PDA

View Full Version : Why did MOST WWII planes go to Boom & Zoom...?



MichaelMar
07-08-2005, 02:54 AM
Well, some players keep telling me T&B fighters are the best while most say Z&B. From what I see are most players flying Z&B...why? Also, even in RL most newer planes went Z&B...and not just to knock down bombers in game and RL.


THX

RNZAFJay
07-08-2005, 03:01 AM
I think group tactics has a lot to do with it. When the Germans came up with teh "finger four" formation I think everything changed. In a group engadement, a turning fighter is at risk of his victims mate sneaking up from behind.

Also maybe the Germans facing the Spit and the Americans facing the Zero may have something to do with it.

nellip
07-08-2005, 05:38 AM
Because the pilots primary concern was their own survival?

I like Yeagers quote on what was the plane "the one that gives me the best chance of shooting down the enemy with the least risk to me" - may have got a few words wrong but the meaning is right.

Freycinet
07-08-2005, 05:43 AM
B&Z capability is a result of high top speed and good climb. This means you can pick where and when you want to fight less endowed opponents. Basically B&Z planes can pick their fight and disengage at will against less speedy opponents. That's vital in real life.

Feathered_IV
07-08-2005, 06:02 AM
When you are safe and sound in your own home and its only a game, T&B fighting is the best http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

geetarman
07-08-2005, 08:19 AM
Many fighter pilots (including most German and US pilots) felt that speed was to be valued most in a fighter plane, at least during WWII.

To dogfight(in the classic sense) means you will, by default, slow down, which is a no-no.

horseback
07-08-2005, 09:41 AM
Simple tactic: hit and run

Safe tactic: If you've hit your target, he's less capable of fending off your next pass. If you missed, you maintain your speed advantage and can make another pass or move on to a less alert target. Unless he's a lot faster than you, he can't pursue.

Team tactic: flying in circles leads to uninvited guests arriving from angles you and your wingman can't predict or detect. Z & B makes third party interceptions more predictable and easier for you to counter.

cheers

horseback

3.JG51_BigBear
07-08-2005, 09:59 AM
I think the main reason was the airplanes they were flying. WW2 vintage aircraft were increasing in speed and weight. The shere size and mass of these fighters made it dangerous to make violent manuevers at low speeds.

Also, turning combat is very disorientating and difficult to do. In a BnZ situation the plane is acting like a roller coster. The plane is accelerating quickly but the sensation is more like driving a car in a straight line. The body can adjust fairly easily and gunnery is simplified. In turning combat the pilot needs to have tremendous stamina to continually yank and bank the aircraft, there is a lot of deflection shooting and situational awareness is limited.

T_O_A_D
07-08-2005, 10:07 AM
Yeh it was safer.

TgD Thunderbolt56
07-08-2005, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by T_O_A_D:
Yeh it was safer.


Roger that TOAD, it was safer and as armament improved, those slashing attacks were deadlier for their intended targets as well.


TB

sgilewicz
07-08-2005, 10:54 AM
Horseback "uninvited guests"? What were my in-laws doing there this time?!

crazyivan1970
07-08-2005, 11:32 AM
Depence on the theater really and on the period of the war.

Eastern Front was low-mid alt close support to ground forces. Altitude of the fight was raising as years went by.
Western and Pacific, mostly high alt, high speed combat.

Just my opinion.

MEGILE
07-08-2005, 11:47 AM
it was also much easier.
Turn fights were extremely risky, especialy if you met an ace in a plane which could outturn yours http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

horseback
07-08-2005, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by sgilewicz:
Horseback "uninvited guests"? What were my in-laws doing there this time?!
The usual: eating all the food, drinking all the liquor, and badmouthing you...

cheers

horseback

VW-IceFire
07-08-2005, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by MichaelMar:
Well, some players keep telling me T&B fighters are the best while most say Z&B. From what I see are most players flying Z&B...why? Also, even in RL most newer planes went Z&B...and not just to knock down bombers in game and RL.


THX
I was doing some reading on this.

Even in WWI, the battles between the Sopwith Camel and the Fokker TriPlane, the Camel was considered the superior fighter (in most quarters) because although it wasn't quite as manueverable as the infamous TriPlane, it was faster. Its pilot could attack, make a pass, and then fly away.

Some of these lessons were forgotten post war but the fact remains that if your plane is faster and dives quicker then you have the advantage for disengaging from the enemy when you want to.

By the end of the war, even the Japanese were coming to recognize the qualities of speed and climb over turn rate. Prime examples being the Ki-44 and the J2M.

Even the RAF began to slowly recognize it despite having superior turn aircraft early in the war particularly with the Hurricane (which was superior in turn to the 109 and Spitfire). The Typhoon and later versions of the Spitfire were emphasizing speed and firepower or speed and climb.

