Talk:Dogfight

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Military history: Aviation

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force

China MiG-15???

MiG-15 was a Soivet aircraft, not China. And North Korea wasn't fully occupated by U.S. forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.68.239.98 (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They stopped being Soviet aircraft when they were sold to the Chinese. Zaereth (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Dogfights

I think we should include descriptions, or at least mention, the more famous aerial encounters, i.e. Duke Cunningham vs. Colonel Tomb as well as dogfights from other periods. This is info that is sorely lacking on the internet...--Luckybeargod 23:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the dogfight over Japan, in 1954?

WRONG!

The first dogfight was during the Mexican Revolutiuon between two pilots firing at eachother with their handguns. Make a note of it!

-G

The hell is this? Do it yourself and provide citations. --66.253.36.46 (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is just plain wrong on many counts. first of all the airspeed is king in any non-turning fight. The better your airspeed, the more enery you can pass on to any missliles you're carrying, this especially true for BVR fights. For the turn fights it's all about turn radius and turn rate. While it's true that maximum turn rate can be attained by pulling on the stick as far as you can, this maximum turnrate will only last very a shot while. Pilots are taught about corner velocity, which is the maximum rate of turn which a plane can maintain for prolonged periods. Ususally corner velocity is not even near the stall speed. more powerfull engines will enable better performance indeed. Aslo it is very much biased towards US made and/or designed weapons and weaponsplatforms. THe development of ACM didn't start with the thatch weave and didn't end with it either. I suggest links to articles concerning BFM and ACM, and that those articles be expanded to be more comprehensive. I aslo think that the $280M pricetag stated for the F/A-22 is irrelevant to this article. - ocf81

"With modern air-to-air missiles greatly extending the general engagement range of jet fighters, the dog fight has largely gone out of existence."

This is a belief, but one not necessarily borne out by reality. Many people thought that dog fighting was obsolete before the Vietnam War, in which there were many dog fights. There continue to be dog fights in present-day air combat. I don't think this notion that dog fighting is going the way of the dodo should be presented as fact. Aside from the reality that dog fighting continues to happen, if it were really going obsolete, why would military colleges still teach the techniques? Now, it's true that some people *believe* the dog fight is on the way out, but that doesn't mean they are right. There were many people who believed that World War I (or II) was the "war to end all wars." -Nelson

Shouldn't this page be at Dogfight? It seems to be the more common use of the term... if there's no objections, I'll move it soonish. ... although as soon as I write that I see it's used. Hmm hmm. But most inbound links there are aviation-related... Shimgray 13:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What horrible english skills you people have.

Disagree - leave the articles the way they are, they have been well established. SirIsaacBrock 17:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what "articles the way they are" are you referring to?--Buckboard 22:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Never heard the contention that dogfighting is about who can fly the *slowest*; if true, this would be a development only since the jet age. With that in mind, this article needs some historical perspective to not be a stub - a history of the dogfight would be more relevant than dogfighting in space, imho. - RSL, 28 March 2006.

It is also not true. In fact dogfights is often about not losing your speed. Ref: ISBN 0870210599. SlowSam 22:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you mean energy, though it is analogous to speed in some cases.

Only in a scissors should stall speed come into play, which is basically a contest of who can make who overshoot. Even then, the second somebody is behind the other, the hammer drops again and it becomes once more a contest of who can get the most energy and use it. 72.9.6.64 23:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "who can fly the slowest" was in reference to one of the aircraft being able to maintain control at a slower speed. For instance, Aircraft A can maintain effective maneuvering control at 100 knots, and Aircraft B can maintain effective maneuvering control at 110 knots. With both aircraft at 100 knots, Pilot B may experience departure from controlled flight, while Pilot A may maintain control of his/her aircraft, thus giving a potential advantage to pilot A. NozeDive 20:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about this intelligently. It is not about "speed". It is about energy and trade-offs (such as altitude-for-energy) in manuevering to gain an advantage. A dogfight is won not just by shooting the other guy down, but making him disengage. --Buckboard 22:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"first of all the airspeed is king in any non-turning fight." By definitition a dog fight is a turning fight. BVR and even blowing through a merge is not considered a dogfight.

"Pilots are taught about corner velocity, which is the maximum rate of turn which a plane can maintain for prolonged periods." Turn rate is is the airspeed at which maximum turn rate can be achieved. This can not by typically sustained for long periods, although some fighters are better at this than others.

"There continue to be dog fights in present-day air combat." Find me an actual dogfight anywhere in the world in the last 10 years. Be careful about your definition of dogfight. As I pointed out above a dogfight is an ACM engagment that takes place within visual range and both fighters turn more than 180 degrees during the fight. I'll agree with your premise though, dogfights are certainly possible even with modern technology and should be trained to (and are in the U.S).

dogfights can occur in the vertical plane too.

