Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#4435649 - 08/24/18 04:54 PM The line ahead formation  
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,554
VonBeerhofen Offline
3DZ Master/Campaign Designer
VonBeerhofen  Offline
3DZ Master/Campaign Designer
Hotshot

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,554
Zandvoort, N-H, Netherlands
was only used at the start of the war since there wasn't much experience in forming defensive or offensive formations, according to wikipedia. I think the Germans probably were more ready for war and had things well thought out. So in that view this formation type was added to EAWPRO as a random possibillity for all planetypes in 1940, giving Germans a lower probabillity for that formation. It's not entirely worked out yet and there may be a possibillity to give each nation it's own random probabillity.

VonBeerhofen

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4435787 - 08/25/18 04:54 PM Re: The line ahead formation [Re: VonBeerhofen]  
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,554
VonBeerhofen Offline
3DZ Master/Campaign Designer
VonBeerhofen  Offline
3DZ Master/Campaign Designer
Hotshot

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,554
Zandvoort, N-H, Netherlands
The finalised version of this change will give all aircraft in 1940 a 1 in 256 probabillity of selecting the line ahead formation. I forced the game to select it for all aircraft to make sure it was working OK and took some screenies from all groups in the mission, which is the first picture. The 2nd picture shows the default line up for 1940 fighter planes, the difference is clearly visible, the first shot is less organised.

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

Mission accomplished.

VonBeerhofen

#4435804 - 08/25/18 09:14 PM Re: The line ahead formation [Re: VonBeerhofen]  
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 516
RIBob Offline
Member
RIBob  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 516


Please allow me to congratulate you on a beautiful rendering. Superb!

Based on my limited research, the Brits were more likely to use either Vic formation or line-ahead during the Battle of Britain, and the Germans were more likely to use a "finger-four" formation during same period. It's reasonable to think that the formation pattern chosen would be determined by the mission of the fighters., but constraints were that the Brits were a bit slow on updating their fighter tactics, and were hard-pressed. No changing horses in mid-stream.

Interesting note is that Germans, when attacking US daylight bomber formations, reverted to the Vic formation as being the most efficient for that purpose. One would assume that for fighter vs. fighter formations, such as US vs. German fighters, would have been in finger-four configuration.

I think that your estimation for line astern formation for the Germans, during BOB 1940, is quite high, given that the German fighters were trying to protect their bombers. As against that Goering ordered fighters to close-in to the bombers (an huge mistake), and in so doing deprived the fighters of much needed room and tactical adaptability.

OTOH, the line ahead and Vic formations were used by the Brits for some time after the Bob, although they knew both formations were inferior in many ways. Took them some time to adapt, and it wasn't because they were stupid.


Again, with imperfect knowledge, I would suggest that the Germans had adopted finger-four fighter formations much earlier than the Brits. So, the odds of that formation being used in a particular scenario would necessarily change with the time period of the scenario. The idiotic demand of Luftwaffe High command that escorting fighters stay as close to the bombers as possible introduces another variable as to formations.

Perhaps Adolf Galland and Johnnie Johnson would be authoritative sources on when these tactics might have been used, and changed; They have both written memoirs, and Johnson wrote some broader-based books on air combat, which might be just the ticket on sorting out this confusing time frame..

Needless to say, this is in no way a criticism of your rendering of the formation, merely a suggestion on when it might most accurately be applied. YMMV.

#4435813 - 08/25/18 10:09 PM Re: The line ahead formation [Re: VonBeerhofen]  
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,554
VonBeerhofen Offline
3DZ Master/Campaign Designer
VonBeerhofen  Offline
3DZ Master/Campaign Designer
Hotshot

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,554
Zandvoort, N-H, Netherlands
Hi Ribob,

Thx for your suggestions. I've gone by what I could find about it on the web as my knowledge on the subject is very limited. The new routine is easily adaptable though and can be adjusted by scriptfiles to accomodate any year or any nation. That goes for the other formations too, they can be edited by scripts. Still in EAWPRO nothing of the original game was changed in terms of the used formations, there's just a small chance added that this formation is used in the Battle of Britain, which I think is a good reflection of inexperience. If formation types in stock EAW aren't entirely representative then I just wouldn't know where it's wrong and I've always assumed it was right. The game can select from some 12 to 15 different formations, it would be interesting to understand which ones you think aren't right and why. Everything is adaptable and I don't necessarily stick to what's there when it's not right.

