RE: Close Air Support (Full Version)

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



Message

Charbroiled -> RE: Close Air Support (2/14/2008 5:10:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

Granted its the Airforce but the A-10 is today's beloved CAS aircraft. All my army buddy's absolutely love that thing, at least one of em has had his skin saved by a pair of A-10s.


To the Infantry, the A-10 is the best looking plane ever made.



herwin -> RE: Close Air Support (2/14/2008 5:18:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled


quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

Granted its the Airforce but the A-10 is today's beloved CAS aircraft. All my army buddy's absolutely love that thing, at least one of em has had his skin saved by a pair of A-10s.


To the Infantry, the A-10 is the best looking plane ever made.


But it's not a fighter...



Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: Close Air Support (2/14/2008 6:09:15 PM)

quote:


quote:


To the Infantry, the A-10 is the best looking plane ever made.


But it's not a fighter...

To the infantry a plane is a plane... :P



herwin -> RE: Close Air Support (2/14/2008 6:27:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

quote:


quote:


To the Infantry, the A-10 is the best looking plane ever made.


But it's not a fighter...

To the infantry a plane is a plane... :P



But it makes a big difference to a pilot. Why do you think the A10s were given to the reserves?



Charbroiled -> RE: Close Air Support (2/14/2008 7:30:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

quote:


quote:


To the Infantry, the A-10 is the best looking plane ever made.


But it's not a fighter...

To the infantry a plane is a plane... :P



But it makes a big difference to a pilot. Why do you think the A10s were given to the reserves?


Herwin, I don't understand your point.[&:] The A-10 isn't a fighter, but that is like saying that a tank isn't a sports car.

For close air support, the A-10 was/is very effective:

quote:


The A-10 Thunderbolt II is an American single-seat, twin-engine jet aircraft developed by Fairchild-Republic for the United States Air Force to provide close air support (CAS) of ground forces by attacking tanks, armored vehicles, and other ground targets, also providing a limited air interdiction role. It is the first U.S. Air Force aircraft designed exclusively for close air support.

The A-10 saw combat for the first time during the Gulf War in 1991, destroying more than 1,000 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 military vehicles, and 1,200 artillery pieces. A-10s shot down two Iraqi helicopters with the GAU-8 gun. Seven A-10s were shot down during the war, far fewer than military planners expected. A-10s had a mission capable rate of 95.7%, flew 8,100 sorties, and launched 90% of the AGM-65 Maverick missiles fired in the conflict. Part of the reason for this success were the burning oil wells that provided Iraqi tanks some cover from advanced electronics and high-flying fighters like the F-15 and F-16, where the trained eye, longer gun range and stable gun platform of the A-10 proved its worth.




anarchyintheuk -> RE: Close Air Support (2/14/2008 7:54:43 PM)

He's not debating the A-10s effectiveness. I think he's just saying that the A-10 is not a particularly sexy beast or popular choice for pilots to want to fly. As Herwin said, there's reason why it's only assigned to reserve squadrons. It definitely wasn't a sexy beast for Air Force strategic-bombing-only gurus. They almost had to have a gun to their head to procure/produce/deploy it.

Edited by the grammar police.



Charbroiled -> RE: Close Air Support (2/14/2008 8:23:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

He's not debating the A-10s effectiveness. I think he's just saying that the A-10 is not a particularly sexy beast or popular choice for pilots to want to fly. As Herwin said, there's reason why it's only assigned to reserve squadrons. It definitely wasn't a sexy beast for Air Force strategic-bombing-only gurus. They almost had to have a gun to their head to procure/produce/deploy it.

Edited by the grammar police.


Ahhh, must be it. The A-10 definitely wasn't a sexy beast, but it could sure put steel on steel.



panda124c -> RE: Close Air Support (2/14/2008 8:26:04 PM)


quote:



Herwin, I don't understand your point.[&:] The A-10 isn't a fighter, but that is like saying that a tank isn't a sports car.

For close air support, the A-10 was/is very effective:



Herwin is quite correct, if you are a FI driver would you rather drive a tank or a sports car.

Fighter Pilots do like their hot rods and they like to compeat against other hot rods (at 20k plus feet). They don't like to "Do it in the dirt". [:D]

The A10 is a good A/C and does a good job at what it was designed for but it's not glamorous to shoot up tanks. WartHogs rule.[&o]



niceguy2005 -> RE: Close Air Support (2/14/2008 10:17:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

He's not debating the A-10s effectiveness. I think he's just saying that the A-10 is not a particularly sexy beast or popular choice for pilots to want to fly. As Herwin said, there's reason why it's only assigned to reserve squadrons. It definitely wasn't a sexy beast for Air Force strategic-bombing-only gurus. They almost had to have a gun to their head to procure/produce/deploy it.

