Defensive circle

Greetings All,

I wondered if anyone could provide some comment on the use of the
defensive circle in WWII? (Apologies if this was ever covered in detail
in the past - if so, I missed it.)

It occurs to me that the use of the defensive circle (or Lufbery) might
have been somewhat limited as it implies a particular set of
circumstances:

1. You are outnumbered
2. The opposition can outperform your own aircraft type in all but
rate of turn, which makes escape difficult
3. You have the time, fuel and the inclination to sustain the
manoeuvre but the opposition lacks some or all of these to make serious
attempts to break it (this should be true if you are over home ground
and the opposition is remote from its base)
4. Your flight commander made an early decision to enter the manoeuvre
- before the flight got broken up into a dogfight which would have made
it impossible to form up

Given the normal impulse of fighter pilots (other than novices, who have
yet to gain confidence and experience) to mix it, adopting the defensive
circle would actually take a degree of discipline and an acceptance that
this was the best response to make in the prevailing circumstances.

Would it be right to assume that the defensive circle would be even more
effective at low level as it would inhibit one circle breaking method,
sideslipping inside, more difficult?

Would it also be right to assume that there is an effective limit to the
number of aircraft in the defensive circle - too many and would it not
be too big to be effective?

Actual scenarios for usage:

Possibly a flight of patrolling Spitfire Vs (containing some novices)
meeting a strong force of FW190s in 1942?

Possibly a flight of older Russian fighters meeting a strong force of
Luftwaffe fighters?

Any comments (including any actual reported situations) would be very
welcome.

Thanks in anticipation,

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

I have seen references to the circle's being used by German and
Japanese (JAAF) pilots. In the German case, it was Bf-110s over
Britain. In the JAAF case, it was Ki-43s over Burma.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
I have seen references to the circle's SNIP:
In the Western Desert in WW2 Hans Marseille solved the Lufberry Circle
problem by high angle deflection shooting at minimum range - knocking
down serial kills of Hurricanes and P40s daily. The 'circlers' were
essentially helpless against this tactic when used by an opponent of
superior energy capability. Note that with more or less equal aircraft
(and more aircraft available to join the fight) the Circle isn't that
successful. It's also a way to get 'anchored' over enemy territory -
when the fuel level rate of drop becomes an item of interest. The
Circle worked well against conventional curve of pursuit attacks aince
an attacker necessarily flew in front of the preceding defender,
unless attacker had a much higher rate of knots so he could get in and
get out before said second defender could get guns on him. Nowadays
missiles defeat the defensive circle.
Walt BJ

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...
Cub Driver wrote in message
. ..
I have seen references to the circle's SNIP:
In the Western Desert in WW2 Hans Marseille solved the Lufberry Circle
problem by high angle deflection shooting at minimum range - knocking
down serial kills of Hurricanes and P40s daily. The 'circlers' were
essentially helpless against this tactic when used by an opponent of
superior energy capability. Note that with more or less equal aircraft
(and more aircraft available to join the fight) the Circle isn't that
successful. It's also a way to get 'anchored' over enemy territory -
when the fuel level rate of drop becomes an item of interest. The
Circle worked well against conventional curve of pursuit attacks aince
an attacker necessarily flew in front of the preceding defender,
unless attacker had a much higher rate of knots so he could get in and
get out before said second defender could get guns on him. Nowadays
missiles defeat the defensive circle.
Walt BJ

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...
Cub Driver wrote in message
. ..
I have seen references to the circle's SNIP:
In the Western Desert in WW2 Hans Marseille solved the Lufberry Circle
problem by high angle deflection shooting at minimum range - knocking
down serial kills of Hurricanes and P40s daily. The 'circlers' were
essentially helpless against this tactic when used by an opponent of
superior energy capability. Note that with more or less equal aircraft
(and more aircraft available to join the fight) the Circle isn't that
successful. It's also a way to get 'anchored' over enemy territory -
when the fuel level rate of drop becomes an item of interest. The
Circle worked well against conventional curve of pursuit attacks aince
an attacker necessarily flew in front of the preceding defender,
unless attacker had a much higher rate of knots so he could get in and
get out before said second defender could get guns on him. Nowadays
missiles defeat the defensive circle.
Walt BJ

Right on!

