Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: mtnman on October 03, 2007, 05:54:40 PM
-
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
-
In a way, yes, but anyone who strictly flies by a certain style or another is very limited in what they can accomplish.
To fly great one must apply all styles, or simply be devoid of style, reacting to each situation as deemed by his position vs the enemy's aircraft and constantly evaluating it as to know when to switch from one "style" to another to come out on top.
-
Stang not if you fly a B17!
999000
-
I prefer the jump in and die type of flying.
This involves taking off, flying lower then most, hoping they come down, shooting as many as possible and then getting mugged.
Wash-rinse-repeat :)
People above ya just can't resist that big old P38 target below them:aok
-
Ok, just diving in here....(someone may have already stated this)..
There are 2 basic fighting 'styles', angles fights and E fights. Usually, at some point, aspects of both styles will be used in the same fight.
In an angles fight, turn rate is used to attempt to gain position for a firing solution on your opponent. That being said, the Turn & Burn artist that doesn't consider his E state, relative to his opponent, may well get his bum shot off.
In an E fight, establishing and maintaining a superior E state to gain a firing position is the goal. The most commonly talked about tactic is Boom & Zoom. More often than not, this is 'Jousting'. If the jouster fails to hit with his head on passes, he will eventually blow his E ad and be forced to run, usually, because he lacks the skill set needed to force his opponent into an inferior position.
I much prefer the Rope-a-Dope (I do love ropin' Spit5's and Gurlicanes in a 109f or P40E). This is simply another facet of E fighting. Nothing sweeter than seeing a superior turning plane behind me at -400 yards as I spiral climb away. Then seeing him fall away, knowing that I have the E to go down, pop flaps and turn with him for the kill.
The above tactics are not the only the only ones. There are yoyo's, leads and lags, scissors, rolling scissors, hammerheads (fingers gettin' tired here!!!). In the end, anyone worth his salt will use facets of both schools of combat to win. One dimensional players usually don't have a long shelf life. :)
-
Energy Fighting is basically using your superior energy to gain an angle on an enemy.
Angles Fighting (also known as "Turn Fighting") is what the name implies, using the maneuverability of your plane to achieve an angle on the enemy. People often take the name literal and think that "Angles" fighting is just going around in Luftberrys until someone eventually gets a shot.
The best fighter pilots are those that are able to use both techniques together as the situation dictates. Those that solely use one technique will always be at a disadvantage against those that can freely switch between the two during the course of an engagement.
ack-ack
-
You forgot one..
RnH (Run and Ho's)
This style of fighting is characterized by the typical dweeb pilot, that has little to no knowledge of any other form of ACM tactic sets. Instead their mastery of the dweebish skills tends to take the front seat, instead of actually learning proper ACM tactics.
The plane of choice is normally the LA7, they attempt their attack from a head on position, likely playing the Top Gun theme song in the background. If they come across a pilot with actual ACM skills they will likely miss their target as the maneuver is easily avoided in a 1 on 1 fight. This tactic tends to end with the second plane chasing the RnH pilot as he runs for his life.
If the RnH pilots is well practiced he might live long enough to find friend or five, for the ever so popular counter attack using the much favored Horde tactics. However if he can't find any friends and hasn't ran out of fuel he can sometimes be baited back in to a fight by using channel 200 for your advantage. Typically using "quit running like a girl LA7" or "I'm only in a Hurri 1 why are you running LALA?" will work.
These quick well thought out commits on channel 200, will almost always get the RnH pilots to turn around at which point the chance of them auguring has gone up dramatically. In fact, in many cases you can conserve your ammo as they are likely to collied with someone or the ground, whichever is closer.
-
Originally posted by Stang
one must apply all styles, or simply be devoid of style, reacting to each situation as deemed by his position vs the enemy
In other words ... Kung Fu? Your so wise Stang :) ...
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.
So I don't think a good pilot has any 'style';
Someone playing with a 'style' is "very limited in what they can accomplish"(Stang LOL (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=216586)).
I've still got style tho ;)
-
then there are the survivalists. the group on the far end of the spectrum from the turn shoot kill die crowd.
some find the rinse repeat kill/die cycle of most e fight or angles fighting mentalities predictable. generally the contest for either group is to see how many they can get before dying. nothing wrong with that as it provides cannon fodder for all concerned which is good. but the challenge of trying to fly the way the real aces flew with the preservation of your aircraft and a safe landing after getting many kills is the goal of the survivalist.
the survivalist is more interested in using situational awareness to calculate the success of any type of engagement be it angles or E fighting and then attacking with the sense that other enemies are in the area the fight with the one plane becomes a parallel goal to maintaining situational awareness of all airplanes in the area all the while moving into position on the plane currently targeted.
this is a different philosophy than the duelist has who prefers the challenge of 1v1 combat and is annoyed by interlopers.
the survivalist expects other enemy aircraft to be in the fight at the same time they are and maintains a mental picture of where the enemy cons are at all times. this is a philosophy of 1 vs many or many vs many. the challenge of this is is more analytical than the reflexive 1v1 skills most hope to perfect.
yet by succesfully predicting what will happen and where enemy planes will be in any engagment will reward the survivalist with good gunnery with a string of kills in just about any fight.
taking off, killing and getting away with it and getting home to land is the survivalist mantra.