Edited by the grammar police.

As far as I recall this was true. Back when I had some affiliation with the AF, all the pilots wanted F-15s. "All the real pilots flew them". To get an A-10 or F-111 assignment was almost as bad as being as flying a heavy. [;)]



histgamer -> RE: Close Air Support (2/14/2008 10:29:06 PM)

Well as far as Heavy's go there is nothing sexier in the air force than the B-2. That damn thing is scary also.

As for sexy the Army for the most part do not like the air force, yea that’s not a huge revelation but they truly in the modern military have a real distaste for the air force that goes deeper than just rivalry, just like they do the navy. This probably is because of the fact that the navy hasn’t really been in a real conflict where its taken heavy losses since what WW2?

That said the army member do find one group of air force guys cool, and find their plane very sexy. That is the A-10.



treespider -> RE: Close Air Support (2/14/2008 10:55:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

He's not debating the A-10s effectiveness. I think he's just saying that the A-10 is not a particularly sexy beast or popular choice for pilots to want to fly. As Herwin said, there's reason why it's only assigned to reserve squadrons. It definitely wasn't a sexy beast for Air Force strategic-bombing-only gurus. They almost had to have a gun to their head to procure/produce/deploy it.

Edited by the grammar police.


I think this all started when someone earlier in the thread tried to draw a comparison/analogy between the Corsair and the A-10...the Corsair while a great CAS plane was also a great fighter...whereas the A-10 is only used for CAS.



histgamer -> RE: Close Air Support (2/14/2008 11:44:35 PM)

Idk man that A-10 could rock any helo it might have to dockfight.[:D]



Shark7 -> RE: Close Air Support (2/15/2008 6:27:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

He's not debating the A-10s effectiveness. I think he's just saying that the A-10 is not a particularly sexy beast or popular choice for pilots to want to fly. As Herwin said, there's reason why it's only assigned to reserve squadrons. It definitely wasn't a sexy beast for Air Force strategic-bombing-only gurus. They almost had to have a gun to their head to procure/produce/deploy it.

Edited by the grammar police.


I think this all started when someone earlier in the thread tried to draw a comparison/analogy between the Corsair and the A-10...the Corsair while a great CAS plane was also a great fighter...whereas the A-10 is only used for CAS.


Probably a better comparison would be an A1-D Skyraider and the A-10. Both are supurb CAS aircraft. Interesting footnote on the A1-D, it was the last piston engine aircraft in US service to score air to air kills. Two instances of them downing MiG-17s during Vietnam.

And honestly, if you're a groundpounder under heavy enemy attack...any plane putting ordnance on the bad guys is sexy. [;)]



histgamer -> RE: Close Air Support (2/15/2008 8:49:18 AM)

Yea but the A-10 is by far the best at it.[:D]



Jim D Burns -> RE: Close Air Support (2/15/2008 9:11:01 AM)

Air power is highly over-rated in the game and also in most any games concerning WWII. I attribute this to two things.

First there was a common theme on both sides in the conflict to exaggerate the effectiveness of air power. It was an easy scapegoat for commanders to use for their failures and generally air power was credited with far too much destructive power during and after the war.

Secondly the most important reason is the day and age we live in. Today air power and fire control are integrated into the battlefields. Therefore we accept accurate and instant air strikes that always find their mark without question because it's part of our reality.

But the truth is ground support didn’t even exist when the war broke out, and the US Marines didn’t start experimenting with it until 1943.

If you look at the results of the Normandy preparatory bombardment you can get an idea of how unreliable air power was during WWII. They were bombing fixed positions on the edge of a continent with a clearly defined beach line to show them where their bombs should hit. Yet most of the bombs fell tens of miles inland and very few hit their targets.

Later the carpet bombings that preceded operation Cobra killed 700+ US troops when the bombs fell within their own side’s lines. 700 men, that’s an entire battalion killed and probably a regiment or more worth were wounded.

The real benefit of air power during the war was interdiction. The threat of 2 fighter bombers circling a battlefield was far more valuable then what damage they could actually cause if they attacked something. Just their presence could keep an entire division pinned in place until nightfall.

