If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Dave Eadsforth
writes Greetings All, Just wanted to say thank you to everyone for all the valuable historical and expert comments - I think I understand the pros and cons very well now. Very much appreciated! Cheers, Dave -- Dave Eadsforth |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 14:17:33 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message .. . 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. 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!!! :-)))) When we used to instruct the scissors, either as a classic reversing scissors or the rolling scissors, I used to tell the students that it was the last place they ever wanted to be since more than 50% of the people who enter a scissors die there. They would look quizzically and then suggest it wasn't possible, as one would be the victor and one the lose, hence 50%. I then would point out the high likelihood of a mid-air between the two frantically reversing aircraft, each trying to reacquire nose-tail separation. Yep, more than 50%! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Are aircraft cost-effective for defensive purposes? | Chad Irby | Military Aviation | 6 | September 12th 03 01:23 AM |
NACO charts - why have a reference circle? | Bob Gardner | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | September 6th 03 01:15 PM |