Close Air Support (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

GaryChildress -> Close Air Support (2/10/2008 2:30:54 AM)

Looking at Joe D's signature with a picture of an F4U corsair laden with ground attack ordinance, titled "Angel of Okinawa", I am sort of reminded of how little effect such planes seem to have on ground battles in our game. In WITP aircraft are valuable for destroying the enemy's fleet, the enemy's production and the enemy's own airpower. But how valuable are they in the ground support role for units trying to win a battle on the ground?

It seems that IRL aircraft acting in the close support role were often able to turn the tide of a battle on the ground. I don't get the feeling that they do that for ground battles in the game though. In the game it seems to be more the case that sending bombers in support of ground troops is simply an efficient way of getting your bombers shot up or shot down and little else. The only reason anyone usually sends aircraft on ground support missions is usually to work up experience points for their pilots and for no other reason than that. Anyone agree or disagree?



Terminus -> RE: Close Air Support (2/10/2008 2:32:43 AM)

I disagree strongly. Air power can't turn the tide of a battle (don't know any example IRL where that happened), but it's most certainly indispensable to wearing down an enemy. I use it extensively.



AW1Steve -> RE: Close Air Support (2/10/2008 3:04:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I disagree strongly. Air power can't turn the tide of a battle (don't know any example IRL where that happened), but it's most certainly indispensable to wearing down an enemy. I use it extensively.

Actually, it's created with winning at Ka San and also the 1972 easter offensive.



Nomad -> RE: Close Air Support (2/10/2008 3:20:09 AM)

I agree, CAS at Khe Sanh and during the 1972 Easter Offensive was decisive. While air power on its own will not stop an enemy, it surely will turn the tide of battle. What you may not see in the game Gary is that CAS will raise fatigue and disruption levels, even if there are no reported kills. It is most effective when you have ground troops in the same hex attacking also. At the same time, it is very useful for the defense, the enemys attacks will be much weaker after a good CAS mission. Note that LB incurr a penalty for doing Ground Attacks in a hex that contains a friendly LCU.



GaryChildress -> RE: Close Air Support (2/10/2008 3:40:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I agree, CAS at Khe Sanh and during the 1972 Easter Offensive was decisive. While air power on its own will not stop an enemy, it surely will turn the tide of battle. What you may not see in the game Gary is that CAS will raise fatigue and disruption levels, even if there are no reported kills. It is most effective when you have ground troops in the same hex attacking also. At the same time, it is very useful for the defense, the enemys attacks will be much weaker after a good CAS mission. Note that LB incurr a penalty for doing Ground Attacks in a hex that contains a friendly LCU.


Yeah, I think you and Terminus are right about CAS in the game. I guess I have noticed some significant effects of CAS.

I'm getting tired and wanted to post something but couldn't think of anything else to post. [:D]



Feinder -> RE: Close Air Support (2/10/2008 3:42:33 AM)

Well, the thing about planes on "ground attack" - you need quite a few of them. 

Basically, your planes on ground strike act just like artillery in WitP, except they (appearently) attack the LCU with the highest AV.  Do they -KILL- squads?  Not usually.  But yes, they do disable a few and cause disruption.  Frankly -disruption- is the real killer.  Disabling a 3 - 4 squads, not that big a deal.  But consider if your airstrike causes 10% disruption to the enemy LCU : That pretty much (temporarily) reduces the AV of the entire LCU by 10%.  Granted, disruption recovers very quickly, so if you're not going to attack with ground units, they will recover without much perma-loss.

However, constant pounding also helps you.  Keeping them disrupted, will burn supplies as they recover disruption and disablements.

Also consider how many planes you're sending against the size of the unit you're attacking.  One squadron of 12x SBDs isn't going to do much.  But if you send out 60x (whatevers) you've got a chance to influence the battle.  Also consider the size of the formations you're attacking.  A strike by 60x planes will have a greater influence on a battle vs. a NavGd (about 110av), than if your 60x planes are hitting the Imp Gds Div. Of couse, if you hit the Imp Gds Div with 60x B-24s... They're going to know it.

