CMO Attack Realism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

DWReese -> CMO Attack Realism (11/26/2021 5:02:51 PM)

First off, this isn't an indictment against the game. It is a legitimate question pertaining to real life.

Let's say we have 4 Attack aircraft (Snoopy 1-4), and we have 4 bad guy ships (BG 1-4). The Snoopy side knows where the bad guys are and creates a ASuW attack.

Now, you could group all 4 Snoopy planes together, and target all 4 BG ships, and then allow the AI to handle the attack. If that is the case, then from what I have seen, all 4 planes will begin attacking first one ship, and when that is destroyed they then move onto the second, then the third and fourth, if they still have munitions left. (How the AI selects the order from the list is something that I haven't figured out as of yet. You used to be able to select the order, but that function has now been removed.) In any case, the attack sequence that I described above seems to be accurate. (BTW, this is a very quick and efficient way to attack things.)

But, IN REAL LIFE, would Snoopy 1-4 be given generic orders like that? "Hey, you guys go there, find the BG ships, and kill them." Or, would they be given specific ships to attack? Snoopy 1, you go and attack BG1; Snoopy 2, you go and attack BG2; etc....? I'm inclined to believe that this is how it would really work, but I don't know. If that IS the case, then all 4 Snoopy units would have to be given their own specific mission in order to make that happen.

So, for those with actual military experience, I ask you, would attacks be generic (you 4 planes go kill those 4 ships), or would each be given a specific ship to attack, and when that specific ship has been sunk, then that specific plane's mission is over. and it's time to RTB. No generic/group attack thing.

Thanks in advance.



butch4343 -> RE: CMO Attack Realism (11/26/2021 5:46:04 PM)

I'll preface my comments with the caveat I don't have military experience in attack planning.

But I think it djepends on the scenario, so if we take a 80s cold war scenario your four bad guys how do you know they are bad guys ? Someone needs to id them, so am thinking in the coldwar say a p3 or nimrod finds a wee soviet sag lurking around the Norwegian sea. The p3 ect would then probably shadow the sag and become the defacto tactical controller , mean while the four strikers you mention say buccaneers or Norwegian f16s would be briefed on numbers of ships , what type or ships and the aircrew would then plan routes timings, tankers if required, other supporting assets, ie there's a krivak two udaloys and fleet oiler the udaloy is up threat of the main group by 15 miles, the krivak is carrying out asw sweeps ahead of the second udaloy and the oiler. That might mean the aircrew say let's do a standard attack profile with 4 aircraft coming from the sw four from the North East, with ac 1 and 2 firing weapons at the up threat udaloy and the new group firing on the oiler ect . If that's judged to be the objective. It might be the objective is to take out the highest anti sub threat ie the krivak in order to let a nato sub slip inside the asw screen and hit the oiler with a torpedo. It just depends and as the p3 observes more the more info is fed back to the aircrew and plans adjusted. The other end of the scale is say in the gulf a flight of 4 strike eagles are tooling around and come across 4 fast attack craft , they will be cleared to engage and then the flight lead will id them using a lantern or sniper pod , the flight lead will then dive up the target and headings verbally to e sure each aircraft doesn't foul up another's attack, that will most likely be done on the fly by the flight leader

Happy to stand corrected but am pretty sure in the tactical air support of maritime operations tasmo there's a lot of planning and positive id and tracking involved there's not many free hunts authorised

Butch



Zojirushi -> RE: CMO Attack Realism (11/26/2021 10:33:49 PM)

Depends on the era and military. Things are planned out in alot of detail in real life, before the strikers take off they would have a whole attack plan plotted out with waypoints and such.



SeaQueen -> RE: CMO Attack Realism (11/27/2021 12:48:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

But, IN REAL LIFE, would Snoopy 1-4 be given generic orders like that? Or, would they be given specific ships to attack? Snoopy 1, you go and attack BG1; Snoopy 2, you go and attack BG2; etc....?



Complicated question. It depends. In the US Navy, there's something called Composite Warfare Commanders (CWC). Around a protected high value unit (HVU), they define three layers. Outermost is the sensing area (SA). The next layer in is the classification, identification and engagement area (CIEA), and innermost is the vital area (VA). The idea is to sense things a long way away in the SA, then act on them in the CIEA them before they enter the VA where they can threaten your HVU. If goal is to defend the HVU from warships, then the decision making would fall to the sea warfare commmander (ZULU).