Lufberry's looked good on paper....that is until the circle was engaged by
fighters with lower wing loadings; and flown by pilots who knew how to bleed
down and arc. Snap shooters like Marseille could play dixie on these
circles...and did just that...against poorly flown Lufberry's. In fact, even
a higher wing loaded fighter could engage through low yo yo's and arcing if
flown by superior pilots. This was the "real" learning period in ACM. It
involved the painful transition from thinking defensive to thinking like a
Hans Marseille......attack! Just like Hartmann, he boresighted for
conversion range using the windshield bow for wingspan instead of using the
sight, then he pulled g for lead; raised the nose in the turn for gravity
drop; centered the ball for trajectory shift, and hosed them at high angle
off before he bled down and out of the cone.
Pilots who were thinking about things like Lufberry's as they entered the
war didn't last very long in combat. Nothing kills a fighter pilot faster
than over thinking the defensive side of the ACM equation.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
For personal e-mail, use
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
(replacezwithe)

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 04:27:15 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:


"WaltBJ" wrote in message
. com...
Cub Driver wrote in message
...
I have seen references to the circle's SNIP:
In the Western Desert in WW2 Hans Marseille solved the Lufberry Circle
problem by high angle deflection shooting at minimum range - knocking
down serial kills of Hurricanes and P40s daily. The 'circlers' were
essentially helpless against this tactic when used by an opponent of
superior energy capability.
Walt BJ

Right on!

Lufberry's looked good on paper....that is until the circle was engaged by
fighters with lower wing loadings; and flown by pilots who knew how to bleed
down and arc. Snap shooters like Marseille could play dixie on these
circles...and did just that...against poorly flown Lufberry's. In fact, even
a higher wing loaded fighter could engage through low yo yo's and arcing if
flown by superior pilots. This was the "real" learning period in ACM. It
involved the painful transition from thinking defensive to thinking like a
Hans Marseille......attack! Just like Hartmann, he boresighted for
conversion range using the windshield bow for wingspan instead of using the
sight, then he pulled g for lead; raised the nose in the turn for gravity
drop; centered the ball for trajectory shift, and hosed them at high angle
off before he bled down and out of the cone.
Pilots who were thinking about things like Lufberry's as they entered the
war didn't last very long in combat. Nothing kills a fighter pilot faster
than over thinking the defensive side of the ACM equation.
Dudley Henriques

Great stuff guys. Yet, the primary tactic of the A-10 if attacked by
enemy aircraft remains to "circle the Hogs". As you describe, for the
typically energy superior fighter, the problem is simply one of flying
back and forth across the circle taking high angle shots (or for that
matter, all-aspect IR shots) at the rotating targets.

The theory of the Hogs is that with their tight turn radius they can
snap the nose around and bring the gun to bear on the attacker.
Unfortunately, the attacker simply zooms out of plane, exceeding the
energy ability of the Hog to sustain an extreme nose high position for
more than a few seconds. Throw in lack of a lead computing sight, and
the big gun become little more than a nuisance threat.

On the positive side, the low altitude denies half the maneuver sphere
to the attacker, and ground IR return helps to reduce IR missile
effectiveness, but modern missiles are pretty good discriminators and
Doppler based radar missiles don't much care about ground return.

From another perspective, however, I had always learned that a
Lufberry was a 1-v-1 situation in which the attacker and defender were
trapped in a single circle, same plane fight, tail-chasing each other
and simultaneously trying to attack and defend against the other guy.
If transitioned from horizontal to vertical, it became a rolling
scissors.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 04:27:15 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:


"WaltBJ" wrote in message
. com...
Cub Driver wrote in message
...
I have seen references to the circle's SNIP:
In the Western Desert in WW2 Hans Marseille solved the Lufberry Circle
problem by high angle deflection shooting at minimum range - knocking
down serial kills of Hurricanes and P40s daily. The 'circlers' were
essentially helpless against this tactic when used by an opponent of
superior energy capability.
Walt BJ

Right on!