"why would military colleges still teach the techniques?" What do you mean by military colleges? By the most common definition, Annapolis, West Point, and the AF Academy, you are wrong. The students there aren't even pilots yet, why would anyone teach them dogfighting manuevers? If you meant Top Gun and the AF Fighter Weapons school, you would be correct, but those aren't considered "colleges". Stanleywinthrop 19:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I recently did some improvement to the ACM and BFM articles that may help your understanding of the problem. First of all, you're correct about turn radius and turn rate, as quoted from the Navy's flight manual: http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation2/P-821/P-8210203.htm , "Bottom Line: If an aircraft is not turned at its best-sustained turn rate, the aircraft is either gaining or losing energy. Circumstances in an engagement may make a sacrifice (or addition) in energy necessary." But, dogfighting still occurs is combat today. In Vietnam the mistake was made of arming the F-4 with only missiles, and no guns. But missiles miss sometimes, radar is not 100% reliable and surprise encounters do occur, and close range combat still takes place. (This is OR, but interesing, a pilot from Desert Storm told me of a BFM engagement in which a close encounter sheared the wing off of his F-15E, although he didn't know it until after the fight when he landed safely.) Info on modern day dogfighting, as well as the Vietnam F-4 problem, can be found at: http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=52089&display_order=10&mini_id=51833 . Zaereth (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stub

What more is needed to get the stub removed? I find the article ok now, but want some other opinions before removing the stub-tag.

I find it illogical to mention fictional space dogfighting. The assesment that if a spacecraft turned around while moving accoring to newtons law that what is in motion stays in motion is correct, but it is also correct that the spacecraft following will stay at the same speed (just as the turned around spacecraft) if his throttle is off. BUT, if the following space craft decides to throttle he will go just that much faster and easily catch the spacecraft that is turned around. The turned around space craft is a sitting duck!

please remove any fictional references that give no context to the history or tactics of dogfighting.

I agree--removedStanleywinthrop 12:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Dog fight → Dogfight — since "dogfight" is the more common term — Talk:Dog fight — Yath 05:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support; dogfight as it is now can be moved to dogfight (film), this article be moved there instead. dewet|™ 07:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A search on Google reveals more hits for "dogfight" than for "dog fight", and the term "dog fight" probably has more use in other meanings of the word. Jonas Viper 22:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 07:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F-22 Price?

That price figure for the F-22 is wrong first of all and unnecessary to the topic. Therefore I'm taking it down.

Battle of Britain

This article seems to be under the misapprehension that WW2 started with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The Spitfire was not developed later in the war, but before the war. The Battle of Britain was the first major aerial battle between 2 fairly evenly matched sides, yet it isn't even mentioned.

The article in the World War 2 section is centered in the United States participation, please add more information of The battle of Britain, the Eastern front or others theathers.

Nor is the Falklands war, which demonstrated the continuing importance of manouverability in a close-quarters fight, in the early 1980's. I thought about correcting the article, but it requires such a fundamental re-write that this would be pointless. Countersubject 22:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Thach weave would appear to be a derivative of the Finger Four and Schwarm tactics developed by Luftwaffe pilots in the Spanish Civil war. See Gunther Lutzow and Werner Molders 24.108.87.94 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Britain 2

ya the battle of britian should be included, but it wasn't that evenly mached at first the Germans had overwellming numbers but the British were able to hang on due to radar giveing the British advanced warrning allowing them to mass their forces to meet the invaders, a breaf history of this battle should be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.26.188 (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Vick

Is there an article about the contrast of aerial dogfight, bodog, bodogfight, Mike Vick, et al?

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[ %c2%a1 ]] [[ %c2%bf ]] [[ %7e%7e ]] ~~ -]] 04:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 05:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Half the picture?

The article informed me -- complete layman that I am -- well of the basics of the evolution of dogfighting in the deployments of American fighters, with some nods given to allies or enemies of the relative wars. I suspect that this historical perspective is appropriate, but wouldn't it make more sense to divorce the article from the American perspective and to try to discuss the development of dogfighting as it occured in all participating nations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.184.211.222 (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes. It SHOULD be neutral, country-wise, but we would have to completely rewrite it.

Dog Fucking

Someone is claiming that the term "dog fucking" was the original term for "dog fighting". Can anyone provide some sources? I'd like to avoid a revert war. --UnneededAplomb (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

I think it's important to point out there is more than one definition of 'dogfight' floating around here. I agree with this definition as 'aerial combat between fighter aircraft'.

There are other definitions floating about, I think to sell some propaganda or product. For example the controversial propagandic American series "Dogfights" where unarmed Liason and Transport planes are high-lighted in their tales.

To do that, you'd have to go with the wording 'combat between military aircraft' as I'm not sure you could call a Liason plane a 'warplane'. This would allow for the inclusion of bombers, attack planes and armed recons for example. But then you start stretching things like the TV series "Dogfights"; if you include unarmed Liason and Transport planes, would you include(armed or not) Zeppelins, Dirigibles even spotter/recon balloons? some of which had weaponry in fact, some not.