VonBeerhofen

#4435816 - 08/25/18 11:07 PM Re: The line ahead formation [Re: VonBeerhofen]  
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 516
RIBob Offline
Member
RIBob  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by VonBeerhofen
Hi Ribob,

Thx for your suggestions. I've gone by what I could find about it on the web as my knowledge on the subject is very limited. The new routine is easily adaptable though and can be adjusted by scriptfiles to accomodate any year or any nation. That goes for the other formations too, they can be edited by scripts. Still in EAWPRO nothing of the original game was changed in terms of the used formations, there's just a small chance added that this formation is used in the Battle of Britain, which I think is a good reflection of inexperience. If formation types in stock EAW aren't entirely representative then I just wouldn't know where it's wrong and I've always assumed it was right. The game can select from some 12 to 15 different formations, it would be interesting to understand which ones you think aren't right and why. Everything is adaptable and I don't necessarily stick to what's there when it's not right.

VonBeerhofen


As an admitted newbie to EAW, and its' variants, I'm not in a position to say which variant is out of place in any particular way. I'm barely familiar with the sim, and all its' variants, although that is changing. My suggestions/comments in this thread were intended as general suggestions, informed by my reading, and not as negative criticism.

The depiction of the aircraft is quite pleasing to the eye, and tactically correct, as long as it assumes 200 yds between Brit aircraft, as was the norm.. Can't say for the Germans.

I could be wrong, but I believe you are one who very much refers to be accurate, as opposed to guessing. Your painstaking graphics work shows that.

So, not being an expert myself, I again suggest books written by the people directly involved, mentioned above. There is no telling how much you (or any of us) might benefit from reading those books again, even if for a third time, knowing what you know, now. The second reading is always more revealing than the first, and the third reading is the most revealing of all.

I am of the belief that the users of the game should be more-or-less be forced into the prevailing tactical formations, depending on the time-frame, and the nationality of the fighter user. Offering game users the selectable option to change formations might be a useful experiment, but is not historically accurate. That said, the option might be revealing.

With respect, submitted for your consideration.

#4435826 - 08/26/18 12:28 AM Re: The line ahead formation [Re: VonBeerhofen]  
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,554
VonBeerhofen Offline
3DZ Master/Campaign Designer
VonBeerhofen  Offline
3DZ Master/Campaign Designer
Hotshot

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,554
Zandvoort, N-H, Netherlands
I'm afraid I haven't got the time to read such books Ribob. There are people within my online group who are more interested and knowledgable on the subject then me, so it's easier to discuss the options with them. When I understand what they're saying I usually will incorporate that feedback after some discussion. I hope I got it right but when it's not then it can easily be changed. The hard part was to incorporate it in that way and leave as much room for adjustments as possible. In that respect I think I've succeeded.

I understand you're not critisising but merely trying to hand out some of your own knowledge and I appreciate that. I hope you can have some fun with with this new addition to EAWPRO. It's not a biggy but many small ones will make a significant difference in the immersion people will experience.

VonBeerhofen

#4435832 - 08/26/18 12:53 AM Re: The line ahead formation [Re: VonBeerhofen]  
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 516
RIBob Offline
Member
RIBob  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 516


I understand your post, and respect your beliefs.

We all have our own paths to walk, usually alone. Occasionally we walk our personal paths with friends, who are good company for a while, until our paths diverge.

I'm not certain that the goal (unattainable as may be) is more important than the friends. YMMV.

If the above is too cryptic, allow me to assure you that I wish all the best for you.

#4435835 - 08/26/18 01:59 AM Re: The line ahead formation [Re: VonBeerhofen]  
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,554
VonBeerhofen Offline
3DZ Master/Campaign Designer
VonBeerhofen  Offline
3DZ Master/Campaign Designer
Hotshot

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,554
Zandvoort, N-H, Netherlands
When my friends find my goals objectable then I tend to not discuss them. Should my friends keep objecting to my goals inspite of me not mentioning them and should such lead to a divergence then it will only give me more time to achieve my goals, smile The divergence is often regrettable but can't be helped in such situations, unless you're willing to give up your goals, but such is a personal decision that people sometimes have to make.

