Talk:Dicta Boelcke

WikiProject Military history

(Rated Start-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): German military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War I task force

Bölcke's list of tactics:

1. Try to secure the upper hand before attacking. If possible, keep the sun behind you.

2. Always continue with an attack you have begun.

3. Only fire at close range, and then only when the opponent is properly in your sights.

4. You should always try to keep your eye on your opponent, and never let yourself be deceived by ruses.

5. In any type of attack, it is essential to go for your opponent from behind.

6. If your opponent dives on you, do not try to get around his attack, but fly to meet it.

7. When over the enemy's lines, never forget your own line of retreat.

8. Tip for Squadrons: In principle, it is better to attack in groups of four or six. If fights break up into a series of single combats, try to avoid a situation where several go after one opponent.

machines?

Can someone tell me why this article keeps referring to planes as 'machines' seems like an odd word to use. If there is no good reason/objections I am happy to replace it to clean the article up. :) --Curuxz (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Its a reasonable point; I know what you mean. At the time, using 'machine' to describe an aircraft was very common and it seems to have stuck throughout the years in a lot of WW1 Aviation literature, which is a bit odd really - maybe it gives a bit of an 'olde worlde" touch. I personally wouldn't have thought its worth going to a lot of trouble cleaning up on that basis but that's not to say there's not a lot of editing that could justifiably be done on the article. I'd say it is too wordy. Scoop100 (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have some old storypapers from the 1890's / 1900's in which bicycles are also referred to as "machines". I suppose it was just the style of the times. Oddly i don't think i have ever seen a car referred to in the same way (though in the 1940's the bizarre word "Flivver" was popular!) 82.153.230.147 (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)