Can we classify styles / techniques?

[2bighorn]

Originally posted by BluKitty
I'd say energy fighting, in the way I define it, is 'kind' of the only style.   For BnZ you are aiming for positive energy.  With TnB you are aiming for negative, null, or positive energy depending on the situation, but each situation and action you plan calls for a different E state.  

The other 'style' of angles and position fighting depend on energy state.  There's also stalling, skidding, negative G moves, or what I'll call 'drunken stalling', where you intentionally stall,  rudder hard, into the rolls, with torque and cut in hard.  But I kind of consider that energy management too...Certain maneuvers are suited to certain levels of E, relative to your target.

Quoted for emphasis  

[Karnak]

Citabria,

I hold the "Survivalists" to be just as unhistorical as the "up and die, rinse/repeat" guys.

Why?  Because they don't fly for anything.  They don't defend the bombers, they don't defend the country, they never engage unless they have the massive advantage because there are no objectives that make them do so.

And they pride themselves as flying "the way the aces did", which is crap as the aces had to put themselves at risk to accomplish their mission.

Survivalist = no mission.

[FiLtH]

RnA    Reckless and Aggressive could be another catagory. Little thought to survival, often outmatched in planes and numbers, but has just as much fun as the other types.

[FiLtH]

Good post mtnmn. Another thing Ive often wondered about is how these types are chosen. What makes a guy want to tnb or bnz?

    I think its a big mash of types at different points of their flying years deciding they want a change. Over time the guy you knew as a TnB type when you started, a couple years down the road you may find hes changed to a BnZ style. Or the other way around.

   However both take a certain type of pilot to enjoy each style. The BnZ guy may have become that style because early on he didnt learn close in knife fighting so he decided to get good in the style he survived longer. The guy who started TnB may have tried BnZ but bout found it frustrating to get quick kill shots, and lacked patience.

   When its all said and done its a good thing there are different types. It would be rather boring if we all flew the same way...and the same planes.

[Citabria]

Freie Jagd "free hunt"

not read much about german tactics karnak?
their mission was to hunt the enemy and engage when they had the initiative when doing fighter sweeps or free hunt missions. they could enter combat or not as they desired.
your realism all depends on your point of view and which air force you wish to role play in. survivalist tactics are characteristic of the luftwaffe.


however if you wish to role play that you are a russian pilot you must take an entirely different viewpoint. the russians were ordered to engage the enemy wherever they found them in certain sectors. so if you wanted to simulate realistic russian tactics throughout much of the war you should attack all aircraft within a certain sector but then break off your attack once the enemy leaves the sector you are defending.


I'm not saying cartoon shootem airplane game is anything like the real thing. Your a dweeb and I'm a dweeb this is without question. the fact remains regardless of realism... if you are able to survive the fight and keep fighting till your bingo fuel and ammo you will get a lot of kills. and if youve made it that far getting away with that much killing returning to base to land is the conclusion of a succesful sortie. maybe its because I'm a pilot and I like to make as many landings as takeoffs that has somthing to do with my style of gameplay.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Citabria
Freie Jagd "free hunt"

not read much about german tactics karnak?
their mission was to hunt the enemy and engage when they had the initiative when doing fighter sweeps or free hunt missions. they could enter combat or not as they desired.
your realism all depends on your point of view and which air force you wish to role play in. survivalist tactics are characteristic of the luftwaffe.

Yes, of course.  However that was only a very narrow slice of German fighter activity.

And "fly like the aces" presumably means WWII Aces, be they German, American, Russian, British, Japanese, Italian, Canadian, Finnish, French or any other nationality, not just "German aces who gained their kills in Freie Jagd".

I am not saying it is not a valid play style, just that the noses in the air attitude taken by its adherents is uncalled for and unjustified.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Citabria
Freie Jagd "free hunt"

not read much about german tactics karnak?
their mission was to hunt the enemy and engage when they had the initiative when doing fighter sweeps or free hunt missions. they could enter combat or not as they desired.
your realism all depends on your point of view and which air force you wish to role play in. survivalist tactics are characteristic of the luftwaffe.


however if you wish to role play that you are a russian pilot you must take an entirely different viewpoint. the russians were ordered to engage the enemy wherever they found them in certain sectors. so if you wanted to simulate realistic russian tactics throughout much of the war you should attack all aircraft within a certain sector but then break off your attack once the enemy leaves the sector you are defending.


I'm not saying cartoon shootem airplane game is anything like the real thing. Your a dweeb and I'm a dweeb this is without question. the fact remains regardless of realism... if you are able to survive the fight and keep fighting till your bingo fuel and ammo you will get a lot of kills. and if youve made it that far getting away with that much killing returning to base to land is the conclusion of a succesful sortie. maybe its because I'm a pilot and I like to make as many landings as takeoffs that has somthing to do with my style of gameplay.