VonBeerhofen

#4436078 - 08/27/18 11:34 PM Re: The line ahead formation [Re: VonBeerhofen]  
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 516
RIBob Offline
Member
RIBob  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by VonBeerhofen
When my friends find my goals objectable then I tend to not discuss them. Should my friends keep objecting to my goals inspite of me not mentioning them and should such lead to a divergence then it will only give me more time to achieve my goals, smile The divergence is often regrettable but can't be helped in such situations, unless you're willing to give up your goals, but such is a personal decision that people sometimes have to make.

VonBeerhofen


I've never found your goals to be objectionable in the slightest; in fact, I have applauded your ongoing contributions in the past, and will continue to do so. What you do adds value to the EAW game, and that speaks for itself.

Any comments I have offered have been made with the very best of intentions, and, dare I say, with the intent of improving your product.

With sincere best wishes, RIBob

Last edited by RIBob; 08/27/18 11:41 PM.
#4436101 - 08/28/18 03:21 AM Re: The line ahead formation [Re: VonBeerhofen]  
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,497
MrJelly Offline
Veteran
MrJelly  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,497
Montagnac, L'Herault, France
Just a question VBH, thinking of differences I encountered years ago due to MISNxy.DAT files being used by the players' PCs.
If the line ahead formation is subject to probability then is it possible that multiplayer pilots may get different set-ups in the same game?


Fly EAW online at GameRanger: GameRanger Site

FaceBook Pages
UAW 160 downloads
EAW Club

Mark Twain: I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.

I am now of an age at which I no longer need to suffer fools gladly
#4436108 - 08/28/18 06:19 AM Re: The line ahead formation [Re: RIBob]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,506
Brit44 'Aldo' Offline
Every Human is Unique
Brit44 'Aldo'  Offline
Every Human is Unique
Member

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,506
Originally Posted by RIBob


I understand your post, and respect your beliefs.

We all have our own paths to walk, usually alone. Occasionally we walk our personal paths with friends, who are good company for a while, until our paths diverge.

I'm not certain that the goal (unattainable as may be) is more important than the friends. YMMV.

If the above is too cryptic, allow me to assure you that I wish all the best for you.






VBH, excuse me if I boom and zoom ( I logged into SimHQ because my PE forum was pissing me off).
We do all walk our own paths unless we are attempting MP games. It took me and Slomo (gods speed) years to discover that the standard terrain height mod was the cause of position and ballistic anomalies in PE. It is my opinion that this is why there are file matching checks in this era of games. PE did not check that file. Your hex editing is brilliant, but can you spot this type of variable in Direct Play. I do not assume to speak for Jelly, but I think this is the point he is asking about.

If you and your friends have the same exact files, this is not an issue.

I am still jealous of your ability to hex edit assembly code.

Last edited by Brit44 'Aldo'; 08/28/18 06:28 AM. Reason: I can not spell

TPA who TWI
"The 10th Amendment simply says that any powers that aren’t mentioned in the Constitution as belonging to the government belong to the states themselves."
#4436109 - 08/28/18 06:21 AM Re: The line ahead formation [Re: VonBeerhofen]  
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 1,122
MarkEAW Offline
Member
MarkEAW  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2015
Posts: 1,122
Not to jump in before VBH can answer that.

But I remember you (Jel) saying because the host was not properly sending the plane types to the clients in multiplayer. Which it should if the host randomizes the plane type. You went ahead and forced the game to pick or use non random planes on each players computer, or something or other. So now you must pick all plane types since the random bit is removed in selection?

And your saying this issue may happen similar with the formation random bit. I could see that happening, as each eaw.exe is going to come up with different formations, but im not sure myself.
Okay, just wanted to note that, I don't know why, but mostly for my own clarification.


EDIT:
Even if all players have the same files, the random bit will have different results per machine/game running, unless only the host during multiplay transmits the produced formation to everyone.

Last edited by MarkEAW; 08/28/18 06:26 AM.
#4436111 - 08/28/18 06:31 AM Re: The line ahead formation [Re: VonBeerhofen]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,506
Brit44 'Aldo' Offline
Every Human is Unique
Brit44 'Aldo'  Offline
Every Human is Unique
Member

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,506
True,
At set up,the host must set all variables. During Client/Client MP, the controlling client is responsible for updating the client position.
Edit:
DP Games of this era do not use client/server MP. Client/server was developed to address these short comings.