Lufberry's looked good on paper....that is until the circle was engaged
by
fighters with lower wing loadings; and flown by pilots who knew how to
bleed
down and arc. Snap shooters like Marseille could play dixie on these
circles...and did just that...against poorly flown Lufberry's. In fact,
even
a higher wing loaded fighter could engage through low yo yo's and arcing
if
flown by superior pilots. This was the "real" learning period in ACM. It
involved the painful transition from thinking defensive to thinking like
a
Hans Marseille......attack! Just like Hartmann, he boresighted for
conversion range using the windshield bow for wingspan instead of using
the
sight, then he pulled g for lead; raised the nose in the turn for gravity
drop; centered the ball for trajectory shift, and hosed them at high
angle
off before he bled down and out of the cone.
Pilots who were thinking about things like Lufberry's as they entered the
war didn't last very long in combat. Nothing kills a fighter pilot faster
than over thinking the defensive side of the ACM equation.
Dudley Henriques

Great stuff guys. Yet, the primary tactic of the A-10 if attacked by
enemy aircraft remains to "circle the Hogs". As you describe, for the
typically energy superior fighter, the problem is simply one of flying
back and forth across the circle taking high angle shots (or for that
matter, all-aspect IR shots) at the rotating targets.

The theory of the Hogs is that with their tight turn radius they can
snap the nose around and bring the gun to bear on the attacker.
Unfortunately, the attacker simply zooms out of plane, exceeding the
energy ability of the Hog to sustain an extreme nose high position for
more than a few seconds. Throw in lack of a lead computing sight, and
the big gun become little more than a nuisance threat.

On the positive side, the low altitude denies half the maneuver sphere
to the attacker, and ground IR return helps to reduce IR missile
effectiveness, but modern missiles are pretty good discriminators and
Doppler based radar missiles don't much care about ground return.

From another perspective, however, I had always learned that a
Lufberry was a 1-v-1 situation in which the attacker and defender were
trapped in a single circle, same plane fight, tail-chasing each other
and simultaneously trying to attack and defend against the other guy.
If transitioned from horizontal to vertical, it became a rolling
scissors.

I would agree entirely with this, considering as well the shooter couldn't
match g, or he might soon become the defender!! :-)))
I believe there's is a point where the turning performance delta between a
shooter and a defender turning in plane can become so great that engaging by
the shooter with a high rate of closure in a decreasing angle off pursuit
curve; taking a snap shot going through the overshoot would seem the best
way to go rather than trying to bleed down and arc low through the circle.
Keep in mind also that when I speak at all about Lufberry's, I'm going
mentally backwards to the good old gunning days of yore, when men were
men.....and woman were........and your shooting world was centered on an
angular velocity cone inside 2000 feet and 35 degrees angle off :-)))
I agree with Walt also. Modern tactics and missiles have long ago
outdistanced any advantage in a Lufberry per se', and as for being defensive
to the point of initiating a rolling scissors against a smart
shooter.........that's a heart attack on a bun for sure!!!
:-))))
BTW Ed, if you ever want to see a text book perfect example of vertical
rolling scissors; check out an old movie favorite of mine, "The Battle of
Brittain". There's a beautiful shot of a Spit shaking a 109 by using a
vertical rolling scissors. He initiates nose down and rolling just as the
109 overshoots and the Schmit is just slow enough in the overshoot to pull
back into him by increasing g and pulling back down into the cone. As the
two of them head down, the Spit pops flaps and tightens the roll. The 109
can't follow in time and overshoots wide and outside. It's absolutely
gorgeous!! The Spit separates instead of converting....a bit puzzling, but a
wise move considering he might well have lost him visually in the roll.
Of course, as I said, and I'm sure you agree. You don't get away with this
crap often enough to classify it as anything but "last ditch" type of
stuff!!
Dudley

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:35:06 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:


Great stuff guys. Yet, the primary tactic of the A-10 if attacked by
enemy aircraft remains to "circle the Hogs". As you describe, for the
typically energy superior fighter, the problem is simply one of flying
back and forth across the circle taking high angle shots (or for that
matter, all-aspect IR shots) at the rotating targets.