Niklas Zetterling wrote an awesome book (http://www.sonic.net/~bstone/archives/001126.shtml) on the Normandy campaign and has posted some of what he’s published on his web page here.

http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/

Of direct interest to the discussion is this article on the myth of the effectiveness of airpower.

http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html

As you can see far fewer German tanks were destroyed by air power than has been generally accepted through the years. I once did some research about the Pz Lehr division after the Cobra breakout, and I think the division lost only 38% of its combat tanks in the 2-3 days of fighting. Yet history claims the division was *wiped out* by the air bombardment.

I think WitP exaggerates the effectiveness of airpower in WWII 20 fold. At most a large air strike on a division should cause perhaps 10% disruption. Its main effect should be to slow the movement of the unit, by perhaps cutting in half the number of miles gained.

Jim



bradfordkay -> RE: Close Air Support (2/15/2008 9:42:10 AM)

So Jim, are you saying that air support is more dangerous to one's own troops than the actual targets?

After pointing out that

"Later the carpet bombings that preceded operation Cobra killed 700+ US troops when the bombs fell within their own side’s lines. 700 men, that’s an entire battalion killed and probably a regiment or more worth were wounded."

you conclude with

"I think WitP exaggerates the effectiveness of airpower in WWII 20 fold. At most a large air strike on a division should cause perhaps 10% disruption. Its main effect should be to slow the movement of the unit, by perhaps cutting in half the number of miles gained."

So air attacks which are capable of killing a battallion and wounding a regiment's worth of your own troops are only capable of causing perhaps 10% disruption on an enemy division? I'm not sure that I follow this line of reasoning...

I agree that the case of most of the invasions (pacific and normandy) shows that aerial bombardment of entrenched troops was nowhere near as effective as the USAAF would like us to believe, but once you got out into the battle of maneuver across France (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Germany) it was substantially more effective.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Close Air Support (2/15/2008 9:57:26 AM)

There were over 1700 planes in that bombardment, and in the grand scheme of things 700 men is less than 1% of a 14,000 man division, so even that should barley achieve 15%-20% disruption (if that).

The pz Lehr division only lost about 38% (this may be too high, I’m going off memory from when I designed all my Overlord scenarios for TOAW) of its combat effectiveness after 2-3 days fighting which was preceded with the largest bombardment of the war.

Most CAS raids in the war were conducted by flights of 4-12 planes and they were highly inaccurate. Roaming interdictors behind enemy lines had a lot more luck, but even they didn’t score lots of kills as his stats show for the campaign totals.

The fact is it was nearly impossible to hit deployed troops in WWII with airpower (moving troops in road march deployment was a completely different ballgame). And when massed bombers were used, accuracy was pathetically bad and results were not very good either.

Interdiction would be different than CAS, so your battle of maneuver example would fall under an interdiction category. But even so, no way should entire divisions in WitP be subjected to 60%-80% disruption from a 40-100 bomber strike as we see now.

As I said they should get slowed considerably if they are trying to move (with perhaps a small increase to disruption caused), but their fighting ability should not be so easily negated by 40-100 bomber raids.

Jim

P.S. Did you notice the allies lost about 1700 planes to flak while conducting that CAS in the 3 month campaign at Normandy? Flak was a huge part of the reason CAS was so inaccurate.



bradfordkay -> RE: Close Air Support (2/15/2008 10:04:56 AM)


I was thinking that in the typical division there were three regiments. You were talking about one battallion killed and a regiment wounded - that's substantially more than 33% of a division incapacitated. Maybe my math is wrong...



Jim D Burns -> RE: Close Air Support (2/15/2008 10:19:11 AM)

OK I looked it up on Wiki, my memory was off. It was 600 casualties (100 killed) in the aborted first attack and 601 in the main attack (111 killed). So at most a battalions worth of casualties, not a regiment and only 200 killed.

Even so, this was spread out across many units so the affect wouldn’t have been devastating or very disrupting. This is evidenced by the success of the attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cobra#Pre-attack_phase

The article states:

The assault units recovered rapidly from the bombing. Despite heavy casualties in some units, only one battalion needed to be replaced; every other unit attacked that morning. Some units were delayed but the attack commenced by 11:00.

Jim



histgamer -> RE: Close Air Support (2/15/2008 10:35:48 AM)

Though with the prep to normandy the bombing went far inland because of two key factors 1 fog, 2 heavy winds. A clear day it would have been very different. That said its clearly a huge weakness to say that you need perfect weather.