Last edited by Brit44 'Aldo'; 08/28/18 06:41 AM. Reason: tpa, who twi

TPA who TWI
"The 10th Amendment simply says that any powers that aren’t mentioned in the Constitution as belonging to the government belong to the states themselves."
#4436115 - 08/28/18 08:05 AM Re: The line ahead formation [Re: VonBeerhofen]  
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,497
MrJelly Offline
Veteran
MrJelly  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,497
Montagnac, L'Herault, France
Years ago in a game with Knegel I saw him shoot down a P47-D when he shot down a P38-J
We realised that this was caused by each player's MISNxy.DAT files.
These files generate the friendly and enemy AI types, with probability values set in them. In an allied intercept online it might be a 50% chance you get a Ju88-A a 30% chance of a He 111 and a 20 % chance you get a Stuka.

I fixed this in OAWUnified with the "magic number system".

[Linked Image]

The magic number was generated by the host's PC and did all sorts of things. It would be generated in OAW by the host (who had selected the four AI planes from the list at the right), and copied to chat. The players would copy it from chat and paste it into OAW which would re-generate the files and give them the identical set-up to the host.

There was a lot more to the magic number system, but this aspect set the same AIs for everyone in the online game.

The ability to set the AIS and not use MISNxy.DAT files in the 128 series made this finally redundant.

wink Jel


Fly EAW online at GameRanger: GameRanger Site

FaceBook Pages
UAW 160 downloads
EAW Club

Mark Twain: I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.

I am now of an age at which I no longer need to suffer fools gladly
#4436116 - 08/28/18 08:23 AM Re: The line ahead formation [Re: VonBeerhofen]  
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,554
VonBeerhofen Offline
3DZ Master/Campaign Designer
VonBeerhofen  Offline
3DZ Master/Campaign Designer
Hotshot

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,554
Zandvoort, N-H, Netherlands
I think it is as Brit says, all AI are under host control and their positions are properly transmitted in the packages send by the host. Even when there were discrepancies in the aircraft selection and players ended up seeing different planes then me, the game progressed normally but obviously the hitbubbles of those other plane would be different.
Such anomalies have long been explained and fixed since the release of PTIII in 2005. Furthermore, a randomiser routine positions all aircraft in the group by default, which is what you see in the screenshots, they're not the same. If I hadn't used the randomiser the result would be a bomber or fighter stream, like the V1 formation.

The routine I wrote does exactly the same thing as the other routines when selecting specific formations for a particular plane type and/or year, with the difference that the selection is random for that year. It won't change the planetype, only the initial formation,. The new routine can simply bypass the randomiser too, for any formation type, but it's questionable wether such would be usefull. The problem with a line formation with large seperation is that AI will concentrate on the first plane and quickly destroy it, when the next plane arrives they will do the same thing, so seperation must be narrow to get some sort of realistic activity.

It might be usefull to use this new randomiser routine to make it happen to all years and/or planetypes, just as a means of adding more diversity, but the formations themselves can already be edited to fit any nation in the world since app. 2002, using Dom's formation randomiser or something else. But as Ribob showed, formations have always been more or less static, serving their offensive of defensive purpose. Deviations from the generally adapted formation types in WWII are probably minor but there's no problem creating anything you like.

This new EXE wasn't shared yet and no differences were observed in online games, inspite of me using it already, I prefer to test things myself first before putting other people's computers at risk, the players are too old to recover from ANY issues I might have incorporated in EAW. I'll test it further for a week and make notes about any problems we encounter before sharing it. I think it's the safest way to do things, but the risk of different versions is always there in online games.

It's a waste of time to further discuss the behaviour of EAW, you know how it works or you don't, and if you don't then you won't get it to work. I can only say that I have 18 years of experience with setting up online games using addons, and the initial problems we encountered have all been recognised. EAWPRO and the older FXEXE's have all been working wonderfully well, but like with Mr. Jelly there were many hurdles to overcome. I think people should be aware that the .MSN files can become corrupted because of changes we make in the EXE, I've seen that happen a few times, with such corruption nothing goes anymore for that particular plane type. I even have the adresses that got modified in the file and made notes of what happened and why.
This time there were no surprises fortunately.

