clear sky
background or not, etc).

We altered the rules for an ACM derby a number of years back. A mistaken
VID and shot cost the shooters points. With a mixed F-5 / A-4 section (you
couldn't ask for more dissimilar aircraft), head-on VID ranges came down
from 3+ miles to less than a mile.

R / John

"Gordon" wrote in message
ups.com...
Mistaking an F-4 for a Scooter or a MiG 21 is like mistaking an 18-
wheeler for a Hummer. Sure, a moron could do it.

I've been following the overall thread with interest; good points made, and
some neat facts brought out.

As a former artillery forward observer, who had to be pretty good at target
recognition (it seemed sometimes that half the documents I packed around
were recognition sheets and manuals), may I mildly point out that not every
soldier (sailor, airman, marine etc) is an avid enthusiast of military
vehicles (whether that be AFVs, aircraft, artillery, engineering equipment,
trucks etc) and hence to *them* a lot of things do look alike.

These recognition manuals get printed for two reasons - one, for the people
who genuinely really, really as part of their MOS need to be good at
recognition, and two, for the more casual user who hopefully won't fire
their ATGM at the wrong AFV or start shooting at the wrong helicopter if
they've gotten a few clues that some enemy things look sort of like some of
our things.

I'll agree that I myself would not, for example, mistake the above three
aircraft. But I can think of comparisons where that could easily happen, or
could have happened, or has happened, in all of the categories of military
vehicles.

It's also not just an issue of being _wrong_ - sometimes it's seeing an
aircraft or AFV for the first time at 5000 metres, and in the case of the ac
moving fast or high, and simply not knowing *what* it is...hence the
manuals, so you can scramble through them and try to figure out what you
see.

I happen to be a military history enthusiast myself, and this also aids in
target recognition, and always has. But I found during my time in the
Marines that very few of my enlisted peers were also military
history/technology enthusiasts (except for the technology that they were
using themselves), and hence that broad, studied base of dozens of reference
books simply did not exist for them...they were a tabula rasa at the time
they enlisted, and identifying vehicles, aircraft and equipment is a
time-consuming skill.

I'm sure that everyone in this thread remembers how to many Allied soldiers
in WW2 every German tank was a Tiger. While this is no doubt exaggerated, I
have no doubt that many Allied troops in Normandy, spotting a long-barrelled
MkIV at 1500 or 2000 metres, probably did think it was a Tiger.

The point I am trying to make is, it's easy to get so caught up in one's own
knowledge of vehicle recognition that one forgets that most people aren't
that good at it.

AHS

Arved Sandstrom wrote:

"Gordon" wrote in message
ups.com...
Mistaking an F-4 for a Scooter or a MiG 21 is like mistaking an 18-
wheeler for a Hummer. Sure, a moron could do it.

I've been following the overall thread with interest; good points made, and
some neat facts brought out.

As a former artillery forward observer, who had to be pretty good at target
recognition (it seemed sometimes that half the documents I packed around
were recognition sheets and manuals), may I mildly point out that not every
soldier (sailor, airman, marine etc) is an avid enthusiast of military
vehicles (whether that be AFVs, aircraft, artillery, engineering equipment,
trucks etc) and hence to *them* a lot of things do look alike.

These recognition manuals get printed for two reasons - one, for the people
who genuinely really, really as part of their MOS need to be good at
recognition, and two, for the more casual user who hopefully won't fire
their ATGM at the wrong AFV or start shooting at the wrong helicopter if
they've gotten a few clues that some enemy things look sort of like some of
our things.

I'll agree that I myself would not, for example, mistake the above three
aircraft. But I can think of comparisons where that could easily happen, or
could have happened, or has happened, in all of the categories of military
vehicles.

It's also not just an issue of being _wrong_ - sometimes it's seeing an
aircraft or AFV for the first time at 5000 metres, and in the case of the ac
moving fast or high, and simply not knowing *what* it is...hence the
manuals, so you can scramble through them and try to figure out what you
see.

I happen to be a military history enthusiast myself, and this also aids in
target recognition, and always has. But I found during my time in the
Marines that very few of my enlisted peers were also military
history/technology enthusiasts (except for the technology that they were
using themselves), and hence that broad, studied base of dozens of reference
books simply did not exist for them...they were a tabula rasa at the time
they enlisted, and identifying vehicles, aircraft and equipment is a
time-consuming skill.