However at least on the stratigic scale US bombing did in fact cripple the German oil industry though underground production allowed massive numbers of planes to be constructed. It was rather irrelivent without the massive synthetic fuel and oil industries set up.



histgamer -> RE: Close Air Support (2/15/2008 10:36:36 AM)

That said it should be noted that even USAAF estimates state that the air attacks prio to mid 1944 did negligable damage.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Close Air Support (2/15/2008 11:34:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
P.S. Did you notice the allies lost about 1700 planes to flak while conducting that CAS in the 3 month campaign at Normandy? Flak was a huge part of the reason CAS was so inaccurate.



Three months took them from Omaha Beach to Lorraine and Belgium, and shattered the German Armies in France...., so they must have been doing something right. And out of those 90+ days they had at least 50 days of decent weather when 2,000 sorties a day would be flown, making that 1700 loss into a rate of about 01.7%. Certainly not a problem for the Allies in the Summer of 1944.



castor troy -> RE: Close Air Support (2/15/2008 12:18:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

There were over 1700 planes in that bombardment, and in the grand scheme of things 700 men is less than 1% of a 14,000 man division, so even that should barley achieve 15%-20% disruption (if that).

The pz Lehr division only lost about 38% (this may be too high, I’m going off memory from when I designed all my Overlord scenarios for TOAW) of its combat effectiveness after 2-3 days fighting which was preceded with the largest bombardment of the war.

Most CAS raids in the war were conducted by flights of 4-12 planes and they were highly inaccurate. Roaming interdictors behind enemy lines had a lot more luck, but even they didn’t score lots of kills as his stats show for the campaign totals.

The fact is it was nearly impossible to hit deployed troops in WWII with airpower (moving troops in road march deployment was a completely different ballgame). And when massed bombers were used, accuracy was pathetically bad and results were not very good either.

Interdiction would be different than CAS, so your battle of maneuver example would fall under an interdiction category. But even so, no way should entire divisions in WitP be subjected to 60%-80% disruption from a 40-100 bomber strike as we see now.

As I said they should get slowed considerably if they are trying to move (with perhaps a small increase to disruption caused), but their fighting ability should not be so easily negated by 40-100 bomber raids.

Jim

P.S. Did you notice the allies lost about 1700 planes to flak while conducting that CAS in the 3 month campaign at Normandy? Flak was a huge part of the reason CAS was so inaccurate.




hmm, I can´t come up with stats about how effective Allied close air support was but from what my grandfather told me (German tank commander in the West) is that there was only ONE thing they were afraid (or had respect of): Allied fighter bombers and 2E bombers. He never told me they were afraid of Shermans, AT guns or whatever. They always thought they had superior equipment, even 6 months before the war ended. They had fuel problems and they were afraid of the Allied air force.



Barb -> RE: Close Air Support (2/15/2008 12:45:42 PM)

There are two kinds of effectivenes:
kill ratio
suppression/delay

Kill ratio depends on more factors. AFVs, APCs, trucks, and guns becomes destroyed and damaged the same way as common soldiers becomes killed and wounded. If there is an opportunity many of damaged vehicles/guns can be repaired quickly in matter of hours/days. Only totaly destroyed, or leaved behind to the enemy will be written off. So you may get some 10-30% (approximately) total kill ratio to any hit target (so a 12 plane CAS squadron could have 1-2 tanks destroyed, 3-5 damaged maximally). As not every attacket target was hit, and many missions were targeting communications (trains, barges, river-ships, train stations) and infantry there could be no mass wiping out of whole divisions by air.

Suppression/delays - this cause that enemy is not able to move, to attack or retreat under the threat of many vehicles damaged lowering the attack power or leaving them to the enemy. Infantry pinned down by starfing aircrafts will not be able to attack or retreat effectively. Artillery positions cannot fire without the fear they will be attacked by CAS. Batteries supressed, infantry hiding in holes, and damaged tanks. Whatewer action in these conditions will be almost useless. CAS attacks on communications means that enemy reaction time and ability will be  lowered.

CAS main function is to keep the enemy supressed and slowed allowing ground forces to encircle or defeat him.



Feltan -> RE: Close Air Support (2/15/2008 3:57:19 PM)

Logistics!

The CAS of WWII pounded supply lines much better than front line troops.

This was true in Korea too, some years after WWII. The Chinese divisions were all but cut-off from supply as a result of UN air attacks on trucks and trains.

For WWII, yes, some front line damage/disruption is appropriate to model. However, what is missing is that a LCU should suffer supply and movement problems from CAS much more than body count loss.

Regards,
Feltan



HansBolter -> RE: Close Air Support (2/15/2008 4:16:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pbear


quote:



Herwin, I don't understand your point.[&:] The A-10 isn't a fighter, but that is like saying that a tank isn't a sports car.