Fact is that either version will run into the same problems when the same things are modified, even if the approach is slightly different. In such situations you learn and move on to the next task

VonBeerhofen

#4436272 - 08/29/18 06:42 AM Re: The line ahead formation [Re: VonBeerhofen]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,506
Brit44 'Aldo' Offline
Every Human is Unique
Brit44 'Aldo'  Offline
Every Human is Unique
Member

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,506
just to clarify my opinion,
I have not looked into the EAW Direct Play code this deep, but in PE the AI wingmen position is dictated by the owning client platoon. General AI is controlled by the host. If all player files (mod) match then this is a null issue.


TPA who TWI
"The 10th Amendment simply says that any powers that aren’t mentioned in the Constitution as belonging to the government belong to the states themselves."
#4436378 - 08/30/18 12:23 AM Re: The line ahead formation [Re: VonBeerhofen]  
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 516
RIBob Offline
Member
RIBob  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 516
Just to clarify my position, which I believe VBH actually intended to say in an above post: "But as Ribob showed, formations have always been more or less static, serving their offensive of defensive purpose."

What I originally intended to say, and what I believe VBH to have understood, although inexactly expressed in the above quote is that while the configuration of various formations seldom changed throughout the war, the usage of such formations varied throughout the war, with the Brits being caught a bit backwards, tactically, and having to play catch-up, tactically.

So, for very early War, the Germans and Brits would have very different fighter formations. Even these fighter formations would be modified by intended mission, be it escort/intercept.

As the war went on, both sides learned the optimal formations for their intended missions. The Germans usually intercepting, and the Allies usually escorting.

However, this should not ignore the other missions that fighters or fighter/bombers were expected to make. I very much doubt that the ill-trained German pilots flying Operation "Bodenplatt" during the Battle of the Bulge flew, in ground attack role, a finger-four formation. Maybe the expert pilots flying high cover did so. Most likely these very inexpert pilots were herded to their target by experts flying above them. Probably they used simple formations, as suited their lack of experience, and their mission. Again, and guessing, probably Vics of aircraft would be easiest to command/navigate to the target, and have best effect, if not shot down in the interim. It's not surprising that the surviving Luftwaffe personnel have little to say about the exact tactics of this last-ditch ground-attack effort by the Luftwaffe, since it was a failure. "Success has many Fathers, but Failure is an Orphan".

Likewise, I don't think that Allied fighter-bombers during the Normandy Breakout, or the race across France, flew in line astern. Accounts from historical sources seem to indicate that Allied ground support aircraft were controlled by ground-controllers, and orbited in varying elevations until called-down to the next-lowest orbit, and thence directed to attack a specific target. This is something the Germans never instituted to the full extent that the Allies achieved.

It should not be forgotten that during late war, escorting Allied fighters were ordered to do ground-attack on the way home, to the extent they had unexpended ordinance, mostly .50 Cal MG.. Escorting fighter pilots considered such ancillary missions as risky, and with good reason; the Mustang was particularly vulnerable to ground fire, as opposed to the P-47, for example.

So, history tells us that aircraft formations are (always) dependent on the state-of the art tactical doctrine du jour, (varying opponents having a different approaches to such, as in Battle of Britain), and both sides altering such as the tactical situation dictated, as the war went on. Needless to say, aircraft technology also intruded into this muddle; witness the early German jets,.

The simplest thing to do is allow the user to select any formation they want, at any point in time. But to be historically accurate, perhaps some historical guidance might be required. This might be an historically appropriate default formation, or some sort of textual information.

I will do some research, and report back. As I understand it, the EAW game scenarios range in time from the mid-30's to 1945. Is this correct? I am a bit unclear as to the theaters of operations during this (assumed) time frame, so guidance is needed, please.

YMMV.

Last edited by RIBob; 08/31/18 09:55 PM.
#4437072 - 09/04/18 02:08 AM Re: The line ahead formation [Re: VonBeerhofen]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,506
Brit44 'Aldo' Offline
Every Human is Unique
Brit44 'Aldo'  Offline
Every Human is Unique
Member

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,506
A very nice post RIBob.
I also want to add, and I know I am kicking a dead horse, MP stability requires that all files match. Single player or when all agree with the host is when it is fun to play about with formations, targets, landscape..


