5 ms·
I agree that there are conceivable circumstances where this kind of maneuvering is useful. One thing to consider: fights are rarely 1v1, and even if it works pe
by scarier 6y ago
I agree that there are conceivable circumstances where this kind of maneuvering is useful. One thing to consider: fights are rarely 1v1, and even if it works perfectly against the guy you're fighting at the moment, one of his buddies will almost certainly have at least one shot opportunity against you. Energy is easy to give up and hard to get back.
- sudosysgen 6y agoThe multitude of fighters works both ways. While an enemy might gain a shot on you, your energy disadvantage is less significant in the short term and your buddies should have an easier time due to pragmatic numeric advantage.
- scarier 6y agoMaybe. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. That said, if I had to choose between fighting someone who employs this tactic as a part of their standard game plan or someone who doesn't, I'd choose to fight the former pretty much every time.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y agoThe real issue in a war with a well-equipped equal - as opposed to an incursion against an inferior state - is reliability and availability of parts and servicing. The F22 is neither cheap nor quick to service after flights. A plane that does everything well, except be ready to fly when you need it, is not going to be a war winner in a serious conflict.
- scarier 6y ago100% agreed, but we're firmly within the realms of operations and strategy now, rather than tactics. That said, it's a good exercise to expand your scope of "kills" from weapons, rocks, and gas to include things like maintenance and admin.