A huge difference being the wartime guy couldn't choose his ride or the base he came up out of however

Those Spit drivers on the roll at Manston as the bombs dropped come to mind.  The P40 drivers at Darwin,  Wildcat drivers at the Canal, etc etc.

While admitedly it's been a long time since my real flying days, I think the only thing that I've ever used from that in AH is short field take offs

[Sloehand]

How quickly, even a good, well participated thread can diverge from the topic.

I'm the one who asked, in another thread, for MtnMan to define what he considers catagorizable, general styles of fighter air combat, not personal style of a pilot, as in always selecting a certain manuveur in a specific situation.

While not a true expert, I've done a reasonably extensive study on ACM (and BFM, if you prefer) by both Sim-world and Real-word authorities (and a few not).

MtnMan confused me a bit with his seeming to reference 3 styles of 'dogfighting', so I wanted clarification, which he eloquently and informatively provided here.

However, what I see and ascribe to, is that there are only two distinctive 'styles' of air combat.  Put another way, the nature of aerodynamics and different capabilities of aircraft to perform, have naturally lead to two schools of  fighter combat.  These often have different, even opposing criteria for performing in their style.  

Certainly, a fight can change such that a person may utilize both styles, OR, a pilot's 'personal preferences' style of flying/fighting may be to be capable in either and use them as he feels the need.  But if a person were to thoroughly train someone in how to engage in fighter combat, identifying all pertinent factors, ultimately it seems most likely that the instruction will in some way, to some degree, identify and differentiate between these two approaches.

Regardless, the two styles (which I won't re-define as MtnMan and others have down a very good job of that) are known and refered to by many names, which is precisely where all the confusion lies.

In my opinion, and so far what seems to be the consensus of most authorities I have seen, there is the Turn N Burn and the Boom N Zoom styles, which are the common terms we use in this game.

Turn N Burn is also known as 'angles fighting' or 'turn fighting', and there may be one or two more very common terms that refer to the same general style of combat.  Boom N Zoom is known as "energy" or "E" fighting.

I don't think MtnMan has convinced me that there is a third, really recongnizable style, approach or generally recognized school of fighter combat.  His third style is really just a mixing of the two, which can certainly be taught as such, or be a personal style, but in managing the aerodynamic issues of dogfighting, I believe only two well-boundried styles exist.  

Other terms I've seen used are 'knife fighting' and 'slash fighting'.  Anyone what to contribute which of the two styles they refer to, or can you make a case for them being the 'third' style?

[Sloehand]

Oh yea.  Thanks MtnMan for responding to my question with this thread.  Also, this has been a good discussion, even if it did go a little farther afield than I expected.  But this is the kind of good stuff that should keep us all interested and learning, whether we agree explicitly or not.

Also, FYI, I have broached this subject of defined combat styles and the varying terminology used to the AH Training Corps  (actually just to Ghosth).   It may be that they will ponder this a bit and offer some guidance in terminology so we don't unnecessarily confuse each other with two words that mean the same thing.

Salute to all who aim to fly better.  Just don't aim my way.  

[trigger2]

My imput

Yes there are 3 different catagories and this is how i see them
1. Dogfighting
    A.BnZ (Boom and Zoom)
      I. The style of fighting where one person dives in on a lower plane attempting to get a shot at the lower plane and after he passes, he climbs back up to his "roost"
      II. Upside, Enemy doesn't get a shot at you, Spending Minimal E/alt
      III. Downside, potential overspeed/loss of control causing a crash; getting lured into ack/con's high alt buddies
    B. Stall Fighting (angle)
      I. The style of fighting where 2 people are engaged in a co-alt (or close to) fight where both pilots go through a series of turns/manuvers ending in a merge
     II. Upside, Easier tactic, Minimal accuracyrequired; overspeeds rarely an issue
     III. Downside; Stalls, losing all E; easy target (sitting duck); fight goes on long enough, you got his buddies to take care of too
   C. E fighting
     I. The combination of BnZ and Stall fighting where one target won't engage until he has more E over his victim (whether it be kinetic or potential)
     II. Upside; stalls/overspeeds are rare; you have enough e to bail out if you have to; most manuvers are open; suprise at times
     III. Downside; overshoots; usually wider turn radii


I believe each pilot has his own style around him, how s/he reacts under pressure, what manuvers they perfer etc...

I believe that by classifying the fighting techniques into these it makes it easier to teach, defend, and fight.

*EDIT*
add on

The correct term is "HO and go"

the correct term is a merge, this isn't an engagement but both planes Dopass nose to nose meaning, it's a merge, if it goes into a fight, it's usually a stall fight

[NoBaddy]

According to the guy that wrote THE book, there are 2 types (styles) of air combat. Angles and Energy. These types can be combined in any fashion needed to win the fight. Neither is mutually exclusive or all inclusive.

