Dogfights (2005– ) User Reviews

Impressive graphics, good for tactics, so-so for technical accuracy

[Vulcans_Rule · 8/10 · 11 August 2007]

I just watched the entire first season on DVD. This series is excellent for putting you "in the cockpit" to see how some specific dogfights unfolded. You are shown the tactical situations, the options available, the merits of each option, and what was actually tried. The specific dogfights span from Rickenbacker in the First World War to some modern jet dogfights. The commentaries by the pilots and eminent historians are excellent.

There are some minor weaknesses. The first is that some viewers might be put off by the heavy emphasis on American pilots. If you are looking for American exploits, you will like these episodes. The second is that there are many small technical errors. For example, when talking about the P-40, they once show some P-51A fighters, which are entirely different aircraft. They describe the German MK 108 cannon as the "Mark 108" cannon, although MK does not stand for "Mark" in that case (a common error). The graphic for the SB2C Helldiver shows it with a six-blade propeller. They refer to "laser-guided" air-to-air missiles when they actually mean "radar-guided". The videos are still wonderful, but some viewers might be annoyed as I was by the many minor errors.

Experience the battle. Dissect the tactics. Relive the dogfights.

[nickenchuggets · 9/10 · 12 August 2021]

Dogfights is a little known but exceptionally informative show that used to be shown on the history channel starting in 2005. I remember seeing it for the first time around 2009, and the first thing that impressed me was how realistic it looked. I'm used to seeing camera footage of world war 2 battles, which is as close to the action as you can get. Dogfights on the other hand makes use of computer animation to accurately recreate various aerial encounters between opposing countries during wartime. The show has a lot of episodes and focuses on many different conflicts, such as world wars 1 and 2, korea, vietnam, the gulf war, and even wars between israel and several arab countries in the 1960s. What sets this show apart from other ones that are centered around plane combat is the narration. Dogfights doesn't just showcase impressive scenes of pilots dueling to the death against the cold blue sky. It also tells viewers the history behind important events, as well as explaining different flying maneuvers and techniques. One of these is called the split S. A commonly used aircraft reversal tactic, the split S involves the aircraft going inverted, diving down and pulling out of the dive in the opposite direction. This move makes it very difficult for an enemy plane chasing you to stay on your tail. Dogfights is host to a lot of episodes that I consider entertaining and important to history, such as the one where they discuss Operation Bodenplatte: Hitler's final gamble to break american airpower in western europe by sending his air force to destroy various airfields in Belgium on new year's day, 1945. The show explains in depth why the operation was a failure for the nazis, and how the americans could afford their losses while the luftwaffe had no more fuel or trained pilots. Another one of my favorite episodes focuses on world war 1, the first war ever to feature planes. By 1914, planes are just a decade old, and are used to observe enemy movements. Soon, pilots begin shooting at each other and placing machine guns on the cowling above the engine. This makes it much easier to fight since the pilot just has to aim his plane at the enemy and fire. In order to prevent bullets from shearing off their own propellers, the germans come up with a device that automatically prevents the machine guns from shooting when the propeller is right in front of the muzzles. The french manage to capture a downed german plane with the interrupter machine intact and copy it. Now, the sky battles can begin. Later on, we're shown an extraordinary incident that involves future nazi general Ernst Udet coming face to face with the talented french fighter ace Georges Guynemer. Udet is outclassed, but tries to stand and fight. His machine guns jam, and in a display of superb chivalry, Guynemer waves to him and lets him escape. This incident shows how pilots did not want to kill each other, even if that's what they signed up for. Finally, another excellent episode appears in the form of Mig Alley, which tells the story of a small area of north korea during the korean war that was destined to host the most vicious and brutal air fighting of the conflict. We are shown how on one day in 1952, american pilot "Robbie" Risner faces off against a desperate but hugely skilled north korean pilot who leads him on a wild chase all the way back to his airfield, which is over 30 miles inside china. The korean war episodes are also very interesting because this was the first war that had jet aircraft fighting other jets. Early on, we see how america easily dominates the skies and north korea's primitive, propeller-driven air force is quickly shredded. Later, the US government is shocked by the appearance of brand new, russian built Mig 15 jets, with a top speed over 100 miles per hour faster than older p-80 jets in korea. Like I keep saying, Dogfights is just a really solid series overall that focuses on some of history's most well known (and unknown) aerial combat encounters, and aviation enthusiasts will most definitely get something out of it. It does a good job of portraying how these events played out in the past, and much of the commentating is done by former pilots, people who were there, and historians.

good CGI aerial combat

[SnoopyStyle · 8/10 · 11 January 2017]

This is a History Channel program depicting various aerial battles. The time era takes place from the first generation bi-planes to modern aviators during Desert Storm. The Phil Crowley narrations give the program a steady newsreel sensibilities. There are military experts, historians, and sometimes, actual participants in those battles. It has old footage, maps, and most importantly CGI recreations of the aerial combat. The CGI is good for TV of that time period. It is excellent at presenting the combat tactics of these pilots. The show gives the general specifications of these planes and describe their strength and weaknesses. The CGI is able to inject action into the documentary programs. This is a must for aerial combat enthusiasts of any era.

