Talk:Lufbery circle

Purely defensive?
I just watched the P-47 Thunderbolt episode of History Channel's "Dogfights" series, where they describe a fairly offensive mode to employ the Lufbery circle.

A Thunderbolt returning from a ground attack missions was caught by 20 German Bf 109. After a deep dive, the P47 pilot tried to climb for the cloud cover to get away, which the vastly superior German force attempted to prevent by forming two counterrotating Lufberys next to each other right below the clouds. "If the P47 tries to run in any direction", the commentary explains, "they can easily dive and shoot him down."

The relevant parts of the episode may be accessed on Youtube under

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omO5VXOBZ80&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG7SK53uVOQ&feature=related


 * But this is not a "Lufbery" circle - the aircraft are not circling to cover each other's tails against fighter attack - but to remain in roughly the same position, and to be ready to pounce in any direction. The tendency for ANY turning manoeuver to be called a "Lufbery" is obviously very confusing. Incidentally I have made major changes in the article - comments welcome of course! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Picture
Can someone include a picture of this? 216.51.189.93 (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

lack of citations
This article makes multiple claims that aren't properly referenced, and one isn't even discussed in the cited sources.

In the History section, the last paragraph says:

"Although the Lufbery would seem to expose modern aircraft to missiles and unchecked gunnery passes, US pilots in the Vietnam War found North Vietnamese MiG-17 fighters using it as bait for faster F-4 Phantom fighters that did not have guns and could not use their missiles because of tight turns made by the MiGs."

However, I found no mention of the Vietnam war in the 2022 reference "The Flying Tank", one other reference is dated 1933 and the other speaks to WWII (the Lundstrom book seems to be cited confusingly – is it just me?)

There are multiple other parapgraphs that have no citations, but perhaps these claims are sourced from the references? 222.152.185.132 (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)