Energy vs Angle vs Turn?

[SKJohn]

Could somebody please explain the differences between Energy fighting and Angle fighting, etc.?  I'm probably using a variety of these, but don't know it.

[Spatula]

Put simply, one is where you sacrifice energy for angles by attempting to simply out-turn your opponent by turning better than they can (either by pulling more Gs and/or by using gravity and/or throttle to control your turn rate). Its simply a race to your opponents six or adequate firing position. The other is the opposite, where you sacrifice all the hard turning and extreme maneuvering by not pulling excessive Gs and use the energy saved to attempt to build a net energy advantage over your opponent, which can then be turned into a positional advantage for the kill.

Of course in practice the energy fight is extremely difficult to master.

[SlapShot]

You could very well be using both and you could use both during a fight.

Energy fighting is typically using and regaining energy to keep on top of your opponent and/or press the attack.

Good energy fighters will Boom and Zoom.

Diving down on an opponent is the "Boom", which collects energy (speed). Once the opponent avoids your attack (or dies), you "Zoom" back up which transfers your energy (from the Boom) back into altitude or an advantage on your opponent.

Energy can also be used at co-alt. If you are in a Tempest cruising at +400 mph and you encounter a Spit co-alt, at the merge if you zoom up, you are using your "energy" to try and gain an altitude advantage over the Spit to begin the fight.

I would say that "energy" really boils down to speed ... and when energy fighting, you are hoping to use your speed (it doesn't have to be real fast), in comparison to your opponents speed to beat him.

Angles fighting is using angles, against your opponent, to spoil a guns solution or gain an advantage or both. Both meaning, you can present an angle that will prevent a guns solution and at the same time be putting your plane into a position of advantage at the merge. The best case example is the HO. If someone starts to fire at you at 1.5 out, go off angle on him (left or right). He will more than likely not react to that move due to the fact that he is concentrating so hard on making the HO. As he gets to within 600 out start to turn into him (lead turn) ... at this point he can't hit you, and you are now executing a turn and he is still flying straight. At the merge, I will then pull up, left or right, depending if my lead turn was left or right. As I come over the top, they have no clue as to where I am so at this point, he is effectively dead ... if he sticks around. So I presented an angle that spoiled his shot and at the same time set me up for the kill.

When I enter a fight, I like to be "off angle" to my opponent. This prevents the HO (as described above) and it will either give me a clue as to what he might be thinking when he turns (angles) into me, or if he hesitates to turn into me, I will then turn (angle) into him and try to setup a lead turn, which will get me on him quicker than he can get on me.

When I fight someone, and its a long fight, it's due to both of us presenting and using angles to both prevent the kill or setup the kill. Mind you, energy is also playing a part in this type of fight too ... because speed also dictates what maneuvers you use to present your angles.

Hope I didn't confuse you.

[Benny Moore]

Your terminology is a bit off.  Energy is the combined total of your speed and your altitude.  Altitude is potential energy, speed is kinetic.  Both can be transferred to the other, but it is easier to trade altitude for speed than the other way around.  A good energy fighter will do a lot more than simple "boom and zoom," which is essentially diving down upon an unsuspecting opponent, taking a shot, then running away for good.

In addition, turn fighters use energy.  Energy, in both of its forms (altitude and speed), can be traded for angles.  Getting an angle is simply gaining a favorable position relative to your opponent, whether it be a high deflection firing solution or just getting on his six.  You can't turn without energy; that's why you turn very slowly once you've blown your inital store.  When you're on the deck and you've bled off your speed, then you turn poorly because lost energy is not replenished quickly in aircraft of the era portrayed in the simulator.

[Murdr]

When one is E fighting, their objective is either to preserve, or cultivate an energy advantage to win control of the fight.  Energy fighting is thinking ahead to set up an advantage in a few turns or merges.  The E fighter is playing a game of air combat chess.

Angles fighting objective is more immediate, by constantly trying to get gun angles...Any gun angles, it might be gaining your enemies 6, passing a few yards inside their turn at the next merge, or forcing the opponents flight path to intercect just ahead of them.  The angles fighter is playing a game of race for the shot.