-
I'd suggest that the guys who get most out of the game use all the styles mentioned to some degree depending on situation.
If you up from a coastal base to defend it against a carrier fleet, it's going to be tough to fly energy fighting, BnZ or survivalist unless you let other folks hold the line while you climb away the other direction. So someone is going to be furballing and turning and burning to buy you time.
If you take off from a further base with some squaddies you probably aren't going to want to die in the first few minutes of the fight and you are winging so you've got cover and you approach it differently. You'll have that alt too which allows you to pick and choose a lot more then a guy who is on the deck fighting the guys from up high.
If you're in a 51 you'll fly it differently then a Spit and so on and so forth.
I think too many folks get caught up in there being one way to play the game and there are many.
As long as you are having fun, it's the way it should be :)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
...If you up from a coastal base to defend it against a carrier fleet, it's going to be tough to fly energy fighting, BnZ or survivalist unless you let other folks hold the line while you climb away the other direction. So someone is going to be furballing and turning and burning to buy you time....
most of the furball or survivalist crowd has about 0 interest in holding or taking bases. and they also have about the same lack of interest in where the fight occurs be it in the enemy cv's ack umbrella thanks to those "buying time" or at a decent distance away from the horrid puffy ack that makes the game virtually unplayable above 3k. for either group the fight and the kills is pretty much the only point of interest. the toolshedding aspect of the game is the easiest for noobs to learn since most noobs cant figure out how to shoot moving targets in a 3d space anyway.
the real estate agents are the category of players that enjoy the base capture stuff. you will generally find this crowd interested not in the fight but the owenership of the base they are targetting.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
If you're in a 51 you'll fly it differently then a Spit and so on and so forth.
As long as you are having fun, it's the way it should be :)
Dan...
Guess that's my problem. I fly 'em all pretty much the same. But, in my defense, I'm a lazy bastage and trying to learn everything about any or all of the planes bores me to tears. COD!! Sometimes I do miss AWDOS when learning each plane was easy because there were so few. :)
Fun?? Yes sir!! If I wasn't having fun...I wouldn't be here. That's why I laff at the capture monkeys. I will be here having a good time looong after they get bored and move on to some other 'capture the flag' game. :D
-
Originally posted by crockett
You forgot one..
RnH (Run and Ho's)
The correct term is "HO and go"
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Energy Fighting is basically using your superior energy to gain an angle on an enemy.
Angles Fighting (also known as "Turn Fighting") is what the name implies, using the maneuverability of your plane to achieve an angle on the enemy. People often take the name literal and think that "Angles" fighting is just going around in Luftberrys until someone eventually gets a shot.
The best fighter pilots are those that are able to use both techniques together as the situation dictates. Those that solely use one technique will always be at a disadvantage against those that can freely switch between the two during the course of an engagement.
ack-ack
that pretty well nails it. good post akak.
-
I essentially posted a response to this in HighGturns' thread, so I won't repeat.
NoBaddy more or less summarized my post.
With respect to 'style' meaning a particular way of performing a maneuver, I do think that some of the better pilots on here exhibit a particular style of fighting. I mean this in the same way that two folks can perform the same dance steps, but in a different unique way.
I mentioned Storch in particular, as he has a way of performing a lag pursuit that I think is quite distinctive.
-
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 :aok
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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?
-
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. :aok
-
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
-
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 :D)
-
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. :aok
-
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. :aok
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
-
mtman's third style (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP0NHTJU7IY)
-
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.
-
Originally posted by mtnman
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
As someone else mentioned, the distinction between BnZ and TnB is predicated to a great degree by individual aircraft capabilities, which can determine what types of manuveurs offer the greatest potential for the pilot to engage, get a kill, and then survive. As such, these factors do form naturally into two styles of combat and training.
But as you point out, a really good pilot can do both or either as the situation arises. In fact, to be able to effectively engage a pilot flying in one style with someone flying in the other, it is almost imperative that the pilot knows well the other style.
Much of success in air combat is due less to fancy flying or swift reflexes than it is to anticipating what your opponent will do in a given situation almost before he does, due to recognizing the finite circumstances of the moment (a/c, alt, speed, terrain, evident mission of opponent, tactical position, etc).
Therefore, being intimately familar with how a TnB does what he does can be important to a BnZ pilot in determining how and when he will set up his attack, and planning for how he will responded based on his victim's probable actions.
If I were to continue with this it would lead us to a discussion of the concept of the O.O.D.A. Loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act). A very important and powerful element of combat flying, which I doubt many know much about, though it would be nice if I were wrong there.
As our favorite son, Skylump, will certainly not hesitate remind everyone ad nauseum, I am not a 'natural' pilot and know it. However, I am somewhat better than my physical talents or skills would make me because of the "thinking' aspect of combat into which O.O.D.A. Loop fits as the definitive approach.
However, O.O.D.A. is for another discussion, but I encourage everyone to look it up and understand the dueling thinking processes going on between two combatants.