Turn and Burn!

[freyw · 10/10 · 26 April 2007]

A must-see for any aviation buff. This series uses the latest computer technology to recreate history's greatest air battles, including Guadalcanal (WWII), Mig Alley (Korea), Operation Bolo (Vietnam), the Six-Day War, and the exploits of the Flying Tigers. The series also makes good use of archival footage from the period to help illustrate the tactics and machines. The recreations are expertly done and very exciting (the "camera" even shakes when a plane flies by). Personally, I've been interested in this sort of thing since I was a kid, and this is probably the best show I've ever seen. If you like military aviation, I guarantee you won't be disappointed.

This show is great

[bard-32 · 10/10 · 10 February 2007]

Dogfights is about the famous dogfights of World I to today. The show is based on a two-hour special that aired in late 2005. The show has chronicled the dogfights from World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. The most recent one was called Death of the Bismarck. It was about the British pilots who'd sunk the German battleship Bismarck in May 1941. There were also episodes about MiG Alley and Operation Bolo. The best episode was about the F6F Hellcat and the Japanese Zero. Another one was about the Flying Tigers. In some episodes, the actual veterans themselves, talk about their experiences. The animation is like a video game. There was an episode about the F-8 Crusader which was the last gunfighter. The F-8 was involved in a dogfight that lasted ten minutes. The longest dogfight in Vietnam. Operation Bolo was a successful attempt to lure the elusive MiG-21a into combat. The show has all the elements of a video game and this show is great.

Claims of American bias seem well-founded

[castott · 5 July 2008]

There should be no doubt that this is a highly biased and jingoistic American program, though, to be fair, it is primarily aimed at an American audience, the concept of American military supremacy ("Americans have never and will never lose a war.") being a large part of the American identity--like it or not. Overall, I regard this series as more entertainment than a collection of historically correct documentaries. If you read official reports of the engagements portrayed in these animations you will, in many cases, discover that some significant details have been omitted or down-played for various reasons. For instance, in the second season episode with Lou Luma, the American RCAF Mosquito pilot, they fail to mention the somewhat important fact that in his portrayed strafing mission (I agree, not really dogfighting) to the German aerodrome, his tail was nearly shot off by anti-aircraft fire (http://www.acesofww2.com/Canada/aces/luma.htm).

Americans are generally fond of emphasizing their role in various wars all the while down-playing or ignoring those of their allies, especially in cases where their allies'accomplishments were as good or better. Take for instance the clear anti-British and anti-Canadian (Canadians barely mentioned) bias shown by the celebrated, though increasingly discredited, American "historian" Stephen Ambrose particularly in his books concerning the D-Day landings. Also, consider the attitude that generated the American half-joke regarding the alternate meaning of the acronym of the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) in World War 1--"After England Fails". I believe the Australians also have some legitimate complaints regarding the overshadowing of their role early on in stopping the Japanese advances in New Guinea, and their overall achievements in the Pacific Theatre during WW2. Often, it seems that General MacArthur and the American media neglected to fully acknowledge the considerable efforts of the Australians under his command.

I think it is inevitable that if this show is to continue they will have to begin focusing more on the aerial exploits of non-American allies and possibly even enemies. There has been absolutely nothing about the Russians in World War 2 (or in any conflict) which is largely inexcusable considering the prime importance of battles on the Eastern Front from mid 1941 to the end of the war (the Americans may not want to recognize the longer and possibly greater role of the Soviet forces in destroying the German Reich), and very little concerning British Empire and French dogfighters in either war which I also think is a shame. I doubt that further depictions of "dogfights" of the Korean, Vietnam and Gulf wars or Israeli-Arab conflicts will be of sufficiently broad appeal as these are more controversial in terms of the motives behind the conflicts(Americans/Israelis won't necessarily be seen as the good guys) and in most of these cases the battles don't involve true dogfighting skills. Also, I think that they have already covered a lot (most?) of the territory regarding significant American dogfights of WW1 and WW2. Any additional focus on the same will make their biases undeniable.

The Americans were "Johnny come latelies" to both of the World Wars so, I don't know how much interest the producers of this show would have in aerial battles/campaigns before their entry, or in the early days following their entry into the wars, (e.g. in the Tunisian Campaign wherein they didn't do that well in the air or on the ground), but it is certainly something to hope for.