But terminous is correct.  Ground Attack -can- influence a battle.  You just really have to consider that you need to send more than a handful of planes at the task.

-F-



Dive Bomber1 -> RE: Close Air Support (2/10/2008 4:50:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I agree, CAS at Khe Sanh and during the 1972 Easter Offensive was decisive. While air power on its own will not stop an enemy, it surely will turn the tide of battle. What you may not see in the game Gary is that CAS will raise fatigue and disruption levels, even if there are no reported kills. It is most effective when you have ground troops in the same hex attacking also. At the same time, it is very useful for the defense, the enemys attacks will be much weaker after a good CAS mission. Note that LB incurr a penalty for doing Ground Attacks in a hex that contains a friendly LCU.


That's the first time that I heard of that. What does that actually mean? What sort of penalty do LB incur? (I presume you mean Level Bombers.)

Thanks -



Nomad -> RE: Close Air Support (2/10/2008 5:20:30 AM)

There are some comments here. I remember that there was some confirmation that when LBs did a Ground Attack on a hex occupied by both sides, that the result was less to account for the problem of LBs doing precision bombing against hard to spot targets. Probably they should have included a chance that the LBs hit the wrong gound troops. It did happen in WWII - it still happens.

The Linky



m10bob -> RE: Close Air Support (2/10/2008 5:47:43 AM)

I use air power for ground support, and while I don't know how it happens in game, it seems to reduce the enemies effectiveness by approx a third, during a turn I employ it.
If I am assaulting an island, I like to use at least one carrier bomber squadron, and they will take fighters with them.



Dive Bomber1 -> RE: Close Air Support (2/10/2008 6:01:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

There are some comments here. I remember that there was some confirmation that when LBs did a Ground Attack on a hex occupied by both sides, that the result was less to account for the problem of LBs doing precision bombing against hard to spot targets. Probably they should have included a chance that the LBs hit the wrong gound troops. It did happen in WWII - it still happens.

The Linky


Thanks for the info and the link. I wasn't aware of those factors. Once again I'll have to change what I do to adjust to this new information. Oh well, it will be useful in my newest pbem. (Now if I can only find out why I'm having such troubles having Escorts fly with my bombers on Ground Attack Missions in my newest pbem, while I haven't had that problem in my other pbems...)

Thanks again -



Nomad -> RE: Close Air Support (2/10/2008 6:36:21 AM)

I need to find dTravels list of Level Bomber rules. I'll look about and see if I can find it.

Here it is, very useful information:
Time to post this again. You want to look at Prerequisite #4 and Limitation #5


LAND BASED AIR CHECKLIST
Note: this listing is for Land-Based Air units only! Carrier based air units are not subject to many of these conditions.

This listing is for Offensive Missions (p. 122) only. (Airfield attack, Port attack, Naval attack, Ground attack, Sweep, Recon.)

Any page numbers listed are the printed numbers at the bottom of the manual page. Not the .pdf file page count number. FRD means Fractions Rounded Down; FRU means Fractions Rounded Up.

References to 'morale checks', 'experience checks', and 'leadership checks' are assumed to be a d100 roll against the stated attribute. Presumably if the roll is <= the attribute then the unit passes the check. But this is an assumption. How this check is actually carried out is never stated in the documentation.

Prerequisites are conditions that must be met for a mission to be attempted at all. Once all the prerequisites are met, the number of aircraft that will actually fly is determined by subtracting from the number of 'Ready' aircraft in the unit as listed in Limitations. Finally, once you have gone thru all of that, your digital pilots may still not be able to complete the mission for any of the reasons listed under Aborts.

Some Prerequisites and Limitations have the same number. This was done when the condition was the same but the exact effects varied depending on the situation. Prerequisite #1 is an example, the minimum number of aircraft is dependant on it being a day or night mission.