I feel that although the ability to turn is vital for correcting onto a target and leading a shot, the sustained turns are useless in combat as it depletes energy (even for turn fighters) and leaves you open for attack from above or by a faster plane.

Attacking from above means you're going faster and therefore able to make a pass, climb away and make another pass. Not much the other pilot can do.

Doug_Thompson
07-08-2005, 02:10 PM
The true origins of "boom and zoom" were in First World War dogfights, as VW-IceFire has noted.

Even the most skilled pilots with the best situational awareness simply could not keep track of all the planes in the larger and larger dogfights of 1917 and 1918. Great pilots were caught surpized and died when somebody saw their plane pop up in front of him and fired. Pure dumb luck.

The situation was particularly dangerous since teamwork was spotty, especially for the allies. The lifespan of new pilots was measured in weeks, if not days. Teamwork didn't have time to develop. There were no radios, either. You couldn't warn your wingman of the enemy plane on his tail.

I don't remember the name of the commander of the squadron of British S.E. 5a's who first issued a order that formations were not, repeat, not to engage in dogfights. They were to get in a vee formation, dive in while follwing the leader in his attack, blaze through and fire at what they could and form up again on the other side. That was the origin of boom and zoom.

SOLO_Bones
07-08-2005, 02:32 PM
Boom & Zoom is just a fancy term for "take a couple shots and get the hell out". The average fighter pilots main objective was to survive. A dogfight in real life like we have in PF just didn't happen very often. In RL there was no respawn. Most kills in fighter engagements was a matter of sheer luck. One just happened to end up on somebodies six o'clock and blasted away. Other times the kills were deflection shots while unloading the entire ammo load.
In other words Boom and Zoom was more self preservation than a fighter tactic.

stathem
07-08-2005, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
The true origins of "boom and zoom" were in First World War dogfights, as VW-IceFire has noted.

Even the most skilled pilots with the best situational awareness simply could not keep track of all the planes in the larger and larger dogfights of 1917 and 1918. Great pilots were caught surpized and died when somebody saw their plane pop up in front of him and fired. Pure dumb luck.

The situation was particularly dangerous since teamwork was spotty, especially for the allies. The lifespan of new pilots was measured in weeks, if not days. Teamwork didn't have time to develop. There were no radios, either. You couldn't warn your wingman of the enemy plane on his tail.

I don't remember the name of the commander of the squadron of British S.E. 5a's who first issued a order that formations were not, repeat, not to engage in dogfights. They were to get in a vee formation, dive in while follwing the leader in his attack, blaze through and fire at what they could and form up again on the other side. That was the origin of boom and zoom.

Major Sholto Douglas, 84 Sq. Whatever happened to him? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Interestingly, the Germans learnt it the hard way at the hands of I-16's over Spain.

The_Gorey
07-08-2005, 06:15 PM
You don't do your country any favors by being dead. Getting gobbled up in a whirling dogfight is a good way to end up that way.

"War in the air is not sport.. It is scientific murder" - Captain Eddie Rickenbacker (U.S. WW1 Ace)

DDad
07-08-2005, 06:57 PM
Just to add another point here....

How much actual flight experience did the average fighter pilot have before being sent to combat? And how long would it take to train a guy (straight from the street) to fly a plane (trainers), transition to fighters, then learn tactics- and hone those skills to where they are instinctive- cause in a fight, you can't be thinking about the situation, or stopping to read a manual, etc.

B&Z is the easiest tactic to teach......

VF-3Thunderboy
07-08-2005, 07:33 PM
US Navy and Marines were taught to dogfight, and deflection shoot. This is reflected in the GUNSIGHT, it has those 45 degree angles....
The planes were more dogfighters (Buffalo,Wildcat, Hellcat, Bearcat)


The USAAF gunsight was a little DOT in the center of the ring.... Although they (usaaf) did do deflection shooting also,,....better for boom and zoom, although the tactics were figured out later in the war, and by Chenault (Flying tigers)in China before the US involvement (offical involvement)


Chenault developed the tactics because the Japanese p[lanned fo dogfights, and had tighter turning planes....

Boom and Zoom was seen as cowardly in the beggining, and thats why alot of allied pilots were lost, trying to be 'noble' and dogfight Zeros with P-40's...

Which is better online? We will find out. Give me 4 good pilots VS 6 others, and it probably wont matter for yu!!.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

RocketRobin__
07-08-2005, 11:49 PM
Because B&Z pilots don't like to have planes that can evade them in their servers.
Think about it: you're the CO of an elite squad and some assclown in an FM2 comes in and starts raping your pilots. What will you do to keep morale up and ensure all your buddies are having fun? Nuke the FM2s.

And that folks, is that.