I would not say that one is mutually exclusive from the other.  Someone skilled in E fighting can match their opponent merge for merge, and move for move.  When an E fighter is doing that, they are maneuvering just enough to deny their opponent an angles advantage and are in position to win an angles fight if the opponent makes the slightest mistake.  All the while they are making slight adjustments with their maneuvers to conserve E.  Those slight adjustments eventually add up to a distinct energy advantage.

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Spatula
Put simply, one is where you sacrifice energy for angles by attempting to simply out-turn your opponent by turning better than they can (either by pulling more Gs and/or by using gravity and/or throttle to control your turn rate). Its simply a race to your opponents six or adequate firing position. The other is the opposite, where you sacrifice all the hard turning and extreme maneuvering by not pulling excessive Gs and use the energy saved to attempt to build a net energy advantage over your opponent, which can then be turned into a positional advantage for the kill.

Of course in practice the energy fight is extremely difficult to master.

Yup.  B&Z is probably the simplest variation of energy fighting.  The other extreme doesn't look a whole lot different from angles fighting (but it is!).  

If you're in a zeke, a spitfire, a hurricane, an FM2....you get the idea...you're a natural angles fighter.  If you're in a P-47, Typhoon, the other heavy planes, you'd better stick with energy fighting (except against a clumsier plane).

- oldman

[humble]

All good answers, I think spatula hit the most consise explanation. All "dogfights" have a beginning, midgame and end game.

Most view the merge as the classic "race for the under" angles merge or the "lazy" energy opener. One school of thought believes that the goal is to conserve E and "take the high ground" and use this advantage to control the fight. The other school believes that you "burn energy" to gain an angular advantage. Placing yourself in an initially advantageous position. This forces your opponent on the defensive and might allow a quick ending. Both approaches work just fine....as long as you understand that flying an "E opener" and having the con fly up your tailpipe or "going angles" and getting "popped" on the reverse are signs of bad execution or decision making. The real key is knowing when to go "E" or "angles"....

If you look at the snapshot clip that is a classic angles defense that either works (less often then it fails) or leaves you further in the hole. It's also an example of a quality E opener (he let me zoom in and then sucked the E out of me) that went south during the "midgame"....had my shot missed he'd have quickly had the "perch" and yoyo/wingovered me into submission....

Here are a few clips that might help...

http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/Fighting%20with%20the%20advantage.ahf

Basic E fighting (not B&Z) pony vs spit.....

http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/hogvsspit16.ahf

This is a pure angles fight (hog vs spit16)....spit16 just cant beat a hog in that fight....

http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/109clips/109eEvenUp.ahf (109E vs P40)

This is a little different type of a merge in that its on the vertical obliques so the angles work a bit differently....basically the merge was flown for the remerge where the goal is to grab the under there and then cut the con off at the pass on the 3rd pass....

http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/109clips/109vszeke.ahf

One of the most fun fights I've had in a longtime....Beginning is me trying to E fight a zeke in the 109E....he wears me down and I scoot....we reengage and I cant work a good solution....final few minutes were a blast even though I lost. You always feel like you missed something after a fight like this one....I kept trying to get some room to go back on offensive but the zeke just accelerates to fast. Should have gone for broke but never felt like I could reverse him....I think you can watch it from coronado's end as well......great example of E vs angles I think.....


***at edit***

There is also a hog vs spit9 clip in that same folder. It's interesting but possibly confusing. It's actually an angles defense even though you see me "taking the high ground"....I have no E and have turned the fight from a "one circle fight" to a vertical "two circle" fight. Basically this negates alot of his advantage and lets me conserve energy. The two circle fight does create a number of head to head passes inherent to this type of fight. They are not easily managed without some experience....the end result is me being able to finally force the spitty out front and using the falling brick capabilities of the hog to gain the upper hand.....
http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/hogvsspit9.ahf

I'm looking for a clip of Greebo beating the snot out of me hog (him vs pony (me)....basically he does the same thing to me and I cant get the pony slow enough to hang with him.....

[SKJohn]

Thanks for all the explanations - if I read them enough times maybe I can learn them!  Humble's films will also go along way towards helping understand the definitions you all have given - thanks again!:aok

Now I just gotta firgure out when to use what . . .

[Spatula]

Originally posted by SKJohn
... Now I just gotta firgure out when to use what . . .

*That* is what takes an eternity to master... Good Luck sir, see ya up!