PREREQUISITES:
1) (Day missions only) A minimum of two (2) ready aircraft in the unit. (p.124)
1) (Night missions only) A minimum of six (6) ready aircraft AND a minimum unit morale of 50. (p.126)
2) Target must be within unit's extended range. (p.124)
3) If the unit's morale is < 50, unit must pass a morale check to attempt a mission. (p.126)
4) The initiating airfield must be greater than size 1 (except for Recon). (p. 134)
5) The air unit must agree to fly the mission. Some of the factors affecting whether a unit will agree to fly a mission are covered in rule 7.2.2.12 (p.131).
6) Escorting fighters. The reference to this is highly confusing and can be interpreted many ways. A clarification on this is required. It has been stated that there is a maximum number of escorts that can be required. If that max is met, then the ratio of CAP:escorts becomes irrelevant.
7) Airfield damage must be less than 20+(Size*5) (p.165).
8) (Level Bombers Only) For Ground Attack missions only, the number of Ready aircraft in the unit must >= 50% of the unit's maximum strength. Does not apply if unit is joining an already initiated attack. (Undocumented. Confirmed by programmers.)

LIMITATIONS:
1) (Level Bombers Only) An experience check. Failure reduces the number of aircraft that will fly by 25% of the ready(?) aircraft. (p.127)
2) (Level Bombers Only) A leadership check. Failure reduces the number of aircraft that will fly by 25% of the ready(?) aircraft. (p.127)
3) (Level Bombers Only) A morale check. Failure reduces the number of aircraft that will fly by 25% of the ready(?) aircraft. (p.127)
4) (Level Bombers Only) Being outside the command radius of a friendly Air HQ will reduce the number of aircraft that will fly by 25% of the ready(?) aircraft. (p.127)
4) (Non-Level Bombers) Being outside the command radius of a friendly Air HQ will reduce the number of aircraft that will fly by 10% of the ready(?) aircraft. (p.127)
5) (Level Bombers Only) If the base's airfield is below a minimum size (determined by 4 + (aircraft type's max load/6500) FRD) then Level Bombers :
a) Will fly no farther than Normal Combat Range (no Extended range missions) (p.128)
b) Will carry a payload as though they were flying at Extended Combat Range (p.128)
c) Will suffer increased Operational losses. (p.133)
6) If the number of aircraft at the base exceeds airfield size *50, reduce the number of aircraft that will fly by 25% of the ready(?) aircraft. (p.165)
7) If the number of aircraft at the base exceeds airfield size *100, reduce the number of aircraft that will fly by 25% of the ready(?) aircraft. (p.165) (This is in addition to Limitation #6.)
8) If it is winter in a Cold Zone, reduce the number of aircraft that will fly by 25% of the ready(?) aircraft. (p.173)
9) (Non-Level Bombers) If base supplies are not >= base requirement, a maximum of 75% of the ready aircraft will fly (p.190).
9) (Level Bombers Only) If base supplies are not >= twice base requirement, a maximum of 75% of the ready aircraft will fly (p.190).
10) (Level Bombers Only) From the 1.3 patch: “They will still resist flying against land units, if the range is greater than 10 for the Japanese or 8 for the Allies, but will do so with good rolls.”

ABORTS:
Once it has been determined that the unit will fly a mission and how many aircraft will participate, the mission may be aborted by any of the following (note: the turn processing display at the bottom of the screen will show messages if either of these applies):
1) Poor Weather. If either the initiating or target hex is experiencing bad weather (indicated on the map by a cloud symbol if "Show Clouds" has been set in Preferences) there is a chance the mission will not fly at all.
2) Navigation. There is a chance that poor navigation or an inability to find the target will cause the mission to fail. Factors affecting this are listed in rule 7.2.2.14 (p.132). In addition, Level Bombers flying from a too small airfield (see Limitations, above) will have an increased chance of this.


VERY LOW ALTITUDE ATTACKS:
If an air unit's altitude is set to 100 feet, then special rules and considerations come into play. See p.129-130. Among these are:
1) Naval attack missions will attempt "skip bombing" of their targets. Generally, should only be attempted by units with a minimum experience of 60.
2) Heavy known flak at the target may cause the unit to abort and not fly at all.
3) TFs made up of only Barges and/or PT Boats can only be attacked by fighter-bombers OR air units with an altitude set to 100 feet. (Fighter-bombers are not required to have their altitude set to 100 feet to attack these ship types.)