Ruy Horta
07-09-2005, 01:02 AM
A lot of people seem to forget disengagement as an important combat factor.

THE classic example is the final combat of Werner Voss vs 56 Sqn.

Arguably (well few would doubt this) he was the best pilot in that fight, especially well matched with his a/c, a Fokker Dr.I

However although he could outfly and outfight 11 SE5s of 56 Sq, he could not disengage them for lack of speed.

Finally he was shot down, but not before making air combat history and earning the respect of those who fought him (some of them barely surviving the event).

The Dr.I was the superior in terms of agility, but it could not gain the initiative against the faster SE5s. The numerical superiority meant that the combination of skill and agility could not be fully used against the less agile (less experienced) SE5s.

B&Z limits the risks of getting stuck, also with regard to the unexpected.

Voss started out the fight quite well vs a pair of SE5s from 60 Sqn. but was swamped by the arrival of 56 Sqn.

Of course lets not forget that in this particular case the British were probably getting in eachother's way, but it still serves as a classic example.

OTOH, the death of Wutz Galland serves to illustrate the other side. An experten getting ready to attack a formation of heavy bombers with the II. Gruppe of JG 26 in a Fw 190 A-5, only to be bounced by a high flight of 56th FG Thunderbolts under Zemke.

Roughly and arguably you could say that men and machines were equally matched, but a quick and clean bounce made all the difference.

An efficient kill...

OTOH in a game we play for fun and like to dog fight.

Closest I came to this sort of experience was campaigning in Warbirds, were survival counted more than kills (combined with our virtual squadron's tough score rules).

Before any engagement I was thinking already thinking about how to best disengage, quickest way out and even nearest friendly territory in case of damage.

VF-3Thunderboy
07-09-2005, 02:28 AM
Whos got the best squad or squads out there? Tactics can be used either way with enough good pilots....Its up to the tactics used, not necessarily the planes...

Any serious squads out there? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

stathem
07-09-2005, 02:35 AM
"It was found that supremely quick manouvering was nearly always a defensive measure; when attacked the pilot escaped the immediate consequences by swift manoeuvre. The attack on the other hand was usually delivered by a flight formation diving at high speed, so that in attack it was the manoeuverablilty of the flight that counted. now if you have a machine superior in performance to the enemy, and your patrols are well led, you should very rerly be attacked or thrown on the defensive. Instead, you should be able to manoeuvre your formation so that, by virtue of your superior speed and climb, you yourself are always the attcker; which leads us to the conclusion that if your machines are superior in performance to those of the enemy, manoeuvrability is a very secondary consideration."

Major Sholto Douglas again, writing between the wars about his experiences in WW1.

VF-3Thunderboy
07-09-2005, 10:24 AM
Lone wolf flying at low level is completely UNREALISTIC. Pilots fought in squads for the most part.Join a squad, learn the historical basics, (finger four, left echelon, etc...

How can anyone fly this thing for 1-4 years and never join a squad, and not know what left echelon, etc is???

REalism means that YOU start flying somewhat along historical lines. You want the most accurate flight models, but not PILOT Models?

HOW REALISTIC ARE YOU???

REmember, for the most part, pilots did not engauge in low level treetop combat. "Im at Angels 1 point 5 (1500 feet) Blowfish, my god, Ive got a pile of bogies at angels 1. (1000 feet) Lets go get em......


Didnt happen (for the most part)......Guadalcanal- 20,000 feet plus, unless you got the really great P-39, then you were stuck at 11-12,000 ft...


Bomber intercepts did not happen (Generally) at 2000 feet..Unless they were torpedo planes...

If you cant join in an online game with the basic knowlege of how to fly in any formation, you need to take off the DIAPER, grow up, and learn how to be a realsitic sim pilot....How long have YOU been flying this thing????? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

RedDeth
07-09-2005, 02:54 PM
IL2 even though many will wail and say nay is still just a game. its not a simulation. a simulator is one of those flight sims that you fly around and land at different airports .

IL2 is a game and its bought for entertainment value and for most that is just getting in the air and shooting at other planes. regardless of altitude or whether you die.

its pretty elitist to say you have to fly in formation and in a squad and that this is a simulation. thats all incorrect.

that being said i have been in a top online squad for 7 years and i always prefer winging on comms.

but i do not believe this is not a game. its the same as DOOM and unreal tournament and grand theft auto. its a game and the object is to destroy other things in the game.

how you do this is up to you. you may do it efficently with a high kill ratio to each death ...or not. its your dime....

VF-3Thunderboy
07-09-2005, 04:28 PM
Its a game that simulates aircraft of WW2. They dont have lazers, they have accurate bullet load outs. When you shoot at them, they have accurate damage models. If you stall, you may fall. So ITs a SIM to some degree.It SIM-ULATES the virtual reality of WW2 combat.