The theory of the Hogs is that with their tight turn radius they can
snap the nose around and bring the gun to bear on the attacker.
Unfortunately, the attacker simply zooms out of plane, exceeding the
energy ability of the Hog to sustain an extreme nose high position for
more than a few seconds. Throw in lack of a lead computing sight, and
the big gun become little more than a nuisance threat.

Breaking up a defensive circle is easy as long as it is at an altitude
sufficiently high to allow unrestricted vertical maneuvering. My view is that
the defending aircraft want to get right down in the weeds ASAP. Down on the
deck they can use topography to mask themselves, even conceal a sneaky reverse.
This also introduces the difficulty of visually picking out individual aircraft
in the ground clutter. The circle should not be so tight that aspect changes are
minimalized. I'm sure you've seen what happens when turning circles are so tight
that the relative aspect between target and shooter barely changes due to
a very tight turn radius, yet poor turn rate (in degrees/second).

My regards,

Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.netaces.org
http://www.hitechcreations.com

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 04:27:15 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:


"WaltBJ" wrote in message
. com...
Cub Driver wrote in message
...
I have seen references to the circle's SNIP:
In the Western Desert in WW2 Hans Marseille solved the Lufberry Circle
problem by high angle deflection shooting at minimum range - knocking
down serial kills of Hurricanes and P40s daily. The 'circlers' were
essentially helpless against this tactic when used by an opponent of
superior energy capability.
Walt BJ

Right on!

Lufberry's looked good on paper....that is until the circle was engaged by
fighters with lower wing loadings; and flown by pilots who knew how to bleed
down and arc. Snap shooters like Marseille could play dixie on these
circles...and did just that...against poorly flown Lufberry's. In fact, even
a higher wing loaded fighter could engage through low yo yo's and arcing if
flown by superior pilots. This was the "real" learning period in ACM. It
involved the painful transition from thinking defensive to thinking like a
Hans Marseille......attack! Just like Hartmann, he boresighted for
conversion range using the windshield bow for wingspan instead of using the
sight, then he pulled g for lead; raised the nose in the turn for gravity
drop; centered the ball for trajectory shift, and hosed them at high angle
off before he bled down and out of the cone.
Pilots who were thinking about things like Lufberry's as they entered the
war didn't last very long in combat. Nothing kills a fighter pilot faster
than over thinking the defensive side of the ACM equation.
Dudley Henriques

Great stuff guys. Yet, the primary tactic of the A-10 if attacked by
enemy aircraft remains to "circle the Hogs". As you describe, for the
typically energy superior fighter, the problem is simply one of flying
back and forth across the circle taking high angle shots (or for that
matter, all-aspect IR shots) at the rotating targets.

The theory of the Hogs is that with their tight turn radius they can
snap the nose around and bring the gun to bear on the attacker.
Unfortunately, the attacker simply zooms out of plane, exceeding the
energy ability of the Hog to sustain an extreme nose high position for
more than a few seconds. Throw in lack of a lead computing sight, and
the big gun become little more than a nuisance threat.

snip

Of course, since a year or two after DS the Hogs have had a lead-computing
gunsight (LASTE), and they had AIM-9Ls before DS. And they also had a special
waiver at Red Flag (at least in the '80s) that allowed them to take head-on gun
shots inside the 1,000 foot bubble, implying that their primary defensive move
(along with getting as low as possible) would be to use their turn rate and
radius to face the threat and pop him with either a missile or the gun. And all
those chaff and flares don't hurt either, if defeating a missile becomes
necessary.

Guy

Actual scenarios for usage:

Such scenarios were also:

American P-47s or P-51s defending against Luftwaffe fighters

British or American fighters defending in Mediterranean

Russian fighters defending against Finnish fighters

Spanish, German and whatever planes defending in Spanish civil war

Same lufbery circles were used and encountered by all sides throughout
the WW2 from what I've read.

jok