Again, I prefer this author's definition of combat between fighter aircraft.Befuddler (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of term

The current lede, with sourced origin of term, would benefit from a better source. Though I recently restored the explanation re: engines turned on and off sounding like barking dogs, I agree that it's a bit iffy. However, the alternative explanation of dogs chasing their tails didn't read any better, and was unsourced. On the speculative front, the mere ferocity of the activity would seem to explain the term's origins. Without a better cite, I can see scrapping the 'origins' passage altogether. JNW (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History.com's description of dogfighting cites the 'chasing the dog's tail' explanation as being the origin of the term as applied to air-to-air combat, as does radical3D.com. Neither site lists historic references, however. Monoblocks (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was just about to leave a new section on this topic, when I noticed it was already under discussion. I find many problems with the source, number one being that WWI era fighters were did not have starters, (probably due to weight, fighter pilots didn't even carry parachutes because they were too much weight back then), but rather, started the plane by spinning the propeller. This info can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A898761 , under the section crew conditions. The reference to the tail chasing is found here: http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=52089&display_order=10&mini_id=51833 and here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3011_redbaron.html. I think the comment about engine torque is possibly a misguided reference to planes like the Sopwith Camel, which had a crankshaft that remained stationary, and the engine would spin around it. That made it very difficult to fly, but extremely maneuverable in experienced hands. Still, no starter. Zaereth (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are still not the best sources. Funk & Wagnall's dictionary from 1922 describes a dogfight as a close quarters battle between aeroplanes or tanks. I'll keep searching for more info. Zaereth (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern air combat section

Much of this section has been directly plagerized from: http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=52089&display_order=10&mini_id=51833 . I will make an attempt to rewrite some of this material based on various sources. Zaereth (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per wikipedia's copyright violation policy, I've reported this. So much of this article derives directly from this one source (and the article appears to be otherwise unsourced) that we'll have to start over from scratch. Wellspring (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

Per wikipedia's copyright violation policy, the entire article is on hold until a new article can be written and replaced. Wellspring (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance. Some of the same issues exist on the air combat manoeuvring article as well, in the historical overview section. I added some material there, but haven't yet rewritten the section. I wrote the tactical section myself, and am already preparing some material for both of these articles. Since they cover the exact same topic, perhaps they should be merged into one, or perhaps the ACM article could concetrate more on the technical aspects, while this article focuses mainly on the historical aspect, since the word is mostly of historical significance. There is also a basic fighter maneuvers article, which I've been expanding, but it seems to be OK, and mainly concentrates on the individual maneuvers themselves. Any thoughts? Zaereth (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a copyright violation situation this bad my understanding is that you either have to revert to before the violation was added or rewrite the article from scratch, due to the terms of the GFDL license.

I think the article should in my opinion remain separate. I suggest that we do it this way: history (but this time add other nations' perspectives, most notably the Israelis who have had a lot of dogfighting in their history), then conceptual points (altitude, speed, maneuver, weapons), then finally modern dogfighting theory and practice. Wellspring (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds perfectly fine to me. I'm in the process of reading the book that was cited in the article right now. Its very informative, and as far as I can tell, hasn't been used in the article at all. It'll take me a few days to work something up as a possible replacement that we can then expand and perfect. Zaereth (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started crafting a replacement article for this one under the heading User:Zaereth/Dogfight. I've only gotten as far a WWI, but am in the process of reading some books on WWII, the Israeli Air Force, and Desert Storm, and will be adding more info over the next few days. Please feel free to comment on the talk page. I appreciate any help. Thanks.Zaereth (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the violation tag back on the article after someone reverted it. Zaereth (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed article which I have written, (myself), is far from finished, but having covered a good portion of WWII, I think it might be enough to use as a replacement, realizing that it is still under construction. Zaereth (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation

Thanks very much to the contributors who noted and raised this issue at the copyright problems board. Wikipedia takes copyright problems very seriously, and we want to be sure to use due diligence in investigating every suspected case of infringement. Given the nature of the suspected source, the likelihood that we copied from them, rather than the other way around, would naturally seem high.

However, on investigating this, I am not convinced that we are in infringement here, as startling as this may seem. This article was founded in 2004, here, with text originally placed here in 2003. When it made its first appearance on Wikipedia, it said,

“

Dog Fight is a common term used to describe close-range aerial combat between two or more military aircraft. The term originated during World War I, and probably derives from the preferred fighter tactic of positioning one's aircraft behind the enemy aircraft. From this position, a pilot could fire his guns on the enemy without having to lead the target, and the enemy aircraft could not effectively fire back. When two fighter aircraft circled each other trying to achieve this position, it resembles two dogs chasing each other's tails.

”

We can see significant development thereafter, which brings this article towards the suspected source.

For example, the suspected source, which asserts a copyright of 2006, has a passage which reads:

“

With modern air-to-air AMRAAM guided missiles greatly extending the general engagement range of jet fighters, some experts hypothesize that dogfighting may be headed toward extinction, but others cite the occurences in Vietnam as evidence otherwise.

