Comparison of Fluid Four and Gaggle Doctrines
For example,
assume that two four-plane divisions engage with
similar aircraft, weapons, and pilot capabilities. One division employs
modified fluid four, allowing its engaged section to split (two independent
elements) for loose deuce maneuvering, while retaining a free element in
fighting wing (one element) for cover. This arrangement effectively yields
a total of three separate elements.
Meanwhile, the opposing division uses
gaggle tactics, splitting into single fighters (four independent elements). By using this method the gaggle division effectively outnumbers the fluid four division and can be expected to have the better day. This is the same principle which gives a double attack or loose deuce section dominance over opponents in fighting wing.
In situations where the friendly force outnumbers the enemy, the added
offensive power of gaggle doctrine may not justify the reduced defensive
capability.
Inefficiency results when an overwhelming number of fighters
are involved on any one side. These pilots are likely to spend much time
staying out of each other's way and
reacting offensively or defensively, at the expense of combat effectiveness, to unidentified aircraft that are later found to be friendly. Under such circumstances, holding free elements out of the engagement in the fluid four manner can pay dividends.
The number of engaged elements maintained should equal or slightly exceed the number of the enemy. When modified fluid four is used with more than four fighters, the result is a combination of the two doctrines, with the engaged fighters employing gaggle tactics and the free fighters fluid four.