Dogfighting is a Rouch Umbrella term for a bunch of diffrent tactics
each tactic has it’s Advantages and Disadvantages, you as the Pilot have to pick the right Tactic for fighting your specific opponent(s) with your specific Airframe at your position in space during the match
it’s a Bit like chess
it’s made up and not universally agreed upon so in the grand scheme it doesn’t matter
As i expected. Well, main discussion is about a .50 cal armed Bearcat anyways
There is nothing to elaborate on. If you know what the word means you know what I’m saying. The community does not have an agreed upon consensus on what a “dogfight” is versus what “energy fighting” is or what “BnZ” is, all relative to each other.
I take the meaning from good old Wikipedia
So anything that isn’t slinging radar missiles from dozens of kilometers or shooting down passive targets like bombers is a dogfight
Nothing to do with what I just said.
you literally said
Correct, and you posted your own personal take
but its universally agreed upon different nations even, that it means battle in clear vision which requires use of maneuvering.
It’s not my “personal take”, this is apparently from this source.
Dunno who’s this Robert Shaw is but he must be a powerful wizard
yes I know, I figured the rather lackluster armarment of 4 .50 cals is the main reason this aircraft is 4.7 because that is by far the worst part of it
having only flown the French one with 20mm guns before getting the .50 cal one in the american tree it was very noticable that some enemies could just play with me while my Guns did little damage to them in situations that would’ve been guaranteed kills in the F8F-1B Bearcat or in other planes with more .50 cals
Problem is that difference between those 2 is more than a whole br jump. So either F8F-1B is overtiered and should go down (which i doubt from my personal experience) or F8F-1 is massively undertiered because people can’t survive more than one firing solution.
I don’t think you are trying to understand the point. Have a good one.
the source for that is a book from 1985 which doesn’t claim that this is agreed upon by anyone besides the author
It is very hard to understand point if the only explanation is “if you know you know”. So you either baiting or can’t explain yourself.
I’m sure you think that.
You just proven my point. Man, i know to not expect much from forum dwellers, but i’m still dissapointed
I’m sure you think that.
You reek of unwarranted/unearned elitism.
You are the living proof that my elitism is warranted and more than earned
Everybody who sniffs their own waste thinks the same about the people they simply disagree with or rather in your case, the people that don’t accept their asserted opinion.