PDA

View Full Version : which came first: The planes or the tactic?



jds1978
11-18-2005, 02:41 PM
fairly early into the war, B'n'Z was adopted almost universally.

my question: Did the B'n'z planes emerge after the tactics were drawn up, or were the tactics designed to compliment the newer, faster, higher flying AC?

Which came first? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

danjama
11-18-2005, 02:54 PM
If your thinking this is like the chicken and the egg scenario, your wrong, its not, sorry! How can u have tactics without planes?

Mackane1
11-18-2005, 02:57 PM
Chenault developed such tactics for the AVG(Flying Tigers)in China. P-40's couldn't dogfight with Zeros so Boom and Zoom tactics were used.

Google "Claire Chenault" of the Flying Tigers...you should come up with some interesting stuff.

Low_Flyer_MkII
11-18-2005, 03:11 PM
Mick Mannock was using what his peers referred to as 'the dive and zoom attack' in WWI.

Waldo.Pepper
11-18-2005, 03:29 PM
Sad to say but there was a war before WW2 in which there were planes involved, and the tactics were developed then.

x6BL_Brando
11-18-2005, 03:33 PM
Mick Mannock was using what his peers referred to as 'the dive and zoom attack' in WWI.

Well said m8!

In answer to the chicken & egg question, I would have thought the answer is obvious. Although it's clear that gentlemen didn't sit around in their clubs discussing whether to boom & zoom or turn and burn in machines that hadn't been invented, we can be sure that pilots clamoured for stronger airframes and more powerful engines once they started to realise the possibilities of such manouevres.

I guess that's what fascinates me so much about air war in WW1. There are some interesting writings about the days when a simple hammerhead - a move we take for granted in WW2 combat - could reduce an aircraft to a tangle of wreckage in midair. That's if the plane could even achieve the thrust to push itself through such a turn. That's what grabs me....the pioneering days when the pilot and the designer worked in very close cooperation to exploit the possibilities that only the pilot could really embrace.

One of the earliest tactics was to gain as much height as possible and patrol for enemy observer planes. Once detected, the attacker would kill his engine and glide silently down (preferably from the sun) and attempt to kill the unprotected crew of the spotter before switching on his engine and climbing back up for another attack if required. Sounds familiar?

So I would say that the design was led by the pilots' discoveries, not the other way around.

jds1978
11-18-2005, 06:52 PM
a-ha, didn't quite think that one through enough http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

diomedes33
11-18-2005, 07:34 PM
I'm curious how long the concept of maneuverability vs power has been around.

Even going back to when plate armor was first introduced to the battle field. The knights could take a lot more punishment. However their lightly armored opponents had to be hard to hit, especially when the knights are throwing around a few hundred pounds of steal on top of that.

So was a lance one of the first b&z weapons?

Bearcat99
11-18-2005, 08:08 PM
The planes....

SeaFireLIV
11-18-2005, 08:17 PM
Nearly every war invention machine has had the tactics worked out AFTER the thing went into combat. There have been many ideas of how a new war invention should work, but the reality has almost every time forced tactics to change. Not even the military think tanks of today can rely on computer simulation to prove how a weapon will work in the real world.

This is why military establishments tend to `experiment` on the real world... unfortunately.

Deedsundone
11-19-2005, 02:08 AM
"The most important thing in fighting was shooting,next the various tactics in coming into a fight,last of all,flying ability itself"

Bishop

Ruy Horta
11-19-2005, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by jds1978:
fairly early into the war, B'n'Z was adopted almost universally.

The Fokker Eindecker, arguably the first true fighter, could do little more than BnZ.

Tactics and a/c matched almost from the very start of air combat. The original Immelmann can be said to be the first BnZ maneuvre.

So 1915/16 they came hand in hand.

jds1978
11-19-2005, 07:45 AM
I'm curious how long the concept of maneuverability vs power has been around.

Even going back to when plate armor was first introduced to the battle field. The knights could take a lot more punishment. However their lightly armored opponents had to be hard to hit, especially when the knights are throwing around a few hundred pounds of steal on top of that.

So was a lance one of the first b&z weapons?

good thinking!... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

neural_dream
11-19-2005, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Nearly every war invention machine has had the tactics worked out AFTER the thing went into combat. There have been many ideas of how a new war invention should work, but the reality has almost every time forced tactics to change. Not even the military think tanks of today can rely on computer simulation to prove how a weapon will work in the real world.

This is why military establishments tend to `experiment` on the real world... unfortunately.
what he said.
I suppose even the Macedonian Sarisa was designed after the common spears, although shorter, proved the efficacy of the technique.

MEGILE
11-19-2005, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by danjama:
If your thinking this is like the chicken and the egg scenario, your wrong, its not, sorry! How can u have tactics without planes?

But how can you have an egg without a chicken? and how can you have a chicken without an egg?

BaldieJr
11-19-2005, 11:47 AM
On the 6th day, god created man and it was good. And to keep man busy while god started his vacation on the following day, god created stupid questions.

And this is why we don't see god around. He's waiting for us to wise up.

jds1978
11-19-2005, 12:47 PM
But how can you have an egg without a chicken? and how can you have a chicken without an egg

On the 6th day, god created man and it was good. And to keep man busy while god started his vacation on the following day, god created stupid questions.

And this is why we don't see god around. He's waiting for us to wise up.


uh-oh, here we go again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

i'll try to make my next question much better thought out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

thanks for the replies, people!

FritzGryphon
11-19-2005, 02:47 PM
The falcon was doing it long before someone decided to copy the tactic in an airplane.

LStarosta
11-19-2005, 02:49 PM
Psh. Creationists.

Stupid questions evolved from theological ones.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

jds1978
11-19-2005, 04:16 PM
The falcon was doing it long before someone decided to copy the tactic in an airplane.


thats no joke...i'm a bird watcher and a Coopers Hawk has recently started...um...B'n'Zing the sparrows, chickadees, and finches at my back yard feeder. quite amazing, the hawk attacks like a FW (or vice-versa) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Even my dog seems to know somethings up! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

Tully__
11-19-2005, 09:33 PM
Pilots in WW-1 rapidly discovered that the pilot with more speed had a distinct advantage. Making aircraft go fast relies on several factors, one of which is relatively high wing loading. High wing loading means poor turn at low speeds means B&Z works better than T&B in fast aircraft. The driving factor was one of the means by which the aircraft were adapted to provide the speed needed to be effective in pursuit or escaping pursuit.