”

On April 1, 2004, a registered editor introduced into the Wikipedia article with this edit, "With modern missiles greatly extending the general engagement range of jet fighters, the dogfight has gone largely out of existence."
On June 5, 2004, a different registered editor altered the sentence here to read, "With modern air-to-air missiles greatly extending the general engagement range of jet fighters, the dog fight has gone largely out of existence."
On September 20, 2005, an IP editor expanded the passage significantly, here, to read, "With modern air-to-air missiles greatly extending the general engagement range of jet fighters, some experts hypothesize that dogfighting may be headed toward extinction. Others criticize this view, pointing out that the dog fight continues to play a role in air combat. Missiles are always a finite resource, and can be thwarted by countermeasures. Just as nuclear weapons have not fulfilled predictions that they would make conventional warfare obsolete, advanced missile technology has not spelled the end of the dog fight."
On November 20, 2005, another registered editor contributed, here, to say, "With modern air-to-air missiles greatly extending the general engagement range of jet fighters, some experts hypothesized that dogfighting may be headed toward extinction. Others criticize this view, pointing out that the dog fight continues to play a role in air combat. The continued importance of dogfighting was demonstrated during the Vietnam War...."

We can see from this that Wikipedia's similar passage evolved slowly and, it seems naturally.

There is another section in the suspected source which reads:

“

Superiority in a dog fight can depend on a pilot's experience and skill, and the agility of his fighter when flown at minimum air speeds approaching loss of control (causing a danger of stalling); the winner typically plays to the strengths of his own aircraft while forcing his adversary to fly at a design disadvantage. Dogfights are generally contests fought at low airspeeds, while maintaining enough energy for violent acrobatic maneuvering, as pilots attempt to remain within air speeds that maximise their plane's turn rate and radius: the so-called "corner speed" that often lies between 300 and 400 knots, depending on conditions. Therefore a dogfight has nothing to do with supersonic speed, but much to do with the engine power that makes supersonic flight possible. The $280M F-22 Raptor can stand on its steerable nozzles at less than 100 knots airspeed, yet quickly maneuver to bring its M61 Vulcan cannon to bear on a nearby evasive target.

”

We see the introduction of corresponding text in our article here in January 2006: "Superiority in a dog fight depends not only on the experience and skill of the pilot but significantly on the agility of the fighter at minimum air speeds approaching loss of control (stall) ie: its ability to turn-roll sharply-abruptly at minimum air speed. Lightweight, short endurance, point-defense fighters have generally been more maneuverable than heavy, long-range, strike fighters. "
Several hours later, the same registered editor altered the text, "Superiority in a Dog Fight depends mostly on the experience and skill of the pilot but significantly on the agility of his fighter when flown at minimum air speeds approaching loss of control Stall (flight); the winner maximizing the superiority of his own aircraft while forcing his adversary to fly at a design disadvantage. Typically, this is a contest about who can fly the SLOWEST while maintaining violent acrobatic control. Note that Dog Fight has nothing to do with supersonic speed, but much to do with the engine power that makes supersonic possible. The $280M F-22 Raptor can stand on its steerable nozzles at near zero airspeed yet quickly manuever to bring its gun to bear on a nearby evasive target. "
In March of 2006, a different registered editor altered the passage here to read, "Superiority in a dog fight depends primarily on a pilot's experience and skill, and on the agility of his fighter when flown at minimum air speeds approaching loss of control (causing a danger of stalling); the winner typically plays to the strengths of his own aircraft while forcing his adversary to fly at a design disadvantage. Dog fights are generally contests to determine which pilot can fly the slowest while maintaining violent acrobatic control. A dog fight has nothing to do with supersonic speed, and much to do with the engine power that makes supersonic flight possible. The $280M F-22 Raptor can stand on its steerable nozzles at less than 100K airspeed, yet quickly maneuver to bring its M61 Vulcan cannon to bear on a nearby evasive target." (Note that this alteration brings it closer to the language of the external site: "the winner maximizing the superiority of his own aircraft" becomes "the winner typically plays to the strengths of his own aircraft", etc.

In order to treat this text as though the Wikipedia article is copied from that external site, which posts a later copyright date, we would have to accept that a good many different contributors copied bits and pieces over a period of several years. For this reason, unless additional evidence can be presented, I am removing the copyright problem template. While new material thoughtfully prepared in sandbox may be appropriate for merging or updating what exists, I don't see any clear reason to presume that multiple Wikipedians are in infringement here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on this. I will work to incorporate the information I have gathered into the article as it is. Zaereth (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of term - continued

To get back to the above discussion, I do not believe the statement in the lede to be correct or well sourced, for the main reason that to restart the plane the pilot would have to get out and spin the propeller by hand, which would be impossible during a battle. World War I aircraft did not have starters. Even many WWII planes used inertia (hand crank) starters. Info about the history of starters on planes can be found at: http://www.enginehistory.org/accessories.htm . To quote: "Although swinging the prop was the earliest common form of starting for aircraft engines and the method still in limited use for present-day light engines, there has always been considerable danger to the operator when effecting engine starting by this method." This war slang dictionary describes the term as being popular in WWII, but originating in 1919. http://books.google.com/books?id=c-Xv836lmxgC&pg=PA35&dq=A+Dictionary+of+Military+Terms++dogfight#PPA55,M1 . The Oxford English Dictionary attributes the term to Fly Papers, by A. E. Illingworth, in 1919, “The battle develops into a ‘dog-fight’, small groups of machines engaging each other in a fight to the death.” Zaereth (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statement comes from a tour guide to the Chesapeke Bay area. Since evidence clearly shows the information to be false, and concensus above seems to agree, I will remove the statement in favor of the more reliable sources which I have mentioned above.Zaereth (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maneuver / Manoeuvre