I await the third season which I assume is now in production.

One of the best computer design programs out there

[juliebuckner · 9/10 · 10 February 2021]

This show when it came out was a groundbreaker telling pilot stories and their plane how they flew it, the technology of the era? This showed not only the pilots also sailors of the Bismarck, HMS Hood, German pilots the different things they came up with to down a B17, these are stories you may not have heard of, I wish they could have carried on with it maybe we could have heard about Russian & Chinese pilots flying for N. Vietnam. You will hear from American, British, German, Japanese veterans. If you like history in this one person opinion it's a great show.

Great documentary series

[grantss · 9/10 · 15 December 2015]

Great documentary series.

As the name suggests, a documentary series on aerial dogfights. Includes World War 1, World War 2, Korean War, Vietnam, 6 Day War, Yom Kippur and the two invasions of Iraq. Also has different forms of aerial combat, including naval and night-fighting.

Good narration, great CGI and good, relevant stories. Often shows a progression in tactics within the one episode.

About the only negative is that it is very US-centric. Most of the dogfights shown involve US pilots. No Red Baron (if I recall) and very little about the myriad of German Aces of WW2.

Not quite

[luis_alvarez777 · 6/10 · 15 April 2009]

Although the series is high in technical proficiency and detail to re-animate air battles, there is an almost complete of historical balance. The focus of most chapters is on American aviators as if they were repeating the "Mariana's turkey shot" through the ages. Only a few chapters are devoted to Israeli or German and Japanese odds-and-ends (Me-163, kamikaze, etc.). Almost no mention is done of German, Russian, Japanese, Chinese and even North Vietnamese Aces that top all-time aerial combat Aces lists. They even neglect traditional allies as the British and the French. There are very detailed accounts of aerial battles from the "other guys" point of view that should be included to have a really "Historical balance" of aerial warfare.

Very Graphic.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 14 November 2012]

It's a marvelous recreation of aerial combat from World War I through modern conflicts. I can't think of any computer-generated graphics (or whatever they're called) that have so convincingly recreated the aerobatics of combat aircraft and explained them so clearly. The aluminum surfaces glisten. The sun always seems to be shining, and when an airplane turns, the shadows on its wings turn with it. If the image is rearward, looking over a wing, you can see the elevators tip up and down slightly as the aircraft climbs or dives. Every detail on the aircraft seems exact. It's beautifully done. The graphics are nicely supplemented by newsreel and combat footage.

The narration takes us through the events, one by one, and sometime the participants tell us what they were thinking and what their intentions were. There is some sentiment, not much, in these recollections. The general layout of the conflict is described -- we learn why Mig Alley was so dangerous and why heavy bombers over Europe required fighter escort -- but the politics are absent. For each engagement, the principal characteristics of each airplane are described, and enemy aircraft get their just due.

One major observation and one minor. In the episodes I've seen, the victors were all Americans or American allies and the enemy lost, even when the opponent receives credit for being "an expert pilot." We sink the Bismark. We sink the Yamato. We shoot down every enemy airplane in sight, it seems, without losing any of our own. Why Rickenbacker and not von Richthofen, for instance? I wonder if it isn't somehow dangerous for younger and more impressionable viewers to watch a series like this in which we see a simulacrum of a video game in which we always win. The scientific studies of media presentations on real life have produced complex and mixed results. But I wonder. Is there a covert message? And, if so, is it: "Let's go to war and play Dogfight"?

One of the pilots interviewed mentions the need in a successful fighter pilot for "skill, aggressiveness, and the fighting spirit." I don't know what a fighting spirit is but fighter jocks seem to have the other two traits in spades. No power on earth could put me in a situation as dangerous as aerial combat. It takes a heap of persuasion to get me off the ground at all.

An ancillary note: A curious psychological study of fighter aces in the Korean war found a disproportionate number to be later-born children. There is weak support from other studies showing that later children are a little more open, agreeable, and maybe adventurous. Bomber pilots are more often first borns. George H. W. Bush has said that he preferred flying a Gruman Avenger with a three-man crew during World War II because he wanted the company. That puts him in the wrong slot, an anomaly, because he was the second son. He should have wanted to fly fighters but I'll give him a pass.

Worst Warplane Series I've Seen in Over 40 Years.

