Fighter Combat

246 SECTION TACTICS, TWOVERSUS-TWOfall for the ruse, and both of them might pounce on the bracketing fighter.In this case the dragger is often positioned poorly to offer immediatesupport. Good communications and coordination are required for thistactic, since it would be a disaster if both fighters decided to drag at thesame time!Engaged ManeuveringAssuming no bogeys are eliminated in the initial attack and two-versustwomaneuvering is indicated, there remains the question of which tacticaldoctrine to employ. For the reasons stated earlier in this chapter,fighting wing doctrine holds little promise of success unless the bogeys canalso be expected to use this tactic (or to operate as single, uncoordinatedfighters) and can be beaten in a turning fight, considering opposingweapons, pilots, engagement conditions, etc. Either double attack or loosedeuce can be employed in this scenario, but both require some modification.The question of which doctrine is the better of these two is guaranteedto generate some spirited discussions around the bar.In the last chapter a comparison between these two doctrines in thetwo-versus-one environment concluded that loose deuce was probablymore effective in this scenario because of greater offensive efficiency. Suchadvantage, however, is not gained without costs, which in this case includeincreased training requirements, reduced defensive capability, andgreater dependency on communications (and therefore greater vulnerabilityin comm-jam environments). In low- to medium-threat two-versus-onescenarios, the greatly enhanced offensive efficiency of loose deuce probablyoffsets these disadvantages. The two-versus-two scenario, however,might be considered merely a very high threat two-versus-one environment.It is unlikely, for example, that one bogey can be isolated andengaged in the classic loose deuce manner (as illustrated by Figure 5-10 inthe last chapter) without interference from the free bogey. The samestatement applies to double attack doctrine to an even greater extent(because it will probably take longer to destroy the engaged bogey), but atleast the free fighter can be assigned to defend against any attack.Following an unsuccessful initial attack using double attack doctrine,the fighter with the better offensive advantage should engage one of thebogeys. The free-fighter pilot then assumes the responsibility of keepingvisual track of the free bogey and covering the engaged fighter in the eventof attacks from this or other (wild-card) bogeys. The pilot of the free fightershould avoid engagement if at all possible, but of course he must defendhimself if he is attacked. In this case he must notify the engaged pilot of thesituation and should try to disengage as quickly as possible to resume hiscovering responsibility. If the engaged fighter is threatened, the free-fighterpilot issues a warning and attacks the offending bogey. This attack, however,is not for the purpose of engaging, but rather for removing the threatto the engaged fighter. Rapid destruction of the attacking bogey is the goal,but simply causing its pilot to break off his attack is usually sufficient.Once this has been accomplished the free-fighter pilot should not press hisattack further; doing so would usually be to the detriment of his defensiveduties.