This article uses both spellings of the word, the US and the UK version. Since the first use of the word, spelled as maneuver, in this article came from User Iceberg3k, on the August 28, 2004, I believe we should change all spellings of the word in this article to match per WP:ENGVAR so that all spellings within the article are the same. Zaereth (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I have made this change, using the US version merely because it was the first one used.Zaereth (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the last 35 years?

Has there been much real combat dogfighting (between two sides of roughly comparable technologies, where one side doesn't have overwhelming air superiority) since about 1973-1975? I would tend to doubt it (but I could be wrong). The article kind of slides over the question (going from Vietnam to Top Gun training)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer to your question is yes. I'm still researching this matter in my very limited time during the summer, but quite a bit of dogfighting occurred during the Arab-Israeli war of the 70s. Russia has been involved in many dogfights during their rise after the second world war, (and I'd like to expand on this a little, since the Soviet Air Defense is pictured in a rather bad light until after WWII, when a major restructuring took place). Dogfighting even happened as recently as Desert Storm. It'll take me some time before I can complete my research and add it to the article. Zaereth (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "Arab-Israeli war of the 70s" took place in 1973, and so was excluded from the question above. Look forward to seeing what other information there is, thanks... AnonMoos (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. From what I can tell by briefly scanning through my sources, the Arabs and Israelis have actively engaged in dogfighting from 1947 to at least 1982, and probably even nearer to date, (so I may need a newer source). I'll keep working on it, but it may be a good month or more. If you have any info or advice to give, feel free to post it on my worksheet, User:Zaereth/Dogfight. Thanks again. Zaereth (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i can tell without doing any research, there have been two wars in which dogfights occured: one is when the Israeli's invaded lebanon in 1982, and at the same time attacked Syrian SAM-sites and the Syrian air force. However, i'm not sure if there were any real dogfights: the Syrian pilots operated under strickt ground control, which was blinded because Syrian radars and communication sites were destroyed. most Syrian pilots never knew what hit them. The other war that i had in mind was the falkland war, in which a small number of sea-harriers fought against Argentinian Mirages and a-4's with good results. In these fights the technique of "viffing" was used, which is short for "vectoring in forward flight", forcing the enemy to overshoot. As such, the Harrier was able to balance on it's engine exhausts long before the f-22 did so. Even then, this practice was risky, as it made the Harriers easy targets at zero speed. During desert storm and in the aftermath of it, i don't think any dogfights occured: some amraams were fired, but no visual fight developed, as the Iraqi airforce had largely fled towards Iran befor the allied counterattack on Iraq. one other incident that comes to mind is the "gulf of sidra incident" between two american f-14's and two Lybian su-22's. the two su-22's were shot down by the f-14's, but once again one can wonder wether this was a real dogfight: the f-14's were flying low, because the su-22 radar had no look-down capacity and had to aim their missiles blindly. the f-14's then simply had to turn hard and fire back, this time well-aimed shots which downed the su-22's. one could argue that the only tactical move by the f-14's was to drop down to sea-level and then turn, while the Lybian su-22's were basically on a suicide mission because they were at such a technological disadvantage. During the nato-operation in kosovo, a mig-29 was shot down, but again the question raises wether it was a dogfight or not. My preliminary conclusion is that the only theatre of war in which visual, fighter-to-fighter aerial combat occured was the Falklands war. However, i'm not a walking encyclopedia so anyone who knows of other occasions, please feel free to contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolus47 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed are sources to back up your information, (which sounds reasonable to me). If this is personal information, gained from actual military service, we can not use it. However, if this has been documented by a reliable secondary source, then I would love to read it. Technically, if it wasn't a close quarters, turning battle, then it wasn't an actual dogfight.

I'm in the process of finishing the book Storm over Iraq (Air Power and the Gulf War) and another book about the Israeli Air Force, but my time is extremely limited here in the summer. I am hopeful to finish my research on this soon, and I am thankful for any help. Zaereth (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible example seems to be the Ethiopia-Eritrea war (though our article doesn't mention it)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up! I'll look into it. Zaereth (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a list at Post–World War II air-to-air combat losses, but after the 1982 Lebanon War, all the numbers are conspicuously in the single digits (and not all the listed losses were due to dogfights). AnonMoos (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main picture