TPA who TWI
"The 10th Amendment simply says that any powers that aren’t mentioned in the Constitution as belonging to the government belong to the states themselves."
#4437079 - 09/04/18 02:33 AM Re: The line ahead formation [Re: VonBeerhofen]  
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 1,122
MarkEAW Offline
Member
MarkEAW  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2015
Posts: 1,122
Acualy you can have different add-ons in MP, it 'might' effect the game if your using different textures or skins, but its really how your machine performs with the EAW configuration your using.
But I prefer it to be a CRC check on ALL files to help improve the MP experience.

#4437107 - 09/04/18 10:27 AM Re: The line ahead formation [Re: VonBeerhofen]  
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,554
VonBeerhofen Offline
3DZ Master/Campaign Designer
VonBeerhofen  Offline
3DZ Master/Campaign Designer
Hotshot

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,554
Zandvoort, N-H, Netherlands
All planes are individually controlled by the host's machine, the selected formation is only active when the battle hasn't started yet, after which each plane will go it's own way and do it's own thing. A regroup will restore the selected formation with what's left, but with only 4 or 5 planes left there isn't much of a formation to build anymore. What formation would the leftover group use after being battered, I wonder. Possibly the regroup could select something else, something like a ''decimated'' formation to fall back to, instead of the formation choosen by the game.

VonBeerhofen

#4437561 - 09/06/18 09:05 PM Re: The line ahead formation [Re: VonBeerhofen]  
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 516
RIBob Offline
Member
RIBob  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by VonBeerhofen
All planes are individually controlled by the host's machine, the selected formation is only active when the battle hasn't started yet, after which each plane will go it's own way and do it's own thing. A regroup will restore the selected formation with what's left, but with only 4 or 5 planes left there isn't much of a formation to build anymore. What formation would the leftover group use after being battered, I wonder. Possibly the regroup could select something else, something like a ''decimated'' formation to fall back to, instead of the formation choosen by the game.

VonBeerhofen


I have almost everything to earn about on-line flying, so my ears are open. I want to be reasonably competent, and so would appreciate advice on which sim(s) to be come adept. If necessary, please mention specific version(s) of the various sim(s) with which I should be practicing.

BTW, just today received the first of my soon-to-be flight library: "The Story Of Air Fighting" by Air Vice-Marshal J.E, Johnson. An overview, but it's a good one. Might answer some questions.


One thing I've learned from just a quick skim is that the "Game-changer" was radio contact amongst a formation of aircraft. It was of immense value compared to almost non-existent contact between older aircraft, like WW I planes.

So much so that a formation of experienced, trained, pilots in radio contact within their unit, would very likely prevail over somewhat better aircraft flown by pilots of equal skill levels. The radio contact within unit was ultimately dependent on the skill of the formation leader, who could place his formation in the best possible tactical position for combat. During combat, the capabilities of the pilots and planes would necessarily assume more importance.

This sort of Radio/Telephony (R/T) disparity might well have occurred during Spanish Civil War, with concomitant results.

#4441199 - 09/27/18 11:39 PM Re: The line ahead formation [Re: RIBob]  
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 516
RIBob Offline
Member
RIBob  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 516
According to Air Vice-Marshal J.E.Johnson, the Brits, French, and Germans had learned that flying in pairs was the basic formation, and that during WW I. There is some evidence that flying in "Pairs of Pairs" was done during the Great War, but that was not the norm..

During the interwar years, such fundamentals were forsaken in lieu of other formations, such as "Vics" of three aircraft, which allowed the flight Leader better control of presumably less well-trained pilots, albeit at the sacrifice of the following pilots' situational awareness. The Vic would transform into (most often) "Line-Ahead" formation for tactical positioning/maneuvering (again, assuming novice pilots in the formation), and would re-transition into Vic formation for attack.

The Germans had a leg-up on rediscovering the better, older formations during the Spanish War, and used them to good advantage during the Battle of Britain, while the Brits were very slow to adopt the better formations, most likely due to institutional inertia, and the great influx of relatively unskilled pilots. There were some Brit units that made an early (semi-authorized) transition to pairs of fighters, and even finger-four formations, but that was well into the BoB, and by no means at the beginning, or even the mid-point of BoB.

Even after the BoB, and with solid evidence that the old-style formations were vastly inferior to the new, finger-four formation, the Brits had some difficulty in transitioning to the newer tactical formations.

If my understanding is correct, then the sim designer ought to set, as default, the AI at a higher level for the Germans during the latter part of the Spanish war, and during most, if not all of the BoB, due to their improved aircraft formations, as well as the experience level of German pilots as opposed to their counterparts flying far less capable formations. The AI setting, of course, is independent of aircraft characteristics/capabilities.