[humble]

Originally posted by SKJohn
Thanks for all the explanations - if I read them enough times maybe I can learn them!  Humble's films will also go along way towards helping understand the definitions you all have given - thanks again!:aok

Now I just gotta firgure out when to use what . . .

Your best resource is the TA and the guys (and gals) who staff it. Films are a very small (but helpful) part of the process....they give you a visual reference and can help you develope an intuitive feel for certain aspects of the game. As Schatzi, Ren and others mention (here or elsewhere) there is a very steep learning curve at both ends. I will tell you its possible to get reasonably good pretty quickly. With the exception of the spit9 (and zeke clip maybe) everything is pretty basic and repeatable at your skill level.....it's concepts that count. I'll give you a few to help you get started....

Views....

Mentioned elsewhere and often, the 1st step is learning to "see" the fight. It is not possible to maintain view 100% of the time but you'll see in every fight but the zeke one (I finally auger looking for the damm thing:)) I have views most if not all the time.....

Attittude....
 
It's supposed to be fun, in some clips you can hear vox chatter. In this set I know its in the spit16 clip....a positive upbeat and aggressive approach will work wonders. You'll notice that I'm almost always the aggressor regardless of plane match....this doesnt mean fly stupid but fly with confidence and purpose.

Recognition....

Every fight unfolds somewhat uniquely and every move has a counter move. Learning to quickly size up a situation and understand your options is what seperates an average "pilot" from a good one and a good one from a great one. A book like Robert Shaws combined with quality training helps immensly...

"Lift vector"....

This is the 1st actual comment related to actual ACM. It is in fact the single most important aspect of all aircombat. It is a simple concept at heart but complex in application. You can think of it as the view thru the top of your cockpit (not technically correct). This is the force vector that your wings generate as "lift". Learning when and why it should be a certain way is beyond a BBS but i'll give you 2 quick points....

1st) in the 109 vs P40 clip if you look at 18 sec with the P40 right off my left wingtip at 200 you'll see two good positions....my lift vector is almost straight up. The P40 is actually level to the horizon and if you switch to his view he see's me in his front view....so in effect the P40 "won" the initial merge here.

2nd) If we go forward to 28 seconds the 2nd "merge" shows me in an almost identical position with my lift vector pointed almost straight up and in a slightly nose high attitude. The P40 is almost cockpit to cockpit looking straight down with his lift vector now inverted and his angular advantage countered. During that 10 second period the entire fight changed....

Take it one step at a time and you'll make tangible progress pretty quickly....

[Simaril]

Thanks for the posts snaphook!

Couple questions:

Looking at the F4U vs Spit16 film -- At engagement, you dove in to build speed and stay under him. Then, about d1200, you went neg Gs for a sec, forcing the nose down even though he was already higher than you and laterally separated. What did that do for you?

I'm used to thinking about that first immel as a high G, tight as possible half loop -- but you went up more gently. That ended up denying him his quick shot...was that the plan from the start, or were you just going for the max vertical distance you could get? (After all the F4U would own the spit16 at low speed flaps fighting).

I'm finding I'm not aggressive enough with flaps -- and I notice that you dropped your first notch pretty early. To me it looked like you used them to increase your loop angle rate, and maybe to decrease the big speed advantage you had at that point. Right?

Was his decision to stop going vertical, trying for the shot, the one that cost him the fight? Once he saw he was in trouble, he went vertical again...but by then it was too late.

Thinking like the target, after the failed first merge, could he have made a game of it by entering a scissor and trying to out do you with the roll rate...or was it just too late?

[SlapShot]

Most view the merge as the classic "race for the under" angles merge or the "lazy" energy opener. One school of thought believes that the goal is to conserve E and "take the high ground" and use this advantage to control the fight. The other school believes that you "burn energy" to gain an angular advantage. Placing yourself in an initially advantageous position. This forces your opponent on the defensive and might allow a quick ending. Both approaches work just fine....as long as you understand that flying an "E opener" and having the con fly up your tailpipe or "going angles" and getting "popped" on the reverse are signs of bad execution or decision making. The real key is knowing when to go "E" or "angles"....

Most excellent !!!

[humble]

Originally posted by Simaril
Thanks for the posts snaphook!