[Strategum · 1/10 · 6 June 2008]

Over 90% of all episodes are of American victories. The rest are 'our side', whether Israelis, in admittedly the same one-sided accounts, defeating many times their number of foes, or the RAF who are represented as having to use an American rather than British pilot in a British-Canadian Squadron portrayed shooting down more unarmed planes than warplanes. The series seems to forget that the definition of a dogfight is the aerial combat between fighter planes. Seriously, in 3 seasons not a single mention of "The Battle of Britain"(admittedly the most important series of dogfights to western freedom), the Spitfire nor a British even Canadian star. There is not a single episode where an enemy fighter pilot is the star shooting down an American fighter pilot in a dogfight. That's not 'a little biased', that's 'totally biased'. That's not a 'historical documentary', that's 'propaganda'. Even non-Americans have risked and given their lives for the American ideals of 'Truth and Justice for all', but this series has none of that. I've collected such documentary series in book, tape now DVD form for over 40 years. This is the first one I'll refuse to include.

A so so documentary. A real waste of time.

[yippeeme-448-910738 · 2/10 · 20 October 2012]

Just started watching the documentary "Dogfights" and the first one I saw was about the Thunderbolt against the FW-190. I must say that I have to agree with the majority of the other reviews that based on the one program I have seen it is totally biased towards the American pilots and planes. The Americans who did take part in the war certainly sacrificed a lot and deserve all the praise they get. It's unfortunately some of the so called historians and documentaries that put it all out of whack with their inability to see beyond their nose. Besides that I have never understood why some film companies have to scale down the picture size when recounting something in the past. In this documentary the actual black and white pictures were framed by some sort of background. It does nothing to enhance the viewing experience and is a bit of an irritation. The worst part of the program and which was a real disappointed was the pilot who tried to describe the dogfight while flying. The noise of the engine just made the whole thing worse. Well this is one series that I am not going to watch.

Advertising for militaro-industrial complex?

[harounelpoussah · 1/10 · 11 May 2015]

Just seen the last episode, "Dogfights of the future" Never seen a documentary about aviation so technically flawed, so biased and so politically oriented, it looks like being some joint venture Lockheed-USAF self centered masturbation or some propaganda to make tax payers at ease to spend billions and billions in what was already known by all air analysts at the time for being the worst military money pit due to lobbying of all times and a strategic scam, the so-called 5th generation fighters concept. Firstly, at the time this documentary was made, it was well known that the B1R air2air missile truck was never to be made. From the beginning, Sukhoi presented the Su47 as just a testbed for inversed wings and never to be something else than a prototype so it is already a very bad journalist job as such infos were public. About the use of laser as an aircraft weapon, we're in pure sci-fi conjecture : past tests were led from a naval corvette recently and a Boeing 747 when Reagan was prez, as it needs enormous amounts of energy to shoot something practical and for the recent tests, it was only able to shoot a small boat and a slow flying drone, both would have been easy preys for WWII weapons, other thing is atmospheric diffraction which would make it maybe efficient against low flying satellites, but it is known for long to be not efficient for long range thru atmosphere targeting and sorry, but from the distance they shoot their laser, they would be easy prey for long range missiles and as they need to focus radar on their target and become so a target too, are big, etc etc, such scenario makes the laser platform to be fastly over, well, even AWACS are in real danger since there are very long range lock-on-radar missiles especially designed to get such platforms, but now, back to the 'star', the F22 : if people at Dassault or Sukhoi or any with real aircraft knowledge have seen those 4 F22 downing about 30 Rafales and Su35, they must have laughed non stop for days! First, shooting AMRAAMs from 100km, it as only a 10% hit probability against a non maneuvering target, non aware of the attack and non using counter measures, understand : and old F4 Phantom made a drone target! The longest effective AMRAAM shot in real combat was no more than 35km! Other thing, as I pointed : long range radar guided missiles need a target illuminating by radar so there is no more stealth as soon as you do it. Only way you can assume it is to go nearer using IRST (infra red targeting) but at such distance, you're inside opposing IRST and as F22 is big, it's in other IRST before himself seeing smaller "gen4+" planes, so, in reality, the BVR was already sold in the 60's and they thought on-board cannon was useless as long reality blew F4s in Vietnam. And well, I don't know from where this mockumentary assumes that only F22 and F35 are the only with stealth capacity : it is built of mostly radar absorbant materials and if it ain't use the passive stealth geometry, it has more potent active stealth by anulating radar signals and other bad-ass thing, so, look what happens when F22 meets Rafale : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOswfrc7Xtg And we don't speak about diponibility : at best, the full USAF F22 fleet can make only 60 missions a day where the same number of Rafales, Typhoons, Grippen, Sukhois, etc could make about 500 missions a day. Passive stealths need special shelters and are grounded for 2/3 days between each flights making'em easy preys on their bases... So, I REALLY don't know what is the point of such kind of childish cartoon? Pumping more money from taxpayers in a time when Bush was still in charge? Reassuring US citizens about they'll keep total air supremacy in the future? The point is I'm interested in all that flies for 40 years and I've never seen or read something as stupid except some stupid Youtube patriotic comments from people that had never been in a cockpit and never handled a yoke.