For more info, see "Fighter Combat and Tactics" by Robert Shaw. BTW, this is the manual used to train US fighter pilots.


(Bob, if you read this...yes, I'm trying to get you some royalties )

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by BluKitty

I'd say energy fighting, in the way I define it, is 'kind' of the only style.   For BnZ you are aiming for positive energy.  With TnB you are aiming for negative, null, or positive energy depending on the situation, but each situation and action you plan calls for a different E state.  

The other 'style' of angles and position fighting depend on energy state.  There's also stalling, skidding, negative G moves, or what I'll call 'drunken stalling', where you intentionally stall,  rudder hard, into the rolls, with torque and cut in hard.  But I kind of consider that energy management too...Certain maneuvers are suited to certain levels of E, relative to your target.

 

Well, this is what I was going to say, but not as well put as Blu.  To me it's all energy fighting, whether I start with more or less than the other fellas/gals, it dictates where I will attempt to place my plane to stay out of their bullets and into a position where I get guns on them.

[mtnman]

Originally posted by Sloehand
Oh yea.  Thanks MtnMan for responding to my question with this thread.  Also, this has been a good discussion, even if it did go a little farther afield than I expected.  But this is the kind of good stuff that should keep us all interested and learning, whether we agree explicitly or not.

Also, FYI, I have broached this subject of defined combat styles and the varying terminology used to the AH Training Corps  (actually just to Ghosth).   It may be that they will ponder this a bit and offer some guidance in terminology so we don't unnecessarily confuse each other with two words that mean the same thing.

Salute to all who aim to fly better.  Just don't aim my way.  

No problem Sloehand, it was a good idea!

For one, we play this game for entertainment.  We visit the boards for information to help us be entertained, and for entertainment itself.  As long as we keep coming back something must be working out correctly, right?

I guess I would have to go with the general consensus that there are really only two definite "types" of fighting, and that the best pilots don't use a third style, rather but freely move between the two as situations allow or dictate.

I even had trouble defining the third style myself because it is so fluid and vague, mainly because it isn't it's own style at all.

Maybe there really is only one way to fight, as blukitty alludes to (and 2Bighorn).  Not BnZ or TnB.  Energy fighting only works if you can use your energy to get the angle, and angle fighting only works if you have the energy to get the shot.

Maybe TnB and BnZ aren't "types" or "styles" at all, but rather traps that new pilots fall into on the road to the "real" method of fighting?  Or are they valid decriptions of two different strategies used as part of the whole?

MtnMan

[storch]

mtman's third style

[Sloehand]

Originally posted by trigger2
My imput

Yes there are 3 different catagories and this is how i see them
1. Dogfighting
    A.BnZ (Boom and Zoom)
      I. The style of fighting where one person dives in on a lower plane attempting to get a shot at the lower plane and after he passes, he climbs back up to his "roost"
      II. Upside, Enemy doesn't get a shot at you, Spending Minimal E/alt
      III. Downside, potential overspeed/loss of control causing a crash; getting lured into ack/con's high alt buddies
   
   C. E fighting
     I. The combination of BnZ and Stall fighting where one target won't engage until he has more E over his victim (whether it be kinetic or potential)
     II. Upside; stalls/overspeeds are rare; you have enough e to bail out if you have to; most manuvers are open; suprise at times
     III. Downside; overshoots; usually wider turn radii

Sorry Trigger, but you've just re-described the same style (incompletely in both instances so they look like different criteria) with A. and C.  

If a pilot has a significant potential E advantage, then he is at a higher alt than his opponent.  How does he attack his opponent?  With a BnZ dive attack, maybe?  Also, overshoots are definitely the downside of BnZ attacks, as are wider turn radii due to excessive speed IF the BnZ pilot incorrectly tries to turn with his intended victim.

If he has only a kinetic E advantage then he is roughly co-alt, and can certainly zoom in and out (even back up) on his opponent, which would still qualify as BnZ as he zooms back up to a perch.  If he decides to try and decrease his speed to maintain positional control over his opponent, and/or to turn with him, then he has just converted his attack into TnB style.  

Nope, IMO you have not come even close to defining a third style, just extended the criteria for A. and called it something else.

the correct term is a merge, this isn't an engagement but both planes Dopass nose to nose meaning, it's a merge, if it goes into a fight, it's usually a stall fight

This is an "engagement", just a bad one.  Two combat planes are engaged in some type of opposing manuveuring to gain a kill shot on the other.   "The Merge" is just one stage (and in my book the first) of any engagement.

I would say you are correct that if both planes intend to stay contineously engaged and not extend to later re-engage, then this does usually evolve into a stall, turn, or angles fight.