Couple questions:

Looking at the F4U vs Spit16 film -- At engagement, you dove in to build speed and stay under him. Then, about d1200, you went neg Gs for a sec, forcing the nose down even though he was already higher than you and laterally separated. What did that do for you?

I'm used to thinking about that first immel as a high G, tight as possible half loop -- but you went up more gently. That ended up denying him his quick shot...was that the plan from the start, or were you just going for the max vertical distance you could get? (After all the F4U would own the spit16 at low speed flaps fighting).

I'm finding I'm not aggressive enough with flaps -- and I notice that you dropped your first notch pretty early. To me it looked like you used them to increase your loop angle rate, and maybe to decrease the big speed advantage you had at that point. Right?

Was his decision to stop going vertical, trying for the shot, the one that cost him the fight? Once he saw he was in trouble, he went vertical again...but by then it was too late.

Thinking like the target, after the failed first merge, could he have made a game of it by entering a scissor and trying to out do you with the roll rate...or was it just too late?

At about 12 seconds I push the nose down a bit....this is right when his actual orientation becomes visable....I'm reacting on feel to his orientation....I'm basically re orienting my lift vector...

at 16 seconds you see me roll my lift vector away from his flight path....basically surrendering the merge. You need to make this choice before the actual merge IMO (most of the 1 on 1's I lose (plenty:)) are when I get indecisive or make the wrong read right here.

at 17 secs I'm converted to an E opener from a "tweener" merge right as  I say its a "spit 16" i'm in a read and react mode.

at 20 seconds you'll hear the "he went all angles" and my thoghts on it. To me this is two good sticks flying "soft merges" I normally see dano in E fighters and he's very formidible as an E fighter. Here his transition to an angles fight comes after I countered it at 12 and then 16 seconds....he lost the fight (IMO) right at the 18 to 20 sec mark.

What you see from the 16 sec to the 34 sec mark is an E fighting opener to counter his (somewhat late) angles move. So at 33 seconds I'm now in the "classic" dogfighting position with my lift vector pointed right at the bogie and a significant energy advantage to exploit. If you look at the 34 to 42 second mark you'll see I'm just orienting my lift vector to the con. I have my plane in slight lag pursuit at 40 sec or so and pop the 1st notch of flaps as I roll my lift vector ahead of him and comit to a transition to an angles fight.

I goof the transition a bit and dont quite get the shot....spitties best chance here was a spiral climb IMO....

I actually thought he won the 1st merge in the sense that he denied me an aggressive opener. He got very aggresive on the reverse after  the actual merge point. Normal merge doctrine calls for an early aggresive lead turn that creates angular advantage at the merge....forcing the con to a defensive posture.

Once he's past the 1st 20 seconds I think he has to convert from an offensive posture to a read and react looking to set up a reversal. I dont think a spit of any flavor can scissor with a hog for 2 reasons....the scissors is all about getting slow and the hog is more stable and can get slow 1st. The key for the spit driver is climb and acceleration. He can use a "scissors" to force the hog to slow down and then convert immediately to a climbing right hand spiral with the idea that he's going to keep just above the hog. if you go back to the clip at the 1 min mark or so and look at the speed you'll see dano's gaining speed on me....same principle....spit will outclimb and acc the hog going up....just need to stay alive while your doing it:)...

Hope that helps a bit. Your comments on flaps goes back to my earlier comments regarding plane choice for training. Most pilots here dont know how and when to use flaps (I'm far from perfect here myself). Most do not use them enough or at the right times....

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by SKJohn
Could somebody please explain the differences between Energy fighting and Angle fighting, etc.?  I'm probably using a variety of these, but don't know it.

Does anyone have a good link to a site that has Bullethead's guide to energy tactics?  None of mine work anymore, and he had the best explanation of energy fighting I've yet seen.

- oldman

[GunnerCAF]

Originally posted by Oldman731
Does anyone have a good link to a site that has Bullethead's guide to energy tactics?  None of mine work anymore, and he had the best explanation of energy fighting I've yet seen.

- oldman

I found it!  It is long gone, but found it on the Wayback Machine archives:

Bullethead's AW Training Page

It is from AW, but it has good information on energy management.

If you want to see the main page, here is a good blast from the past :

Bullethead's Pages