Re: [OFFICIAL] Some FT background stuff (guidelines for writers) - LONG POST!
From: Jerry Han <jhan@c...>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:21:53 -0500
Subject: Re: [OFFICIAL] Some FT background stuff (guidelines for writers) - LONG POST!
Allan Goodall wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 23:12:02 -0500, Los <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >This is MOST definately wrong. It's exactly the opposite. A good
> >usually win over an inferior piloy in a better plane. Even some
> >study of air combat history or any discussion about Red Flag or Top
> >will show that.
> Not according to the gang on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim. The
> problem with Red Flag and Top Gun is that they don't cover all
> variables. They don't cover AWACs. They don't cover stealth fighters
> or cruise missiles taking out the runways first. They don't cover SAMs
> helping out one side over the other. There is a lot of tech that these
> games don't teach.
Ah, c.s.i.p.g.flight-sim, those purveyors of quality information. (8-)
(Sorry, I've been a little annoyed at signal:noise ratios on newsgroups
for the past year. The only group I'll read on a regular basis is
sci.military.moderated, and that's because it's moderated. (8-) )
Red Flag does (or at least, did) cover all operations of a modern war,
including Stealth (once it became declassified enough to be seen at
'Flags') and damage to friendly infrastructure. In fact, I remember
reading once that, in one Red Flag, the bad guys 'nuked' Nellis AFB at
a conclusion of a 'Flag'. (8-) I've heard of A10 backfield operations,
AWACS escort and shoot-down operations, different types of strike
with saftey rules e.g. hard decks, which does change the nature of the
Top Gun does NOT cover anything other than ACM. If you want the full
combat experience, you want to visit 'Strike', though it doesn't
do the full experience that 'Red Flag' and related exercises give you.
However Top Gun does prove that you gotta be really good, or really
to go angles in an F14 v. a F5. If you're in a F14A, don't go
energy either. Pop the bastard with Phoenix from 50nm out. (8-)
> As for history, compare Me262s versus P-51s and Spitfire XIIIs. There
> are major points where technology outruns raw talent.
Actually, this is a hard analogy to tease out, because, by the time the
Me 262 was seeing squadron service, its so purpose was to intercept
heavy bombers, and not engage in dogfights with the escort. The Me 262
had the great advantage of being able to outrun and outclimb anything
in the sky, which made hit and run attacks on 8th AF very easy.
energy fights with prop fighters were easy. But, if you actually got
into a turning dogfight with the 262, its speed and unreliable engines
worked against you.
As well, the Luftwaffe at this point was in a sorry state, being
of elite veterans and cannon fodder, with no middle state. Me 262s were
given almost exclusively to the elite veterans, providing a good plane
with elite pilots. (Galland's elite squadron comes to mind - Knowtony
Kommando?) Thus, I'm not sure you can use the talent argument here.
> >instructors at ARed Flagg in F5s and A7s are constantly whipping
> >F18s and F14s and f16s.
> Not constantly. The students take out the instructors more than you
> might think. Top Gun in particular covers dogfighting more than stand
> off missile fire.
However, as stated above, do not take a F14 into an angles fight unless
you want to die miserably. (8-)
Jerry Han - CANOE Canada - email@example.com - http://www.idigital.net/jhan
***** Visit the Canadian Online Explorer! => http://www.canoe.ca *****
The opinions expressed are mine, and not necessarily those of CANOE
"Is there no escape from the words that plague me so?"