Depending on how the aircraft are apportioned (which involves horse trading among the various commanders, especially the WHISKEY, who is responsible for air defense), it may be the case that the ZULU has several fighters sitting on the deck with ASCMs on the wings, waiting to be tasked to go strike a target in the CIEA. In that case it's very much "arm 'em up boys, go get 'em." In that case, there's different levels of alert, which determines how much warning the pilots would get before having to take off. Effectively, armed aircraft in CMO are at the highest level. These days, they might receive the mission briefing in flight. The Navy is a little weird, though, because who is the commander at any one moment can change and many people have several bosses. As one really badass Navy captain once told me, "It's the Navy, it's squishy!" A good example of that is the Navy SUCAP mission, which is very unique. In that case you're working for both the ZULU and the WHISKEY.

As far as the apportionment of weapons to each target, it also depends. Some weapons need more specific targeting information passed to them. Some weapons can by easily allocated dynamically in situ. Others might need to be specifically configured on the ground. Still others can be passed information in flight using datalinks. Many advanced cruise missiles can do some really impressive things if they have the data to support them. It might also depend on the desired effect by the commander. The way you would apportion weapons might be different if you wanted to maximize the probability of sinking the vessel versus only achieving a mission kill. Maybe some of the ships in that group are more important than others? If the target is an enemy amphibious group, I might not care about the escorts at all, so long as I sink or disable the amphibs (and thus achieved a mission kill). A lot of this stuff isn't so much a failure of the simulation, though. It's a symptom of sloppy thinking by either the player or the scenario designer regarding what their desired effects might be. Not all ASCMs can be that precise, though. Older stuff might go after the first thing it locks on to. More modern stuff might be more discriminating. That doesn't mean the desired effect changes, necessarily though. It just means that you might be constrained somehow in your firing parameters because you want to make sure that the thing you really want to hit is the first thing that the weapon sees. Usually, when you plan a strike mission, the first thing you do is determine the desired effects on the target, and then plan backwards from there.

Does that answer your question?



DWReese -> RE: CMO Attack Realism (11/27/2021 1:06:06 AM)

So, without putting words into your mouth, you are saying that if a mission was originating from a base, with the expressed intention of attacking a 4-ship group, then you believe that each plane would be given a specific assignment, and not just "fly as a group and attack whatever", is that correct? That is what I believe, given the circumstances that I originally described.

I've been playing around with the "group attack" and it appears that the programming merely targets the closest ship and fires at it. When, and if, that is destroyed, then the remaining members of the group appear to target the next closest ship. This cycle then repeats.

Obviously, if you wanted to specifically target a ship, I guess that you could designate a dedicated team toward attacking that specifically (in order to make sure that it was attacked, and then use a "group attack method" to attack everyone else.

I'm not criticizing the setup. I was just curious from any actual military personnel if they knew if the "group method" was ever actually used or not.

Thanks for the input.



rmwilsonjr -> RE: CMO Attack Realism (11/27/2021 2:11:38 AM)

Can't you achieve the effect you are seeking (Snoopy 1 hits BG 1, Snoopy 2 hits BG 2, etc.) by adjusting the WRA to limit the number of missiles allocated to each contact?



DWReese -> RE: CMO Attack Realism (11/27/2021 2:15:38 AM)

SQ, thanks for lending your expertise.

Yes, it did answer my questions. Thank you.

In testing, I armed all four planes with Harpoons, so the weapons were all the same. The Soviet Kalinin was the HV.

If I allowed the group of 4 to attack the group of 4, then the planes flew straight there, and attacked a Udaloy as it was the closest ship to the US base from which the planes were flying.

If I manipulated the flight path of the planes, having them fly around and come in from the opposite direction, then they once again attacked the closest ship, this time a Sovremenny.

So, the game does seem to call for the targeting of the first ship closest to the area from which the planes came. That's fine. It's just nice to see know how it works so that you can know what to expect.

As you mentioned, knowing the goal is necessary to knowing what to attack. If the HV was the primary target, then a certain amount of planes should be dedicated to the HV. The rest could then be distributed as a group to attack the remainder of the BG group, sans the omitted HV.

It is nice to know that planes could get their orders when scrambling, or when already in flight. That does seem to consistent with how the game works.

Thanks again for your input.





DWReese -> RE: CMO Attack Realism (11/27/2021 2:24:25 AM)

Butch,

Thanks for your input. I agree with your assessment. While I wasn't necessarily trying to draw a comparison of the game to real life, it does seem that I was trying to draw a comparison of real life to the game. That may seem like a contradiction of terms pertaining to logic, but it isn't really, if you happen think about it. It just depends on your perspective for that particular moment.

