Talk:Air combat manoeuvring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST 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 assessment scale.


Is it just me, or is the title of this article misspelled, along with all uses of the word "manuever"? MMad 20:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; the correct spelling is "manoeuvring" cpt_ricard 14:37, 11 April 2006

Do you mean manœuvring?Cameron Nedland 20:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It depends. See American and British English spelling differences. Jigen III 10:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I find many, many different references that use the more common, (at least in the USA), spelling Maneuver. See the three I've listed below under the section More Tactical Info Please. Whichever is used, (I really don't care), I think the spelling in the article should at least match the title.Zaereth (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
No doubt, it should be Maneuvering - the correct spelling for the majority of English speakers on the planet. But then the first sentence reads "Air combat maneuvering (ACM) is the art of maneuvering a combat aircraft" which defines air combat maneuvering in terms of maneuvering, combat, and air(craft), so who knows what brilliant Wiki-ite wrote this - he might think manoeuvring is correct. --October 1, 2015
Manoeuvring is absolutely the correct spelling in both British English and French, which is where the word originated. (Actually it's a French derivative of the Latin manos, meaning "hand," which is typical of many English words.) Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia, and an article may use either British or American spellings, depending on who first started the article. This article was originally started in British English, so that's the way it should stay, according to WP:English variations. (See my attempt to change it below.) Zaereth (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Complex vs. Theoretical ACM[edit]

Most if not all ACM listed under Complex heading are really theoretical, unproven in wartime, and really ASM (AirShow Maneuvers). I am entering this comment for further discussion then I may amend the article.

Looking forward to your constructive dialog. --Man-hi 04:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the various entries I can say definitely the extra information on Complex ACM does not belong in this Wikipedia entry. As a suggestion, any expansion on the basic definition should lead to the next era's and following developments of the application of ACM. The article should cut itself short to where ACM is applied and stop there. --Man-hi 04:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why those manouvers are called complex, in reality they are simple compared to e.g. the Scissors (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Man-hi. These maneuvers are just that - theoretical, and thus, have never been proven in combat. These seem more like air show maneuvers.Zaereth (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

History Overview[edit]

It appears to me that the section on History Overview has been directly plagerized from . The history seems to be covered more extensively at . Perhaps a link could be established from here to there.Zaereth (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

More tactical info please[edit]

A lot of gamers and simulator lovers will probably be looking to this site for some useful information. The Wikipedia article called "Dogfight" gives a pretty good history and basic overview. It seems to me that the more technical sounding article "ACM" should provide information that is a little more tactical. The important differences between Lag, Lead, and Pure Pursuit; The concept of Nose/Tail Separation; The idea that maneuvers are used primarily to conserve energy through trade-offs between altitude and airspeed. The difference in the rolls played by the engaged fighter and the supporting fighter, and the need for good communication between them.

Some of the most useful maneuvers are not even mentioned in Wikipedia at all, such as the Low Yo-Yo, used to tighten an attacker's turn by taking some energy from the verticle plane, the High Yo-Yo, used to slow a fast moving attacker's approach while conserving his airspeed energy, the Cross Turn, the Defensive Split, the Hammerhead ... etc ... etc ...

A lot of good info can be found at , or read the Navy Flight Instruction Manual at

Information on the specific rolls played by the wing-man and the lead, as well as good communication practices, can be found at . Zaereth (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move - Proper spelling of maneuvering/maneuver[edit]

There seems to some confusion about the proper spelling of "maneuver". In the United States the most common spelling is just as I have spelled it: Maneuver" / "Maneuvering". See the navy flight instruction manual for examples of this at . In the UK, the spelling used is "Manoeuvre" / "Manoeuvring". I will change the article to match the UK spelling in the title, and make a formal request to change the title to the US spelling. If there are any objections please let me know here. Zaereth (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Support per the nominator. More common spelling. TJ Spyke 02:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - if the article does not concern itself with either US-based activities (in which case it should use US spelling) or UK-based activities (in which case it should use UK spelling), normal practice is that it should use whatever spelling the original article creator used, in this case the originator appears to be Aussie, so UK spelling is used. - fchd (talk) 08:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - WP:ENGVAR is crystal-clear and exists for good reason. Knepflerle (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a WP:ENGVAR issue, and there appears to be no compelling reason why US usage should take priority here. --DAJF (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can't argue with WP:ENGVAR. My main reason for wanting the change is to keep the spelling consistant throughout Wikipedia, such as found is articles like Basic fighter maneuvers. A search for manoeuvre even redirects to the maneuver disambig. page. I have seen it spelled every possible way in this article, (such as the edit in the article pervious to mine), and think some sort of consistancy would help with the confusion. Zaereth (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is no reason to change it unless it were a U.S.-specific article. (I am American and would use the American spelling if I were writing the article.) •••Life of Riley (TC) 21:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. Kittybrewster 13:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I concede to concensus per WP:ENGVAR. (I'm still kind of new, and wasn't aware of that policy.) I have already corrected the spelling within the article to match the title. Thanks everyone.Zaereth (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Air combat manoeuvring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)