Adoption of "Modern" tactics - ie pairs etc - just when did it happen?

[PilGrim]

I'm trying to get my head around just when the various nations shifted to the pair \ leader & wingman formation - if indeed they did. I appreciate the Germans lead on this, the RAF seem to have adopted it ad hoc until it was officially formalised in 1941 (iirc) but what about the others?

When did the US, USSR, Italy and Japan adopt pairs and what did they use before? I know the Italians were flying very tight Vics in 1940/41 for instance - but this could possibly be a side effect of having such poor radios, but what about the rest?

Any help appreciated

[flash]

this might help answer some of the questions Ken
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger-four

[Pas de Nomme]

The Germans in Spain from 38, and Soviets there too, the Fins in their wars with the Soviets, the US and the Dutch from 41, the Brits from 42-43 I think (some units in 41). The Soviets in the USSR around the same time as the Brits and I suppose any others would have changed by then as well. IIRC the Japanese kept using the 3-plane group for a long time, not as a vic but as a leading pair with the third as high cover some way behind. I've also read that they too used pairs-of-pairs, so not sure. The Soviets would eventually combine the Japanese 'loose vic' with pairs very effectively in e.g. Korea, with the pairs stacked behind each other with the third a bit further behind: very deadly. Tight vics were originally meant to concentrate firepower against bombers, but only worked if there wasn't any fighter opposition. IIRC the concept of pairs of wingmen was used in the second half of WW1 as well.
But one key element of the pair is that one plane fights while the other protects. And they commonly operated in pairs of pairs. So a flight of those not following the rules (by either all going at it alone, or all firmly sticking to their flight leader) has less combat value than a tight vic, while a properly led loose vic can be more deadly than a normal double pair. Etc.

[PilGrim]

Thanks Gents

That's interesting - particularly the Soviet experience. I understood some RAF Squadrons returning from France in 1940 were adopting Finger Fours based on experience but cant find the reference.

Any more info greatly appreciated

[Setarius]

Very interesting read Dave. Some things I had never considered while playing, yet used the principles of pairs and finger four loosely without knowing how they came about.

[PilGrim]

Does anyone have any information on French tactical formations?

[Pas de Nomme]

During the Blitzkrieg (May-June 1940), the French used both two-plane and three-plane elements.
They used 5 systems for flights:
- the Basic Patrol of a vic of 3 planes;
- the Double Patrol of 2 vics (one behind the other);
- the Light Patrol of a pair;
- the Double Light Patrol of 2 pairs (but flying one behind the other);
- and finally the Mixed patrol of a vic followed by a pair.

Later the fighters used pair groupings only, like the others.

[PilGrim]

Thanks - that's very useful

[David Manley]

Air combat tactics is an interesting subject to see here since, in my observations of playing over the last 9 years or so any thought of tactics goes out of player heads as soon as the first card is played (if they were ever there at all!) :happy:

[PilGrim]

How much is gained by tactical formations is a fascinating subject. I understand the advantages of the loose pair, particularly over tight vics, but after that it gets very muddy. I wonder how much communications plays a part - I would guess quite a lot, but then again once the fight starts as Dave says, does it all go out of the window, or does the element that maintains its integrity longest have the advantage?

[Lord_Ninja]

I've tried to play a pair when flying two planes. But the wingman always has a case of ADHD and abandons his flight leader anytime he sees an opening on an opponent. Reading up on actual combat shows that this was a common occurance in real life soooo....