I'm thinking the main picture should be changed. Dogfighting has been around for almost a century, and the only visual we can come up with is a pair of F-22s doing practice maneuvers? This hardly epitomizes the notion of air-to-air combat so much as say, a Spitfire against a Bf109 Masterblooregard (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you come up with such a picture? I have a ton of WWI photos on my computer, but I know nothing about copyright. (All the pictures I've submitted have been my own.) I'm always in favor of adding more photos to articles, to a reasonable point, and this article could definitely use some more. Zaereth (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was published in the United States before 1923, then it's almost always safe to use here; beyond that, it gets complicated. There are Wikipedia forums where you can ask questions on this topic... AnonMoos (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look around and see what I can find. I have several photos that show WWI dogfights, but they're all faked. I have yet to find a real photo of a WWI dogfight. It might be interesting to link the article to this: http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/rechfurlan/510/ . This site has a cool little video of several WWII dogfights, as seen from the attacker's cockpit. (It's amazing how far they have to pull lead just to make their shots connect.) Zaereth (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's an official U.S. government photo or film taken by U.S. soldiers in the course of their duties, then that's also automatically out of copyright. To upload movie clips to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, they have to be converted to Ogg format, though... AnonMoos (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that would be interesting, but I have no idea how to convert such a file so I'll leave that to someone else. My expertize lies in the field of encyclopedic writing style and format, and I'm not very computer savvy. However, I could very easily pull a still or two from the video by using the "print screen" button. Do you think that would be ok? In the mean time, I'll keep looking around, and maybe I'll go over to the local Air Force base, and see if they can help. Zaereth (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried uploading such a screenshot, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dogfight_-_plane_falling_while_taking_fire.JPG but not sure if it complies with copyright rules, so it may have to be deleted. I have six more decent ones which I may upload once I figure out if it's ok. Any insight in this area would be appreciated. File has been deleted Zaereth (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this photo at commons, and have added it to what seems the most appropriate paragraph in the WWII section. It's not much, but maybe something better will come along eventually. I'll keep looking. Zaereth (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this talk page to air this very concern. I think it should be a WW2 photo or similar, I'll see what I can find. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I haven't had much time to put into the search, so I appreciate it. Zaereth (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another persons thoughts. Go to the section on Balkans conflict "During the Balkans conflict, in 1999, three MiG-29s of the Yugoslav Air Force were shot down in dogfights with NATO aircraft. Two were downed on 25 March, the third day of the war, by U.S. F-15s, while the third was shot down by an F-16 Falcon on May 4." This is a list of aircraft shot down. A shot-down can occur without a dogfight occurring. Say with their longer range weapons and good radar and other means the victorious side launcher their missile without before had a large quantity of variable maneuvering as a direct result of the enemy maneuvering. In such a case - it ain't a dog-fight. I would call it a dog-fight out of nicety if both aircraft pass each other relatively close (for positive identification of the opponent) and then at least the victor conducts a 180 degree turn to get on the tail of the opposite aircraft. So, were the 3 MiG-29 shutdowns at least a dogfight? Wfoj2 (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the only sources I had to go on were the newspaper reports, which actually used the term "dogfight" in their reports. I agree with your premise, but have no detailed sources which can be used to verify (or disprove)the newspaper's claims. If you have sources which provide more detail, that would be very helpful. Until then, I can'r engage in speculation, but must go with what we do have. Zaereth (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation and unsourced claims

A sentence has been added to the article that was directly copied, word for word, from the source. "Since almost the beginning of Aeriel combat most successful fighter pilots became lionized as Knights of the Sky by their own countries[30] , while enemies pilots were construed as weak and evil.[citation needed]" As this is a violation of the law, on the advice of User:Moonriddengirl I have removed the plagiarized half of the sentence, and am opening a discussion on how to best incorporate the info into the article.

There has recently been a propaganda subsection added to the article. There is no source to back up the claim that this opinion was actually used as propaganda, but rather the source for the opinion indicates that it is from offical Luftwaffe documents found after the war. Since the opinion does represent an unfair bias, I wouldn't object to its removal until an opposing viewpoint can be found, per WP:NPOV, which I've been looking for. But there is no source to back up the claim of propaganda, nor that enemy pilots considered each other as evil. (Multiple sources confirm that pilots often had great respect for one another, so I will look for sourced info to verify or debunk this claim.)Zaereth (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balloons

Observation balloons were first used in battle at the Battle of Fleurus (1794), nearly a century before the Prussian Siege of Paris in 1871. Drutt (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're right. I just wrote down the info as I found it in the source I used, but I do seem to recall baloons being used in the U.S. Civil War, and possibly originating in ancient China. I'll have to do more research when time permits. Zaereth (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i dunno if i should be annoyed or amused

americans add a pic how they shoot down somebody (but never how they are shot down) to every even slightly related article (even to something like that article about the first german rocket fighter), it feels like i read an american magazine instead of wikipedia 77.35.44.140 (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are limited by the pics we have available on commons. I searched to find all I could, but could find very little. Funny thing about Americans is that they recorded every flight, and this stuff is automatically public domain, so such pics are much easier to find. Aside from that, I think we've tried very hard to make this article as neutral as possible. Zaereth (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Falklands/Malvinas dogfights (not!)