For close air support, the A-10 was/is very effective:



Herwin is quite correct, if you are a FI driver would you rather drive a tank or a sports car.

Fighter Pilots do like their hot rods and they like to compeat against other hot rods (at 20k plus feet). They don't like to "Do it in the dirt". [:D]

The A10 is a good A/C and does a good job at what it was designed for but it's not glamorous to shoot up tanks. WartHogs rule.[&o]



I think that's a pretty unfair question. If you are a F1 driver of course you would rather drive a sports car. However, if your objective is to roll over and destroy any and all enemies in your path then you are damn sure gonna prefer the tank! I also disagree with your conclusion. Shooting up tanks is VERY glamorous!



Charbroiled -> RE: Close Air Support (2/15/2008 5:06:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

and in the grand scheme of things 700 men is less than 1% of a 14,000 man division, so even that should barley achieve 15%-20% disruption (if that).



Sorry to be the math police, but 700 men is 5% of a 14,000 man division.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Close Air Support (2/15/2008 7:40:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled
Sorry to be the math police, but 700 men is 5% of a 14,000 man division.



LOL sorry, it was late and I was tired. I didn't bother checking the math.

Jim



Jim D Burns -> RE: Close Air Support (2/15/2008 7:54:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
hmm, I can´t come up with stats about how effective Allied close air support was but from what my grandfather told me (German tank commander in the West) is that there was only ONE thing they were afraid (or had respect of): Allied fighter bombers and 2E bombers. He never told me they were afraid of Shermans, AT guns or whatever. They always thought they had superior equipment, even 6 months before the war ended. They had fuel problems and they were afraid of the Allied air force.


If you read his article I think training trials only produced a 4% hit ratio with the most accurate munitions of the day (rockets), even when fired in 8 rocket volleys. You can’t kill it if you can’t hit it and hitting tanks was very difficult in sterile training trials. Add in flak, the chance of friendly fire and fear of death to the mix, and the hits scored in combat were rare indeed.

In his review of 3 different British studies of captured/wrecked German Panther tanks from Normandy and the Bulge he lists what killed the tanks. Out of 223 tanks, only 11 were destroyed by air rockets and 3 by air cannons. The rest were lost due to other causes.

Men feared the CAS because they could easily see and hear it, so it played on their fears. That’s a large part of the reason the myth of the power of allied CAS in WWII exists today. But the facts do not back up the myth. The axis or the allies simply didn’t have the means to conduct effective CAS in WWII.

Interdiction is a different kettle of fish, because you’re attacking anything that moves on the transportation net behind enemy lines. Things like target identification and friend or foe identification along with heavily concentrated flak aren’t part of that equation.

Jim



panda124c -> RE: Close Air Support (2/15/2008 8:50:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: pbear


quote:



Herwin, I don't understand your point.[&:] The A-10 isn't a fighter, but that is like saying that a tank isn't a sports car.

For close air support, the A-10 was/is very effective:



Herwin is quite correct, if you are a FI driver would you rather drive a tank or a sports car.

Fighter Pilots do like their hot rods and they like to compeat against other hot rods (at 20k plus feet). They don't like to "Do it in the dirt". [:D]

The A10 is a good A/C and does a good job at what it was designed for but it's not glamorous to shoot up tanks. WartHogs rule.[&o]



I think that's a pretty unfair question. If you are a F1 driver of course you would rather drive a sports car. However, if your objective is to roll over and destroy any and all enemies in your path then you are damn sure gonna prefer the tank! I also disagree with your conclusion. Shooting up tanks is VERY glamorous!


The point is that an AF Fighter pilot (FI Driver) would rather fly an F-16 (sports car) than an A-10 (tank). This really has nothing to do with the objective of either weapon. It's just more glamarous to fly F-16 than to fly an A-10 as far as AF pilots are concerened. And by the way I agree watching a tank brew up is much better than seeing a Mig going down in flames. But that's a personal preference. [:D]

Instructions for an F-16 pilot: Climb to altitude cruise to such and such coordinates and shoot down any enemy A/C you see.

Instructions for an A-10 pilot: Go down the the first stop sign turn right, go to the second intercetion turn left destroy the line of enemy tanks and while at it take out the gas station on the corner and pick up a quart of milk while you're at it. [:D]

CAS is very important to the Army but they have to call the Air Force to get it done. The Marines send their pilots to Grunt school so they know who they are supporting.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.828125