To conclude, I believe both styles somewhat are, and definitely should be taught together, if for no other reason than comparative presentation instruction in either style. As also mentioned before, there is a somewhat unfortunate progression of skill and styles that seems to occur with most all new pilots. When I help a new pilot get started I try to clearly define, demonstrate, and teach both styles comparatively.
Also, I am a TnB pilot who has learned to use BnZ no matter what plane I'm in, if the situation calls for it.
-
Hey. You all forgot my style of fighting and one that I'm sure is shared by many others: fluff'n'D; Fly 'n' Die.
-
Originally posted by storch
mtman's third style (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP0NHTJU7IY)
Storch... You really don't need to be showing us all your home videos...
:rofl
-
I'm shareful that way :lol
-
I think what has happened here is a mixing of terms that on close examination, do not encompass the same details in their definition.
When I say TnB that should instantly conjure up an image of what both planes are doing in a fight.
When I say BnZ that should also conjure up an image of not only what both planes are doing in a fight, but also what their relative E states are. "BnZ" as a term, also stands alone as a tactic for approaching an engagment with and energy advantage. Both may be used to describe a prefered "style" of fight. Still, both terms define the conditions of a fight.
"E fighting" does not describe exactly what the fight looks like. It is an approach to a fight of gaining (if you don't already have it) the energy advantage to obtain a guns solutions.
"Angles fighting" likewise describes a technique for gaining a guns solution, except by turning harder or better turn choice.
These terms define the methods of attempting to achieve guns, and not nessacerly the actual scenario in which the fight is taking place, or what the other plane is doing.
A couple ideas I disagree with in this discussion. One is that "E fighting" is bound to BnZ somehow. That is not the case. You can take a staged equal duel, and apply "E fighting". The energy fighter can prevail while performing the same amount of maneuvers as the angles fighter without "extending" or pure "zooming" or diving. The energy fighter in that scenario has observed the angles fighter agressively burning more E with their maneuvers. They will simply conceed whatever angle loss they can afford to, and reserve as much E as possible. The end game is that at some point when the kinetic energy runs low, the E fighter will have better maneuver options at their disposal than the angles fighters. At that point the energy fighter uses their superior E state to gain angles that the angles fighter cannot match. That is one possible outcome, but I'll mention that such a fight could be won with either tactic, or any combination thereof.
E fighting can take place with a separation where both planes stay within reach of the others turn radius. That effectively eliminates "BnZ" as a required scenario.
That leads to another statement I disagree with which is that the energy fighter does not engage without having an energy advantage to begin with. An E advantage is required for "BnZ". The E advantage is not pre-requisite to E fighting, but it is prefered.
E fighting could be as simple as a rope-a-dope or as complex as a three merge fight, or a multi-revolution rolling scissors. Angles fighting could be as simple as a "TnB" luftberry, or as complex as crafting the angles for a flight path overshoot for conversion into a wingline overshoot during a "TnB", or even during a BnZ attempt.
What we [trainers] teach to newer players is the basics of angles fighting, and as the trainiee catches on to those points, we also intergrate energy fighting into the equation. As they start to grasp the energy fight approach, we often turn the tables again, and show them how the angles approach can also trump the energy fight under the right conditions. One should be able to switch between the two strategies as the situation dictates.
"Styles" is a subjective idea. Style of a fight and prefered style of fighting may be two different things. IDing a bogie by name because of their "style", or catagorizing a style of player by what one can expect from them are different yet. All I can say is that while TnB and BnZ are recognized as kinds of "styles", and E and angles could also be considered as "styles", you can't mix and match the 4 of them together equally, because the two pair define different things.
-
Every plane has its strong and weak sides, and for this reason planes shall be flown differently. Still aggressive pilot is aggressive pilot whatever ride he is in.
-
Very good points Murdr. Obviously it isn't easy to come up with clear definitions, and then use them to describe what we see or experience while in or watching a fight.
Add to that the huge variety possible when different people perform the same manuever, and again more variety when we add different plane types.
The problem escalates when people gain intimate knowledge and views of a subject. Here in Wisconsin, we call precipitation by several different names. Rain, drizzle, hail, snow, wet snow, ice, etc. Not really all that many descriptions, but more (or at least different) than someone living in a desert region would use or recognize.
The Inuit have a much more intimate knowledge of snow, and have MANY more valid descriptions for it. Something over a hundred different names if I remember correctly. (Many of those may become fond memories at the rate things are going...)(Or not, depending on who you talk to, hehe.)
Somebody with little airplane experience might note that airplanes "fly". We want to break it down, and aren't even satisfied that names for basic manuevers are enough.
MtnMan
-
Originally posted by storch
mtman's third style (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP0NHTJU7IY)
Sorry Storch- at 26K dial-up I don't do the video thing unless it's worth it. Can you decribe it for me (advertise)? If it's worth it, I'll give it a try!
Was it really a family video? I'd love to see how creative you guys are, hehe!
That would be worth my time and effort, where if you were reduced to just posting a link to somebody else's material in a "claim for fame" I'd be limited to feelings of pity...
MtnMan