Submitted for consideration.

Last edited by RIBob; 09/27/18 11:41 PM.
#4441231 - 09/28/18 07:20 AM Re: The line ahead formation [Re: VonBeerhofen]  
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 7,427
Moggy Offline
EAW Old Timer and Bodger
Moggy  Offline
EAW Old Timer and Bodger
Hotshot

Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 7,427
A slit trench at RAF Gravesend
As I understand it, in the late 30s the RAF had adopted quite rigid fighter formations and tactics, based on the idea that they would be attacking bomber formations flying from German bases which would not be escorted by fighters. Hence:

Fighter Attack No.1 (From Above Cloud) {3 aircraft Section vs single enemy}

Fighter Attack No.2 (From Directly Below) {3 aircraft Section vs single enemy}

Fighter Attack No.3 (From Dead Astern) Approach Pursuit or Approach Turning

Fighter Attack No.4 (From Directly Below) {A variation of No.2, attacking multiple aircraft}

Fighter Attack No.5 (From Dead Astern) {For attacking a large enemy formation}

Fighter Attack No.6 (From Dead Astern) {Attack conducted with entire squadron}

It was not part of RAF consideration that France would fall rapidly and that short range fighter escorts could be based four minutes away on the other side of the channel.

As is typically British and bureaucratic the RAF saw no reason to change its tactics merely because the whole war situation had changed and invalidated all pre-war assumptions.

The documents show RAF squadrons using those rigid tactics in the battle. However, it was only the more independently minded squadron commanders who saw how futile these tactics were, and began to adopt the looser tactics of pairs and the finger-four.

#4442478 - 10/06/18 12:19 PM Re: The line ahead formation [Re: Moggy]  
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 516
RIBob Offline
Member
RIBob  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by Moggy
As I understand it, in the late 30s the RAF had adopted quite rigid fighter formations and tactics, based on the idea that they would be attacking bomber formations flying from German bases which would not be escorted by fighters. Hence:

Fighter Attack No.1 (From Above Cloud) {3 aircraft Section vs single enemy}

Fighter Attack No.2 (From Directly Below) {3 aircraft Section vs single enemy}

Fighter Attack No.3 (From Dead Astern) Approach Pursuit or Approach Turning

Fighter Attack No.4 (From Directly Below) {A variation of No.2, attacking multiple aircraft}

Fighter Attack No.5 (From Dead Astern) {For attacking a large enemy formation}

Fighter Attack No.6 (From Dead Astern) {Attack conducted with entire squadron}

It was not part of RAF consideration that France would fall rapidly and that short range fighter escorts could be based four minutes away on the other side of the channel.

As is typically British and bureaucratic the RAF saw no reason to change its tactics merely because the whole war situation had changed and invalidated all pre-war assumptions.

The documents show RAF squadrons using those rigid tactics in the battle. However, it was only the more independently minded squadron commanders who saw how futile these tactics were, and began to adopt the looser tactics of pairs and the finger-four.


This is my understanding as well.

#4442480 - 10/06/18 12:42 PM Re: The line ahead formation [Re: VonBeerhofen]  
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 516
RIBob Offline
Member
RIBob  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by VonBeerhofen
All planes are individually controlled by the host's machine, the selected formation is only active when the battle hasn't started yet, after which each plane will go it's own way and do it's own thing. A regroup will restore the selected formation with what's left, but with only 4 or 5 planes left there isn't much of a formation to build anymore. What formation would the leftover group use after being battered, I wonder. Possibly the regroup could select something else, something like a ''decimated'' formation to fall back to, instead of the formation choosen by the game.

VonBeerhofen


Historically, a lot of this would depend on whether the aircraft surviving were able to re-unite at all. Most often, a "rally-point" at or near some convenient, readily identifiable geographic feature would be specified.

However, depending on the outcome of combat, the location of same, fuel/damage status, the ability of the planes to re-unite, and leader with navigational skills being available, a number of possibilities present themselves.

Single aircraft, particularly if damaged/low on fuel might well have returned to base, and it is possible that there could be many single aircraft unable to re-unite with their leader, assuming he survived combat.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
10 years after 3/8/2014
by NoFlyBoy. 03/17/24 10:25 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0