So the planes simulate reality, but the pilots in large part actually behave like lazy 18 year old know nothings...Thats not good news...Lazyness is rampant in flight sims,

Its regression to the mean, but yea, its hard to rise above the mean, but, it is possible.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

LEXX_Luthor
07-09-2005, 04:56 PM
BnZ got started in WW1 with SPADS and maybe Albatros and SE~5 too maybe. There was a cool German plane, forgot name but only a few were made. It was biplane, about late 1917, and it was made as pure interceptor with Xtreme climb rate. The first of its kind I guess.

Reading up on Yefims, and yups, I~16 was made for BnZs (I~15n series made for TnB).

Ruy Horta
07-10-2005, 01:07 AM
You might arguably say that BnZ got started with Max Immelmann, or at least in a historically documented way. Note I am describing the classic Immelmann manoeuvre following an initial diving attack.

A quite litteral case of boom 'n zoom...

One might thus arguably say that boom 'n zoom is as old as the first true fighters.

Pentallion
07-10-2005, 12:15 PM
The lifespan of new pilots [in WW1] was measured in weeks, if not days.

The expected flight time of a WW1 pilot was 17 hours.

Atomic_Marten
07-10-2005, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by RedDeth:
IL2 even though many will wail and say nay is still just a game. its not a simulation. a simulator is one of those flight sims that you fly around and land at different airports .

IL2 is a game and its bought for entertainment value and for most that is just getting in the air and shooting at other planes. regardless of altitude or whether you die.

its pretty elitist to say you have to fly in formation and in a squad and that this is a simulation. thats all incorrect.

that being said i have been in a top online squad for 7 years and i always prefer winging on comms.

but i do not believe this is not a game. its the same as DOOM and unreal tournament and grand theft auto. its a game and the object is to destroy other things in the game.

how you do this is up to you. you may do it efficently with a high kill ratio to each death ...or not. its your dime....

This is un-pretentious POV on the game. I share that view with you. This is game first, then anything else. By saying "anything else", I mean that basically we decide what we want it to be for us; game is scalable, can be played in different ways etc.

Saying it is the game first, holds true, because first objective of the game is to destroy other objects, like you said. Simulation is meant to be "secondary" objective of the game.(simulation of flying)

About BnZ tactic. It is no brainer why it is so popular among many players. They are inflicting heavy damage in short ammount of time with less or no risk to themselves. I can't think of any better fighter aircraft tactic.

blakduk
07-10-2005, 09:50 PM
The answer is basically because it worked better- prior to WW2 a lot of strategists and designers placed significant importance on the maneuvorability of fighters. The Spanish civil war taught the LW a LOT about tactics and they concentrated on formation flying adopting B&Z tactics.
Others were slower to follow but caught up quickly when grim reality set in. Popular mythology about dogfights among 'knights of the air' (as espoused in the Biggles series of books) came to be seen as romantic notions when the numbers of experienced and competent fliers being killed reached tragic figures.
I once saw a documentary of a Hurricane pilot who was shot down over France in early 1940- he stated 'I was taught how to make a Hurricane hum and a Spitfire sing, but i wasnt taught how to fight'.
Once the romantic bullsh*t was out of the way the merits of killing and getting away cleanly were plain to see.
Most people who begin playing games such as these come to them with similar notions and most of us follow a similar path. I really enjoy 1:1 or 1:2 dogfights because you get to push the envelope of the handling of these planes. Once the odds get more complicated the chances of survival get too slim.

blakduk
07-10-2005, 10:03 PM
To add to the above, i cant recall who said it (it may have been Immelman) but an author wrote of the concept of the interrupter gear that was developed by Fokker in WW1 that allowed the fighter to fly straight at their target. He wrote that the inspiration came from watching a falcon attack its prey- he noted the way the falcon dove down from a great height using maximum speed to increase the impact. The prey had great maneuvorability which it had to use for defence, but it COULDN'T RETALIATE!
Its interesting that the lessons of the Fokker scourge in WW1, when the allies nearly lost complete control of their airspace, were lost.

WOLFMondo
07-11-2005, 05:55 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Depence on the theater really and on the period of the war.

Eastern Front was low-mid alt close support to ground forces. Altitude of the fight was raising as years went by.
Western and Pacific, mostly high alt, high speed combat.


Not always the case, Tempests and 190D's were BnZ planes but fought each other usually with a few feet of the ground.

The RAF did allot of medium and low altitude fighting throughout the war. You'd just as likely end up in a dogfight at 30,000ft or 500ft depending on what you were tasked to do regardless of the year or location. There were over 1000 fighters and fighter/bombers in the 2nd TAF which did virtually all there combat below 12,000ft.