The paragraph on dogfighting engaged in during the Falklands/Malvinas conflict is just plain wrong. There were no dogfights; that is, there were no fighter-on-fighter engagements. There were only fighter-on-attack jet engagements, specifically Harrier-on-Dagger and Harrier-on-Skyhawk engagements (I neglect the single Harrier-on-Hercules, Harrier-on-Pucara, and Harrier-on-Canberra incidents). Read the history!!!

There was only one instance of fighter-on-fighter combat, and this hardly qualifies as a "dogfight"; that is, Air Combat Maneuvering. This lone incident was on 1 May when a pair of Arg Mirages shot at Harriers with Shafrir AAMs. Since the Shafrir is a rear-quarter-only missile and they were shot at the Harriers from head-on, they of course missed. The closest description of this engagement would be an "intercept", not dogfighting. The Mirage pilots knew their Mirages perform best at high altitude, and the Harrier pilots knew the Harrier does not perform well at high altitude, so each side kept to its own optimum altitude band and never engaged one another again.

Ergo, there was no dogfighting in the Falklands/Malvinas conflict. This paragraph needs to be revised or deleted.Wikkileaker (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The information came from the cited source. If it is incorrect, what we need is a source (or sources) which are better than the one we currently have in that section. If you have such a source, please feel free to correct the section. I might add, though, that a dogfight is not limited to combat between aircraft that are designated as fighter planes (planes designed with the specific purpose of shooting down other planes.) It has even occurred at least once between a fighter and a helicopter (according to the article). Zaereth (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dogfight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dogfight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120215212102/http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Air_Power/gulf_war/AP44.htm to http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Air_Power/gulf_war/AP44.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First dogfight?

I'll initiate this conversation in hopes that the IP editor will engage. (Many people just don't know about talk pages). The problem with deciding who was first at anything is first deciding on how to define that thing. It's like, who invented the light bulb? Swan made the first working bulb, but it was impractical for any real lighting purposes. Edison not only created his own, improved bulb, but also an entire power grid to run them, so he usually gets the credit. Even Swan's designs were simply improvements on previous methods, so the real task is to define where to draw the line.

Same with the automobile. Who invented it? Well, that depends on how you define an automobile. If it's just a wheeled vehicle with some horses under the hood, then it was the Hittites or Egyptians. If you mean a horseless carriage, then it was the first steam-powered vehicle. If you mean a vehicle driven by gasoline, then that was even later. If your definition includes bucket seats, a convertible top and air bags...

The meaning of the term "dogfight" has changed over the decades (like all language does). One source I read says the term originally referred to a "melee in the sky" and that, by 1918, you couldn't really even call it a dogfight unless there were 30 or 40 aircraft in the air at once --"...this big, swirling beehive of activity". However, by the 1940s, the term was used to describe a fight between as little as two aircraft; the one-on-one tail-chasing, or turning battle. This use has remained relatively unchanged since WWII, and by the 1990s, the term "furball" (from the old vision of cartoon animals fighting in a cloud of dust) became the popular term for a melee in the sky (the original meaning of "dogfight").

