I'm starting this thread to answer a question asked in a different thread. Namely, is it possible to differentiate between different basic styles or techniques used in air combat in AH.
We commonly use terms such as Bnz (Boom and Zoom), TnB (Turn and Burn), and E-fighting to describe different methods of employing ACMs during air combat.
Several points were brought up noting that all three styles use E management, flight manuevers, etc, so there was really only one "style" or technique employed, negating the need to classify them seperately.
So which is true? Is there only one way to fight? Are we all fighting the same? Or are there different "styles" that can be grouped into generic categories? Is there a reason or need to keep them grouped together? Or a reason or need to attempt dividing them?
If we divide them, can we classify (name) them?
Is it possible for two different pilots using the same general strategy to have different individual "styles"? Or are individual styles limited to ice skating? Can you recognize pilots by the way they fly?
I'll start-
I think there ARE different basic "styles" or strategies employed during our air combat clashes.
I think it IS possible to classify them into basic groups.
I think it IS necessary to classify them seperately.
I'll start with my basic "idea" or definition of each style, and hopefully by the end of this discussion we will have a consensus for each, or a consensus for none.
BnZ-
In my mind, this is a style characterized by the aggressor having and maintaining a positive energy advantage (speed, altitude, or both), and attempting to turn that advantage into a shot solution. A higher, often faster plane drops down (Booms) to take a shot at a lower, often slower opponent with little threat to himself. Whether or not the shot attempt is successful, the aggressor "zooms" back up to altitude, maintaining his energy advantage. This will cost some E, but if the lower pilot evades, he will also lose energy, with a net result very similar to the initial opening scenario. If the lower pilot doesn't evade, he dies. The aggressor will generally use ACMs that will result in the minimum loss of energy, allowing for repeated attempts at the lower opponent. Sharp turns are avoided, and lots of sky is used. Higher wing loaded, heavy planes fit my image of BnZ planes best. P51's, 109's, etc. These planes handle better at high speed, and have relatively low turn rates compared to a "TnB" plane.
TnB-
This style of fighting is characterized (in my mind) by tighter turning manuevers that result in a higher loss of energy. Large amounts of energy may be "scrubbed" in an attempt for an early shot solution. In some cases, it may even appear that there is a "race" to be the slower plane, in an effort to tighten the turn radius beyond that of your opponent. Of course, energy management is still an issue, but TnB fights that drag out beyond thirty seconds or so often result in both planes at or near minimum controllable airspeed, and quite often on the deck. An energy deficit may often actually be to your advantage in a TnB fight. Slower, lighter wing loaded generally fit my image of a TnB plane. Zero's, Hurri's, etc. These planes benefit more from a slow, tighter turning fight than a plane suited more for BnZ. Often they don't even perform well at the higher speeds common to the BnZ planes.
Can a BnZ plane use TnB tactics, or vice versa? Yes, but each would generally do better if it stayed in it's "style", and convinced his opponent to stray from it's own. For example, in a slow, tight, on the deck TnB fight, I would expect the zero to prevail over a P51 the vast majority of the time, assuming both utilized the same strategy. In a faster, looser fight I would expect the opposite.
P51 vs P51, (or any other matched fight) it wouldn't matter as much which tactic was used. However, if one pilot opts to scrub speed and turn tight, while the other burns less E and maintains his speed one pilot could end up with a significant advantage over the other if a kill isn't quickly made.
So, we have a tighter, slower, energy burning type of fight, and a looser, faster more E conservative fight. Are they the same? Would some planes perform better in one type of fight, while others perform better in the other? Would it matter what "style" was employed if the planes that met were similar? Disimilar?
Hot water- Cold water. Are those the only options? Are they even options? What if we mix them? Warm? Cool?
Can we mix TnB with Bnz? Possibly even merge from one style into the other in the same fight? Maybe even back and forth in an attempt to beat your opponent?
In my mind yes, and I would consider that to be "E-fighting". That would be a style using energy advantage OR deficit to your apparant advantage. Tighter turning than BnZ, looser than TnB, or even to each extreme. This is where I would group some of the oddball strategies, such as roping. Definitely a more vague idea than BnZ or TnB, but then again "warm" or "cool" are more vague than hot or cold. Not really BnZ, not really TnB, but definately both.
Is it necessary or desirable to differentiate between the different styles?
Yes- if we want a basis of comparison in order to communicate to others. How do we communicate basic ideas to others without classification, and a basic vocabulary of definitions? How can we teach or describe ANYTHING without common basic terms?
With more detailed knowlege comes more detailed classification. In the beginning, pointing at an airplane and calling it an airplane may suffice. But are all airplanes the same? Is there any reason or value in differentiating between a jet, biplane, cessna, ultralight, fighter, bomber, glider, etc? Or are they all the same? Is an oak tree the same as a pine? Is a $1 bill the same as a $100 bill?
Any other input?
MtnMan