NOTE ON AVIATION (AV) SUPPORT:
AV support is not required to launch a mission. However, it is required to keep planes in a Ready state so they can fly and to repair any planes damaged during a mission. So air units recently moved to a base without AV support can fly a mission but are unlikely to be able to recover from it to effectively fly a second.


HINTS, RUMORS AND INNUENDO:
Some players have concluded or claim knowledge of additional, undocumented, conditions that can limit or prevent offensive missions. None of these are confirmed! If anyone reading this can CONFIRM the condition, please provide the writer with supporting evidence so that this list may be updated. Many of these appear to be based on players' experiences with other games.

a) Ground Attack missions require the target to have an unknown minimum Detection Level.
b) Having too many Limitations apply can cause the unit to not fly, even if the math does not reduce the number of aircraft to zero.





Coach Z -> RE: Close Air Support (2/10/2008 7:13:29 AM)

Air vs Ground Troops
Think Mitla Pass and the Sinai in the 1967 Six Day War when the IAF toasted wholecolumns of retreating Egyptian vehicles-including hundreds of MBTs  & APCs.



castor troy -> RE: Close Air Support (2/10/2008 1:46:28 PM)

what was left of PanzerLehr also comes to mind... would have taken a lot of Shermans to do that to PanzerLehr what the airforce did...



Dive Bomber1 -> RE: Close Air Support (2/10/2008 1:46:51 PM)

Nomad -

Thanks for posting that list. I'm glad that there are only a few undocumented rules, and now at least I've got a chance to see them.



Terminus -> RE: Close Air Support (2/10/2008 1:50:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I disagree strongly. Air power can't turn the tide of a battle (don't know any example IRL where that happened), but it's most certainly indispensable to wearing down an enemy. I use it extensively.

Actually, it's created with winning at Ka San and also the 1972 easter offensive.


The Easter offensive, yes. Khe Sanh, no; the North Vietnamese never made a concerted effort to overrun the combat base. And I'm not sure it's entirely relevant to a discussion about WWII CAS to talk about a conflict where fighter-bombers were able to carry as much ordnance as WWII heavy bombers.

As for the Panzer Lehr, they were carpet bombed into oblivion, yes, but they were certainly not at full strength, and all the craters slowed down the US advance afterwards.

On closer examination, the claims of close air support don't hold up to scrutiny. To paraphrase US Army colonel Bruce Clarke, commander of CCA in Patton's 4th Armoured Division, "We were glad to have CAS, but it wasn't decisive anywhere".



m10bob -> RE: Close Air Support (2/10/2008 4:39:16 PM)

Tactical air support during Operation Cobra littered the roadsides of France for miles and miles with many German tanks, trucks, APC's, etc., (according to my dad who served with the 29th ID.) He was fairly impressed by the effectiveness, and during the Korean war saw close support prevent an over-run several times with the use of NAPALM.
I agree that in-game, close support is effective.
As for history, I guess (unless you were there), it depends on who and what you read, or have heard.)
In my war, I was glad to have it available, on occasion.



herwin -> RE: Close Air Support (2/10/2008 4:41:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I disagree strongly. Air power can't turn the tide of a battle (don't know any example IRL where that happened), but it's most certainly indispensable to wearing down an enemy. I use it extensively.

Actually, it's created with winning at Ka San and also the 1972 easter offensive.


The Easter offensive, yes. Khe Sanh, no; the North Vietnamese never made a concerted effort to overrun the combat base. And I'm not sure it's entirely relevant to a discussion about WWII CAS to talk about a conflict where fighter-bombers were able to carry as much ordnance as WWII heavy bombers.

As for the Panzer Lehr, they were carpet bombed into oblivion, yes, but they were certainly not at full strength, and all the craters slowed down the US advance afterwards.

On closer examination, the claims of close air support don't hold up to scrutiny. To paraphrase US Army colonel Bruce Clarke, commander of CCA in Patton's 4th Armoured Division, "We were glad to have CAS, but it wasn't decisive anywhere".


CAS is much more effective than artillery in suppression missions. If you take incoming artillery rounds, you hit the dirt, and they can find you afterwards. If you see an incoming bomb, you scatter, and it takes much longer to round everyone up.

