Interesting. Hadn’t read Shaw’s take on escorts before, but Remote Escort, his
preferred method, is what became our SOP in Classic IL-2. For the reasons given
we found Close Escort doesn’t work without a Detached Escort. Fast attackers
won’t be caught from the rear - not quickly or by surprise anyway - so a
forward sweep should intercept anything the attackers might otherwise run
across. The escort then patrolled about a grid ‘sausage side’ of the target
while the attack went in. The method was an exact copy of Shaw’s Remote Escort.
Kernow
Sent from my iPad
On 21 Jan 2020, at 19:55, Lee Fisher (Redacted sender l.fisher for DMARC)
<dmarc-noreply-outsider@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
After giving some of our thoughts on Escorting, I though it might be of
interest to go through “Shaw" and see what he has to say on the matter. Quite
a lot as you’d expect :)
Here’s my summary of what he says. To my mind 56 are currently using what
Shaw describes as “Close Escort” tactics.
- - - -
Escorting a strike package. Page 335. Diagram’s 9-2, 9-3, 9-4, 9-5 & 9-6.
Fighter escorts can be considered as providing point defence to a moving
target.
There are several types of escort which can be deployed to protect a strike
package.
Remote Escort.
Detached Escort.
Close Escort.
Reception Escort.
Remote Escort:
Remote escorts are so named as they stay out of visual range of the strike
package. Fighter sweeps are the most effective means of achieving protection
for the strike package, they can sweep in front of the strike package
clearing its route, out to the sides, on the side of most threat. they can
sweep nearby enemy resources to give “feint” attacks or suppress an enemy
airfield by their close presence. They can sweep the target before the strike
package arrives clearing out any CAP and can also provide a blocking CAP
between the target and the likely enemy approach routes. They must ensure
they have the fuel to carry out all the “activities” planned during their
sweep.
Detached Escort:
Detached Escorts stay in visual range of the strike package but far enough
out that they can lead turn any enemy heading for the strike aircraft before
the enemy is gun range of the strike aircraft! they are terminal defence and
must ensure they are not drawn off by enemy feint attacks, they require high
levels of discipline to stay with the Strike package. They can be placed in
front of the strike package to ward off head on attacks, usually at a similar
altitude to their charge. They can be to the flanks or at the rear, at the
rear they should be higher to give them altitude to react quickly by diving
towards any enemy heading for the strike aircraft. They should maintain a
high speed and weave to reduce forward speed to stay with the strike
aircraft, they must not let their weaving stop them from scanning for enemy
aircraft.
Close Escort:
Close Escorts are similar to Detached Escorts, except they sit very close to
the strike aircraft also keeping a high speed and weaving so they do not
out-pace the strike aircraft, however they cannot work well without Detached
Escorts as well, who give the early warning required for them to react in
time to be effective.
Reception Escorts:
Reception Escorts will meet the strike package on its return to friendly
airspace, they can support existing aircraft types that have already been
engaged and may be damaged, or low on ammo or separated.
In summary:
Remote Escorts are the most effective, and can be supported by other,
co-ordinated sweeps, in the general area of the target.
Detached Escorts are the next effective escort type.
Close Escorts are the least effective use of fighter aircraft in the escort
role.
Reception Escorts meet the strike package after the target was attacked and
makes sure everyone who can, gets home.
- - - -
Todays Patch has changed low dots being quite so shiny, we still spotted some
low 109’s today though :) this may reduce your “visibility" if you do a low
level route. My opinion is though that the higher you go the better but
that’s obviously up to your planner.
Bart and I have discussed trying out the tactic of Remote Escort, we would
however have to learn the P-51 a lot better than we know it at the moment.
So, “if" we get invited to next Sundays co-op mission with 322, the Blaggards
are willing to sweep ahead of your strike and see if we achieve what Shaw
describes. I hope this is of interest to the pilots who prefer fighters to
attackers.
Witch
Blaggards
“The Fighter, even when tackling a purely defensive task, must never lose the
initiative to his opponent”.
Lt Gen Adolph Galland.
On 20 Jan 2020, at 4:24 pm, Lee Fisher (Redacted sender "l.fisher" for
DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Cina, Salute,
As you mention L & R tanks I ‘m assuming you were in a Mustang. The
greatest longe range fighter of the war.