I'm sure that everyone in this thread remembers how to many Allied soldiers
in WW2 every German tank was a Tiger. While this is no doubt exaggerated, I
have no doubt that many Allied troops in Normandy, spotting a long-barrelled
MkIV at 1500 or 2000 metres, probably did think it was a Tiger.

The point I am trying to make is, it's easy to get so caught up in one's own
knowledge of vehicle recognition that one forgets that most people aren't
that good at it.

AHS

and if Ed said he made the mistake, anyone could, and undoubtedly did.

i know i've mis-ID'd the odd item, now and then, and people weren't
even shooting at me at the time.

redc1c4,
flash cards and RL are *not* the same thing. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

Mike wrote:
The F-14, F-15 MiG-29 and Su-27 series all look a LOT alike in motion
to most people. MiG-21 and the F-4 look virtually identical in
flight.

Nah, the F-4 is the one trailing copious amounts of smoke.

Cheers,

On Apr 15, 12:14 pm, Bill Shatzer wrote:
Mike wrote:
The F-14, F-15 MiG-29 and Su-27 series all look a LOT alike in motion
to most people. MiG-21 and the F-4 look virtually identical in
flight.

Nah, the F-4 is the one trailing copious amounts of smoke.


But the MiG 21 is the one on fire.

....And two holes' worth of smoke at that.

--
Mike Kanze

436 Greenbrier Road
Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
USA

650-726-7890

Mr. Johnson: "What's the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion?"
Evelyn: "Jail."

- The Elderberries (comic strip), 4/14/2007



"Bill Shatzer" wrote in message . ..
Mike wrote:
The F-14, F-15 MiG-29 and Su-27 series all look a LOT alike in motion
to most people. MiG-21 and the F-4 look virtually identical in
flight.

Nah, the F-4 is the one trailing copious amounts of smoke.

Cheers,

On Apr 15, 1:14 pm, Bill Shatzer wrote:
Mike wrote:
The F-14, F-15 MiG-29 and Su-27 series all look a LOT alike in motion
to most people. MiG-21 and the F-4 look virtually identical in
flight.

Nah, the F-4 is the one trailing copious amounts of smoke.

Cheers,

Only the USAF ones...late models of USN had smokeless engines..flew
'em in VF-151-'S' model.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:14:56 -0700, Bill Shatzer
wrote:

Mike wrote:
The F-14, F-15 MiG-29 and Su-27 series all look a LOT alike in motion
to most people. MiG-21 and the F-4 look virtually identical in
flight.

Nah, the F-4 is the one trailing copious amounts of smoke.

Cheers,

Believe it or not, that was a huge advantage for us in SEA. It was a
quick clue whether or not a bogie was friendly. When you've got
numerical superiority you don't mind being visible and gaining a
little protection from an over-eager shooter.

But, the smoke pretty much went away from the F-4 fleet around 1980 as
I recall. The upgraded combustion section of the J-79 came around the
same time as the wrap-around camo pattern.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Or there were those who were never out of burner having been way to
afraid or smart to slow down -----






"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:14:56 -0700, Bill Shatzer
wrote:

Mike wrote:
The F-14, F-15 MiG-29 and Su-27 series all look a LOT alike in
motion
to most people. MiG-21 and the F-4 look virtually identical in
flight.

Nah, the F-4 is the one trailing copious amounts of smoke.

Cheers,

Believe it or not, that was a huge advantage for us in SEA. It was a
quick clue whether or not a bogie was friendly. When you've got
numerical superiority you don't mind being visible and gaining a
little protection from an over-eager shooter.

But, the smoke pretty much went away from the F-4 fleet around 1980 as
I recall. The upgraded combustion section of the J-79 came around the
same time as the wrap-around camo pattern.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 03:23:40 GMT, "Flashnews"
wrote:

Or there were those who were never out of burner having been way to
afraid or smart to slow down -----


Reheat was a good way to kill the smoke signature, but consumption,
even in min burner was way too high to give adequate endurance for the
NVN mission. And, there's always the problem that if you are running
around in reheat the rest of the formation is either way behind or way
ahead. The wingman can't do it consistently and stay with the leader,
the leader can't do it and keep his wingmen.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com