I'm not sure how to model that in game terms.



histgamer -> RE: Close Air Support (2/10/2008 4:52:22 PM)

Terminus I realize aruging for Korea or vietnam isnt really relivent but CAS did save many units from being totally overun in Korea and Vietnam. Battle of LZ X-Ray comes to mind though if you really wanna be a stickler you could say that it was Artillery and CAS.

Close Air Support and Carpet bombing combined were a key factor in why the Chinese advance ground to a halt in Korea it also saved many units from being overun in Korea.



Shark7 -> RE: Close Air Support (2/10/2008 6:10:51 PM)

You have to keep in mind that the true mission of CAS is really supression.  The aircraft attacks should reduce enemy fire, accuracy and movement.  The air power alone will not win the battle, but if it does succeed in its intended purpose (which is to make the enemy less able to engage and less able to move around), it does in fact influence the outcome of the battle.

Ground attack and CAS is not about destroying enemy units, it is all about pinning down enemy units so friendly ground forces can destroy them.

In the cases about stopping over-runs which are mentioned, CAS worked as intended because it prevented the enemy from continuing their advance...effectively supressing their movement and attack.



histgamer -> RE: Close Air Support (2/11/2008 4:58:16 AM)

Shark that was true until Vietnam when often CAS purpose was to destroy an enemy that ground forces lured out into the open. There was one battle with the 319th battalion in 1970 when the battalion surrounded a main force VC unit and called in artillery and air power for 8 hours they hit the VC until the unit was down to a couple squads who then tried to brake out and got slaughtered. The result 4 US dead 290 VC dead... Unfortunately most battalion commanders didn’t follow Col. Hackworths tactics and as a result kept trying to assault positions WW2 style.

Though in most battles enemy casualties were roughly 50/50 at the very least as far as ground inflicted and air inflicted... The role ground forces in many engagements is imply to lure the enemy into the open where the superior firepower of artillery air and ground can destroy it.

Though that’s more a middle Korea and after tactic. Not so much ww2.



crsutton -> RE: Close Air Support (2/11/2008 5:32:15 PM)

I find the beaufighters and P39s to be very effective at 100 feet. Any second generation US fighter is great too as they have big bomb loads. Seems to work very well in disrupting units. If I have a major attack coming a large carpet bombing by 100+heavies and mediums seems to work. Also large attacks will usually break into two missions and attack two units.

Seems to work OK to me. 




castor troy -> RE: Close Air Support (2/11/2008 5:57:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I find the beaufighters and P39s to be very effective at 100 feet. Any second generation US fighter is great too as they have big bomb loads. Seems to work very well in disrupting units. If I have a major attack coming a large carpet bombing by 100+heavies and mediums seems to work. Also large attacks will usually break into two missions and attack two units.

Seems to work OK to me. 





100 ft? Could turn pretty fast into a disaster if there are a couple of base forces in the hex also... [:D]



tabpub -> RE: Close Air Support (2/12/2008 12:11:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I find the beaufighters and P39s to be very effective at 100 feet. Any second generation US fighter is great too as they have big bomb loads. Seems to work very well in disrupting units. If I have a major attack coming a large carpet bombing by 100+heavies and mediums seems to work. Also large attacks will usually break into two missions and attack two units.

Seems to work OK to me. 





100 ft? Could turn pretty fast into a disaster if there are a couple of base forces in the hex also... [:D]

It would indeed; that is why CAS for me doesn't fly to a new target until either we have id'd the units there (either by me or my opponent launching some sort of attack) or have flown AF suppression attacks for a least a day or two to localize and degrade the flak.
Oh, but woe to the lone tank/infantry unit on a road with no base; they can get pummelled mercilessly.



Cutman -> RE: Close Air Support (2/12/2008 3:01:03 AM)

The Marines have always tried to conduct CAS historically, because of a lack of artillery. Duriing WWII it USMC MAWs where mostly not in direct support of USMC Divisions. Early on they where learning just like everyone else, but there where 2-3 MAGS that coducted all CAS supporting the US ARMY during the 44 PI Ops. When the MAWS where in direct support they were worried about air defense than CAS. Okinawa and Gualdualcanal are 2 examples.. sorry spelling... [:D]

Korea was when the Marines used it best. Even early on during Pusan, Inchon, and Chosin...

cutman



Joe D. -> RE: Close Air Support (2/12/2008 4:34:19 AM)

Well, it's my signature, so I should say something on this thread.