<><> SNIP <><>
Good luck.
Witch
Blaggards.
On 20 Jan 2020, at 8:41 am, Marcin Wochnik <cinawochnik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Guys,
Small comment on my side.
I must agree with Phoenix that fast flying p38s were a problem for the
escorts after we burned so much fuel over the airfield. I tried to fly on
economic settings as often as possible to conserve fuel. That is why I
ended up lagging behind twice. Besides I was flying in a three ship
formation and it was difficult for me to keep in position, cover Flamm and
Martin and keep looking at Dutch and Klem. At some point I just
concentrated staying in formation and not loosing my leader because Flamm
did not call any direction changes and power/rpm settings when we waved
over the bombers.
I don't know what skin did attackers wear but you were all so clearly
visible from altitude that it was a miracle that you were not seen by enemy
fighters for so long. This bug starts to annoy me very much. I hope that it
will be fixed in next patch as a priority (although devs did not mention
anything about it in their latest DD) because it ruins multiplayer and
favors Axis side.
When you were egressing from the target and Stickz was attacked by a 109 it
was my call to the escorts about the bogey. I saw a distant contact coalt
with us turning left and diving vertically on the bombers. I shouted that
to Flamm and Dutch. Flamm made a half roll and started a vertical dive on
the 109. I did the same but lost everybody against the ground. I only saw a
splash on the ground and Flamm reported it was the 109.
When I finally got to the bombers after you were heading home I again tried
to rejoin with Flamm. I had no idea about a 109 flying between me and the
bombers (Klem ever said that he was attacked by p51 - me). When the bombers
were attacked again I lost sight of the them and Flamm (he dove down) so I
decided to go home flying low settings. When I saw the airfield (20-30 km
away) my left tank was showing E, my right 5 gallons. I made a shallow dive
to the airfield, chopped throttle and landed.
Overall the sortie was very enjoyable but constant fuel consumption concern
made me ineffective as an escort fighter. But I know it will be better with
each sortie together. Looking forward for next Sunday. Maybe we will have
some occasion flying with 322 during the week.
Cheers,
Cina
pon., 20 sty 2020 o 00:52 tim foster <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
napisał(a):
Dont think they gonna be rallying there no more.
I knew I should have hit the tents as well.
I watched track showing the k4 come on my 6 off target, the escorts do not
even show up on my recording so far away. Whats he got to spot that and
call me to break? Wow thats bloody impressive. When I reversed think the
k4 tried to pull back and blacked out. Dont wanna do that at 50feet - mind
you I nearly flew into his guns trying to be clever.
TTFN
Stickz
On 19/01/2020 23:09, 56RAF_phoenix wrote:
A minor correction ... but that left 1 p51s and 2 Tempests still to
defend us.
Also, at the time our 109K appeared on the scene, the escort was 9,000 ft
away. As he closed on Stickz, the escort was 17,000 ft away. I think we
all throttled-up and closed-up, a natural, but wrong move for P-38s.
56RAF_phoenix
On 19/01/2020 22:24, 56RAF_phoenix wrote:
I very much enjoyed our mission with 322 tonight - thanks to Talisman
for organising it all.
On the issue of Stickz being shot down, I have part of a track just
before. The 109 approached from our left flank - unseen by me as I was
formed on the left. He made a poor job of interception and ended up
behind all the bombers. Though I didn't get the shoot-down on the track,
the 109K spent ages hanging around between our escort (on distant 6) and
us bombers.
That made me think an additional thought about one of the 322 comments -
by flying full throttle (we could do little about their fuel state) we
denied the opportunity for them to defend us. Flamm and another went
down after a different 109K, but that left 2 p51s and 2 Tempests still
to defend us.
Sure, lower throttle (or turning) would have made us more vulnerable,
but that 109K would have been at huge risk from our escorts if we'd
allowed them the chance to defend us.
Just a lesson to learn, I think, that escaping is not always the best
option if we have such superiority of numbers. Which is back to 322's
point about luring fighters up.
We've become so used to operating in small numbers and coping with that
limitation. Sometimes it takes new people to make us think again.
56RAF_phoenix
--
if you dont live life on the edge you are taking up too much space