I would think that dedicated strikes would be planned and coordinated as best as possible, while some other strikes could occur in a hastily-planned direction and execution carried out by available resources. Obviously, they would be summoned to perform a task in response to a newly identified and unexpected target.

So, both situations are inherently the same as far as the game is concerned.

Thanks again for your input.




SeaQueen -> RE: CMO Attack Realism (11/27/2021 3:01:25 AM)

Targeting prosecuted outside the normal ATO process is called “dynamic targeting.” It’s real. Striking ships at sea is actually a good example of it. Kill box operations are another. Any sorts of time sensitive or fleeting targets would be dynamic targeting as well.



DWReese -> RE: CMO Attack Realism (11/27/2021 7:51:22 AM)

Thanks for providing the technical name of this type of attack, and for the detailed explanation. It makes everything completely understandable when an actual name has been associated with it.




SeaQueen -> RE: CMO Attack Realism (11/27/2021 11:55:57 AM)

This sort of dynamic targeting (DT) is what makes Predators valuable. They can spend long periods observing a location of interest and then, if a target that is too juicy to ignore makes itself available, it can be struck immediately, instead of having to wait for the next ATO to drop. The other aircraft that's enables these kinds of tactics are things like JSTARs which you can think of as sort of like an AWACS that looks at the ground. In the Navy E-2, BAMs and MPA would be important for controlling attacks against ships.

You might also see deliberate and dynamic targeting used in combination. For example, you might have intelligence that a brigade headquarters is garrisoned at a given location, and go through the normal planning process for striking it. Along with them you would include all the supporting aircraft. Then you'd also apportion some fraction of your aircraft to make unplanned attacks against pop up targets. Along the way, the JSTARs reports that one of the brigade's constituent regiments is leaving their hidden positions and moving out of garrison. The deliberately targeted aircraft would continue to strike the brigade headquarters while the dynamically targeted aircraft might be directed to strike the moving regiment.

They can also redirect aircraft in flight. In that case the C/JFACC may take an an appropriately loaded aircraft off an interdiction mission and redirect them to strike something important that was spotted by a Predator or JSTARs. They could even redirect them to CAS, which is fairly commonplace. Most strike aircraft aren't dedicated to flying CAS, waiting for a call that might never come when there are plenty of targets to be struck. That'd be a waste of sorties.



DWReese -> RE: CMO Attack Realism (11/27/2021 12:57:04 PM)




quote:

They can also redirect aircraft in flight. In that case the C/JFACC may take an an appropriately loaded aircraft off an interdiction mission and redirect them to strike something important that was spotted by a Predator or JSTARs. They could even redirect them to CAS, which is fairly commonplace. Most strike aircraft aren't dedicated to flying CAS, waiting for a call that might never come when there are plenty of targets to be struck. That'd be a waste of sorties.


That sort of reminds me of an old board game called "Fire Fight" which dealt with tank battles. Often, a group of unassigned tanks would be assigned to an "Over Watch" mission, which is sort of the same thing as what you were describing. While the frontline tanks are dedicated to fight it out with the OpFor, those assigned to Over Watch would be ready to attack targets of opportunity that may pop up.

Thanks again for your input.



BeirutDude -> RE: CMO Attack Realism (11/27/2021 1:44:20 PM)

Depends upon what the higherups want them to do and the urgency of the mission...

They brass might want them to roll back escorts (AAW or ASW) for a follow up attack on the High Value Unit if they have the assets to do that (second strike or sub).

Or if this mission is all they have and they need to roll the dice they might just go for the High Value Units and ignore the escorts (taking attrition losses in the process).

Look at Okinawa, some Kamikazes went for the Pickets to try to destroy the radar screen but then the large formations concentrated on the transports and carriers ignoring the AA escorts for the most part. same in Goose Bay in the Falklands, the A-4s went for the transports there to great effect.



BeirutDude -> RE: CMO Attack Realism (11/27/2021 1:47:18 PM)

quote:

Complicated question. It depends. In the US Navy, there's something called Composite Warfare Commanders (CWC). Around a protected high value unit (HVU), they define three layers. Outermost is the sensing area (SA). The next layer in is the classification, identification and engagement area (CIEA), and innermost is the vital area (VA). The idea is to sense things a long way away in the SA, then act on them in the CIEA them before they enter the VA where they can threaten your HVU. If goal is to defend the HVU from warships, then the decision making would fall to the sea warfare commmander (ZULU).

