|
andyph -> RE: Airpower (11/24/2013 5:39:38 AM)
|
OK,
I thought I'd see if the update would attend to any of this.
I was on most of the RAF ground attack exercises in the late 80s early 90s - Mallet Blows, OSEX, Highland Cardinal etc so have a practical knowledge of the subject- I'll just make a few points though.
Aircraft such as F-15E, F-111 (and I would guess SU -24 on the otherside) Although theoretically capable would not be used for CAS partly because they were not trained for it - in the time period a CAS attack from a '9 liner' was a very difficult task - crews who trained for it all the time didn't have the greatest hit rate of getting their eyes onto a target, even when the targets were lased! - F-15E doing CAS only started in Iraq / Afghanistan.
Again aircraft that are fighters , while they maybe capable of carrying ground to air weapons the crews mostly would not practice with them (or even have them on a fighter base!) certainly in Western Europe NATO at the time the only 'swing role' machines were some of the F-16 Squadrons and the Canadian Hornets that came over in the late 80s. As for the other side, as they got bugger all flying hours and were very regimented in the way they did things I would safely say all units were role specific and that the Mig 23 ML would be only used as interceptors .
You are right. The Army would get what it was given for battlefield support and it would not be deep strikers or fighters!
Perhaps it is a bit of a ask but I think air attack should be split up into CAS and BAI. CAS is obvious and similar in effect to artillery 'direct support' and not very effective, almost laways done by a 2 ship and in an emergency!. BAI is perhaps more tricky - mainly we would be aiming at the support vehicles - we always thought the army can kill tanks on the battlefield as they are very hard to kill from the air. So a typical BAI tasking might be to drop a bridge, then return later and hit any bridging repairs and hopefully and traffic jams of soft skinned on nearby roads. The first attack might be from a pair. while the 2nd might be an 8 ship with cluster bombs.
as an aside, PGMs, had not really made it in battlefield support at the time - apart from Mavericks for the A-10s it would mainly have been iron and cluster weapons - LGBs would mainly be used by the deep striker.
helicopters were not my field but we did work with them from time to time, mainly as a FAC platform.
It seems to me the game treats them as super tanks - in reality they are very vulnerable soft skinned vehicles.
Certainly the British Lynx crews plan was to hide in cover, fire a TOW and run , fast! to the next cover. their main fear was airburst artillery.
i find it quite ludicrous that the Hinds can seem to see all the ground vehicles within a few miles , even if they are in cover, as soon as they crest a rise.
As for closing armored formations and giving battle, I would love to know what you reference is for that as a tactic and why you imagine they would survive!!
I would point you at the how the US Army Apaches got a bloody nose at Najaf ( and Apaches have armour!) I'd also refer you to the tank V helicopter chapter in 'armed action' by James Newton, might be even more relevant.
I think your Hinds would be running for their lives avoiding direct fire (even if it is not AAA) and artillery fire aimed at them if them attacked dug in front line formations!
I do enjoy how you have modeled the ground battle though even if I think that infantry would survive longer!
|
|
|
|