So the question is, since in most sources the term "dogfight" refers to the in-close, tail chasing, turning battle (often involving guns) and not to others such as firing missiles from beyond visual range, does the act of shooting pistols at each other from planes even count as a dogfight (since this had to be done from the side), or was the first real dogfight (by modern definition) when the first forward-firing machine gun was mounted to an aircraft? (To me, pistol shooting, turrets and side-mounted guns were simply stepping-stones to the real thing. There's a reason forward-firing was so desirable, because in any high-speed pursuit its very hard to hit a moving target, but especially shooting sideways. In fact, the only way is to try not to hit it (ie: leading the target, while at the same time trying not to lead your own wings, struts or wires, thereby shooting yourself down with your own bullet's deflection).) Zaereth (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaereth: thanks, but that's basically original research. We simply go by what reliable sources say. Of course sometimes they conflict with each other, as in this case. It appears to me that most sources say Mexico, certainly most sources in this article. As does Air & Space/Smithsonian [1] and other sources. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And of course the first sentence says "A dogfight, or dog fight, is an aerial battle between fighter aircraft," which is exactly what occurred in Mexico. Doug Weller talk 11:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the lead says; I wrote it. The article also says the first fighter aircraft was the ones with forward-firing guns. Before that they were just observation planes with armed pilots. According to Robert Shaw (Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering) and the US Navy, a fighter is defined as "an aircraft designed with the specific purpose of shooting down other planes." He gives the example that "A fighter/bomber is not a fighter until it unloads all of its bombs." Zaereth (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that many would consider the "mexican" event a dogfight, there is no evidence that the aircraft were actually involved in anything other than flying close to each other to fire pistols. Dubious at best. MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I don't think that the Mexican shoot-out should be removed from the article, because this was one of the stepping stones leading to the real thing. I just don't think it's necessary to start trying to name this "first" in the pursuit of some personal feelings of country and glory. Just list the events as they occurred and leave it at that. (I might also mention that, in my experience, the Smithsonian often gets things wrong. For example, they printed an article about honey, claiming that honey found in Egyptian tombs was edible and just as sweet as new after thousands of years. Do a little more research, and you can find the well-documented origin of this urban myth in the 1920s, after a reporter misquoted a scientist who discovered King Tut's tomb. The fact is, when an archeologist finds a bottle of liquid, they do not open it nor break the seal, and radiography has revealed many of these liquids to be castor oil and other liquids rather than honey. (If anyone should know this you'd think it would be the Smithsonian. Honey, like most any food product, breaks down over time due to the Maillard reaction and other chemical processes.)) Zaereth (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article should be Air-to-Air Combat rather than dogfight. MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I started out here trying to sort out all these different articles, which were originally all about the same thing. We already have Air combat manoeuvring, which is technically (in the military sense) the same thing; the act of maneuvering your fighter into a firing solution. Since "dogfight" is more of a generally known term, and one of historical significance, I used this article to focus on the history and the ACM article to review some of the more technical aspects. (I still have plans to finish working on the ACM article sometime in the future.) Then there is the Basic fighter maneuvers article, in which these are really just the basic, training maneuvers. For example, in the military sense, a high-side guns pass is not a dogfighting maneuver, but a maneuver typically used against a more maneuverable opponent where you're best to avoid getting into a dogfight. Zaereth (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That would give it a broader scope which would be good. I meant to add "possibly" to the statement about the Mexican air to air combat/dogfight. Just listing the events as they occur is a good idea. Actually I do think that most people would consider any personal air to air combat a dogfight, the distinction seems trivial. It's something that developed. Doug Weller talk 18:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as the difference between a technical definition and a general one. For instance, to a general audience, glass refers only to silicate glass, but in the technical sense, glass is any material that experiences a glass transition, it can even be water if cooled correctly. But too many articles like this, Incandescent light bulb, etc., tend to get too focused on trying to name this all-important "first" rather than just simply listing events in their timeline and letting the reader draw their own line. Zaereth (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be interesting to note (at least here on talk) that the Mexican battle was actually the subject of a movie starring Charles Bronson, but I can't for the life of me remember the name. But I did see on Nova (I believe) where some people tried to recreate the battle using laser pistols and sensors, and neither could score a single hit --even without deflection (the illusion that the bullet is following a curved path). Zaereth (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Indo-Pakistani conflict

Since this looks like people will persist on trying to include this, I thought I'd start a discussion place here, in the hopes a few might read it and adjust their edits accordingly. We'd love to include information about dogfights from this battle, if any had the unfortunate circumstances of occurring, but we need reliable sources that actually confirm they were indeed dogfights.

To loosely paraphrase Robert Shaw (Fighter Combat:Tactics and Maneuvering), a dogfight is to aerial combat what hand-to-hand combat is to ground warfare. Missiles fired from long distances do not count as dogfights, nor does any air-to-mud stuff (airstrikes). Missiles are not infallible, and quite often are fired more as a distraction or for the psychological effect they can have on the opponent, allowing the attacker time to maneuver into a better position. When your BVR (beyond visual range) missiles fail and you have to switch to guns, then you may be able to call it a dogfight, but only if both planes stick around to engage. (When the US military told their pilots to "never dogfight a zero", they didn't mean not to engage the enemy. They meant, do not try turning with one because it will rip you to shreds.) Zaereth (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Japanese War

You know what we're still missing here is information on another war that involved a lot of dogfighting, and quite possibly some of the early WWII tactics: the Sino-Japanese War. We even vaguely mention it in the part about the Thatch Weave. But none of my sources go into any great detail about it. If anyone has some good sources on the matter, a brief summary here would be appreciated. Zaereth (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion over scope of the article (eg: Syria, Ukraine, etc...)

I'm guessing the new Top Gun movie is bringing people out of the woodwork, because I see a lot of questionable and unsourced info being added. I just deleted the section on Syria because it was mostly about shooting down bombers and drones. There seems to be a push to say what people have been saying since WWI, and every war since, that dogfighting is obsolete. So I'm once again bringing this up here (see two sections up) to help clarify what a dogfight means in English. My source on this is the book Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering by Robert Shaw, oh, and the actual ACM flight instruction manual from the US Navy (Topgun).

Dogfighting is to aerial combat what hand-to-hand combat is to ground warfare. It was once thought hand-to-hand would be made obsolete by bigger and bigger guns and missiles, but as it always turns out, even with the most destructive bombs, sometimes enemies get so close that it's no longer possible to point a rifle at each other. It's rare compared to more efficient means of killing, but it still happens. That's what dogfighting is. Mano-e-mano. Two or more fighters going head to head.

Dogfighting was never a huge part of aerial warfare. As Shaw points out, aerial combat is not chivalrous. The goal is to shoot the enemy in the back when they're not looking if at all possible, and that's not a fight. It's a sniper attack. Over 92% of all fighter-on-fighter kills, in all wars combined, occurred without the defender ever even seeing the attacker. Most never knew what hit them.

Dogfighting is not shooting down drones, bombers, or even other fighters unless the opponent is up close and maneuvering to shoot back at you. I can only hope that people coming here to add material read this first and make sure that information added falls into the scope of this article. Zaereth (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]