Do any of the more historically or tactically minded readers have a link to an article on World War 2 dogfighting tactics? I read Clash of Wings years and years ago, and enjoyed what I understood of it, but I'm looking for something (preferably online) that is, not to put too fine a point on it, dumbed down enough for someone like me to understand it. Ideally, with football-style diagrams of where the planes go, complete with icons and arrows and suchlike.

I got something like this for warfare in ancient Greece, and it really helped.

(Note: This is for a potential someday novel, not for the potential someday game.)

This is not a review per se, because I have two kids and have seen, as I recall, two movies this year, and I'm pretty sure that The House Bunny is not gonna be Number Three. But just having passed the poster in the mall a few days ago, I can see three easy problems with the premise:

1) It's a comedy in which Anna Faris is supposed to be a Playboy Bunny, but looking at the picture, my initial thought was, "Yeah, thanks, no." As a straight guy whose home accidentally got the Playboy Channel free for a few formative teen years thanks to my dad working at a cable company, I can comfortably speak as, if not an expert, at least a knowledgeable source, regarding women and porn. This is not a "women and porn" argument in the making -- I've heard the feminist-porn argument, the misogynist-porn argument, and the those-Swedish-nurses-need-to-pay-for-school-somehow argument, and that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is that in that picture, Anna Faris does not look like a bunny. Her lipstick is smudged, her ears are askew, and the look of Kathy Ireland-esque dull surprise is completely at odds with the happy glamourous "nice good girl having a bit of fun" that Playboy tries to capture. Doing a Google Image search, I found another poster that captures the idea of what a Playboy Bunny should look like more effectively, but that's not the one I found plastered over every vertical surface of the dang mall last week. The one I saw was a girl who wouldn't actually make it as a bunny. (Note: This could be a deep intentional note from the marketers, since apparently Anna Faris is supposed to be a Bunny who gets kicked out. That's great deep marketing, if true. Also, stupid. You don't show us a Bunny who couldn't make it as a Bunny and then tell us it's a Bunny movie. Guys who are going to be attracted to watching a Bunny movie are not going to want to see the Bunny who didn't make it, so don't advertise it that way.)

2) The tagline is a paraphrase of "She's going somewhere no Bunny has ever gone: College." Um. No. Again, taking the basic assumption that they're talking about Playboy models and not the actual Bunnies who were waitresses, Playboy brands itself as the classy boob magazine, the one with the wholesome girls who go on to good careers and happy lives and all that. They've got entire issues of the magazine devoted to "the hottest women on campus". Hence, you know, them going to college. Hit Wikipedia. More than half of the women I looked at just to determine whether I was full of it were either college graduates or currently in college.

3) And this is the slightly nasty one, but really,,, Playboy? Today? That's the most risque you can get? I can understand that a bunch of old writers were racking their brains trying to figure out what kind of fish out of water could end up in a sorority and be more titillating than, well, a sorority in a college movie, and then the old writers settled on Playboy as the sexiest thing they could think of. But this is the Oughts. Playboy is what people my age looked at as teens before we went to college and found out that the Internet had stories, pictures, and movies of the secret shameful thing we'd never ever told anyone about right there for your enjoyment. If you want to find bisexual threesomes involving strapons and spacegirl outfits, hit the Google, and it's right there for you. If a teenager today actually looks at Playboy, it's because they actually do want to read the articles. The writers could have gone with a porn star, a virtual sex webcam girl, a sissification Internet mistress, or any variety of crazy sexy thing, but they opted for the porn mag that's slightly sexier than Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit Issue and decided to contrast that with a college sorority, marketing this the way people marketed Sister Act -- "What happens when a lounge singer teams up with nuns?!" -- despite the fact that in stereotypeville, a Playboy Bunny is about as big a contrast to a sorority sister as Vanilla is to Vanilla Bean at the ice cream shop, and neither is so smashingly sexy as to lure in today's young people. It's sexy by old-people standards, and good for them, but that doesn't look like the target audience, unless they're there at the theater because they just dropped their daughter and her friends off and are supposed to think, "Wow, let's go see that ourselves! That Anna Faris! Quite a looker, eh, hon? I'd like to jerk her a soda!"

Or maybe I'm overthinking it, and the appeal is supposed to be Anna Faris in a variety of tight clothing.