Marine fighter-bombers performing close support for fellow Marines on the ground was driven more by esprit de corps than effectiveness.

CAS was probably more effective in the ETO than the PTO due to the jungle terrain.

I don't think CAS hit its stride until "tank plinking" in Desert Storm. Today, w/smart bombs, CAS is much more effective regardless of wx and terrain, which wasn't the case in the PTO in WW II.




histgamer -> RE: Close Air Support (2/12/2008 5:36:55 AM)

I would say vietnam was when CAS came into its own. Napalm was the first great CAS weapon dispite the fact that it was increadibly dangerous FF wise you could bring it a hell of alot closer in to your men since it lacked the shrapnal that most bombs have, its explosion pattern is also very predictable so you could easily bring it in parrallel with a line. 



Shark7 -> RE: Close Air Support (2/12/2008 2:01:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

I would say vietnam was when CAS came into its own. Napalm was the first great CAS weapon dispite the fact that it was increadibly dangerous FF wise you could bring it a hell of alot closer in to your men since it lacked the shrapnal that most bombs have, its explosion pattern is also very predictable so you could easily bring it in parrallel with a line. 


But wasn't Napalm actually developed during WWII? Actually, here is a tidbit about it...

quote:

The first use of napalm occurred on July 23, 1944, during pre-invasion air strikes on the island of Tinian, part of the Marianas island chain in the Pacific.


Vietnam was simply the apex of its use. Make no mistake this is a horrible weapon and is no doubt very demoralizing to anyone it is used against. And in the CAS mission, it would certainly work to break an enemies will to fight. No one wants to burn to death.



Feltan -> RE: Close Air Support (2/12/2008 3:08:45 PM)

What is true today, and was even more true in WWII, is that CAS is very effective just beyond the front line.

It remains difficult, even today, to call a CAS strike in close to friendlies. However, a rearward artillery position or especially a truck convoy, a train, or a fixed facility are ideal for a CAS strike.

Someone above mentioned all the wrecks in Northern France during D-day as a result of CAS strikes. True enough. However, those were generally not directed by ground spotters -- the pilots self-selected targets of opportunity.

CAS should really hammer logistics and supply at an operational/tactical level. It really isn't, nor was it ever, a substitute for artillery.

Regards,
Feltan



Joe D. -> RE: Close Air Support (2/12/2008 3:45:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

I would say vietnam was when CAS came into its own ...


Judging by the end result of operations in Vietnam compared w/Desert Storm, I disagree. CAS doesn't do nearly as well in a jungle w/a dense canopy as it does on a flat, desert expanse where nothing can hide from above.

Smart bombs, introduced in Storm, were greatly improved in Op Iraqi Freedom. Today, one well-armed Hornet has as much effective firepower as an entire WW II carrier strike squadron.



histgamer -> RE: Close Air Support (2/12/2008 4:31:26 PM)

Feltan thats not a CAS strike thats a Interdiction strike.

As for napalm I know when it was first used but it reached its apex as far as CAS abilities and use in Vietnam. Not because it was used the most but because it was finally used very effectively.

Joe I didn't say that Vietnam was CAS peak just that, it was in Vietnam when CAS truely became effective so that it was turning the tide of many battles. LZ-Xray for example would have been a whole sale slaughter of 300+ US troops instead it was a bloody victory that was made possible by air support. The air support also took out an estimated 50%+ of the 1,800-2,200 NVA casulties.

There were also incidences in Korea of air support saving units but it wasnt until Vietnam that units really depended on air support for their survival in a large number of battles.

And as for dense Jungle terrain, not all of vietnam was really jungle, the north and central area's were heavily wooded yes but not really jungle, the south was the typical jungle and most people have an incorrect idea of what vietnam looks like thinking that everything looks like the mekong delta.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.015625