Depending on how the aircraft are apportioned (which involves horse trading among the various commanders, especially the WHISKEY, who is responsible for air defense), it may be the case that the ZULU has several fighters sitting on the deck with ASCMs on the wings, waiting to be tasked to go strike a target in the CIEA. In that case it's very much "arm 'em up boys, go get 'em." In that case, there's different levels of alert, which determines how much warning the pilots would get before having to take off. Effectively, armed aircraft in CMO are at the highest level. These days, they might receive the mission briefing in flight. The Navy is a little weird, though, because who is the commander at any one moment can change and many people have several bosses. As one really badass Navy captain once told me, "It's the Navy, it's squishy!" A good example of that is the Navy SUCAP mission, which is very unique. In that case you're working for both the ZULU and the WHISKEY.

As far as the apportionment of weapons to each target, it also depends. Some weapons need more specific targeting information passed to them. Some weapons can by easily allocated dynamically in situ. Others might need to be specifically configured on the ground. Still others can be passed information in flight using datalinks. Many advanced cruise missiles can do some really impressive things if they have the data to support them. It might also depend on the desired effect by the commander. The way you would apportion weapons might be different if you wanted to maximize the probability of sinking the vessel versus only achieving a mission kill. Maybe some of the ships in that group are more important than others? If the target is an enemy amphibious group, I might not care about the escorts at all, so long as I sink or disable the amphibs (and thus achieved a mission kill). A lot of this stuff isn't so much a failure of the simulation, though. It's a symptom of sloppy thinking by either the player or the scenario designer regarding what their desired effects might be. Not all ASCMs can be that precise, though. Older stuff might go after the first thing it locks on to. More modern stuff might be more discriminating. That doesn't mean the desired effect changes, necessarily though. It just means that you might be constrained somehow in your firing parameters because you want to make sure that the thing you really want to hit is the first thing that the weapon sees. Usually, when you plan a strike mission, the first thing you do is determine the desired effects on the target, and then plan backwards from there.

Does that answer your question?


Good stuff! Thanks.



SeaQueen -> RE: CMO Attack Realism (11/27/2021 7:20:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

That sort of reminds me of an old board game called "Fire Fight" which dealt with tank battles. Often, a group of unassigned tanks would be assigned to an "Over Watch" mission, which is sort of the same thing as what you were describing. While the frontline tanks are dedicated to fight it out with the OpFor, those assigned to Over Watch would be ready to attack targets of opportunity that may pop up.

Thanks again for your input.



Sort of. In ground war there's a tactic called a "bounding overwatch," which is when you move one or two units forward, while the remainder watches and shoots back at the bad guys who pop up and try to shoot as your guys as they're moving. That's not dynamic targeting in air war.

Dynamic targeting is more like, setting aside some sorties so that when one of many ISR assets (e.g. JSTARS, drones, U-2, SOF) picks out a target which might hide soon, you have the option to respond immediately and launch aircraft from either a CAP stationed nearby or on the ground, to go strike the target. It allows you to flexibly drop bombs on things as they become apparent instead of being stuck inside the ATO process. When a target is identified in the ATO process, it might be a few days before it's actually scheduled to be struck. Sometimes that's not good enough. It relies on having really good communications so that you can pass the necessary information around where it's needed.

In real life they rely on a combination of deliberate and dynamic strikes, it just depends on what they're doing. During the Gulf War, they were probably mostly deliberate. By Allied Force they were starting to experiment with Predator drones and dynamic targeting. In Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, it's probably mostly dynamic targeting supported by drones, SOF and other ISR.



kevinkins -> RE: CMO Attack Realism (11/27/2021 7:24:36 PM)

In my experience, anything related to winning a CMO scenario from a strike warfare perspective has to be handle manually. Missions are great to set up patrols and areas of access denial. That gives the player the ability to concentrate on what is required to win - manually. If you don't care about the score, program the player side's missions in total and go have a six pack and watch. Not a bad way to spend a weekend.



tylerblakebrandon -> RE: CMO Attack Realism (12/1/2021 12:17:35 PM)

Seems to me that is this situation it would be better to assign the strike mission specifically to the HVU initially or remove the 3 other vessels from the target once identified.

I also think as was mentioned above the WRA are creating what you are seeing as the weapons are defaulted to the target's missile value and your 4 ship of Hornets can't reach that level or at least not with any remaining missiles for the other targets.

If I want everything to be fired at, I always makes sure my WRA is tuned to restricts weapons and/or shooters per target.



jannas34 -> RE: CMO Attack Realism (12/21/2021 8:03:09 AM)

LOL tnjs game is so unrealistic



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.185547