RE: Close Air Support

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Close Air Support

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Close Air Support - 2/12/2008 4:59:33 PM

Joe D.

Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

I still remember all the "we'll bomb them into the stone age" boasts by the UASF, along w/the over-estimated enemy casualties/body counts during Vietnam.

CAS could be tactically effective to the point of turning the tide of a battle, but it didn't win the war in Vietnam. Our troops weren't supposed to just survive, but win; CAS in Vietnam didn't deliver that victory.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to histgamer)

Post #: 31

RE: Close Air Support - 2/12/2008 5:03:53 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan

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

It can really do a number on formed troops. As I noted earlier, its effects are much longer lasting than those of artillery if they hit the target at the right time. That's why USMC ground commanders like their USMC air support.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Feltan)

Post #: 32

RE: Close Air Support - 2/12/2008 5:14:28 PM

histgamer

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline

Thats why Interdiction strikes are the most carried out strikes by US fighter bomber forces, you hit them as they are getting near the front (if there is a front) so they are still in formation.

As for CAS delivering the victory, the airforce claimed they would bomb the north into the stone age and kill VC troops in the jungle with their Ark Light or w/e they were called raids. That said they never said CAS would win the war they claimed more Stratigic style bombing would win the war.

Bombing alone never wins wars. I am not aruging it does.

However the north and VC lost over 500,000 men in the course of that conflict, body counts at some times were very accurate at other times over hyped. It really depended who was commanding the army units in the area. Many officers over counted in the hopes of helping their own careers, others simply stated the facts.

P.S. On a side note there is one massive success that people never really talk about when it comes to vietnam. The gurrilla war was basically a clean cut victory for the US. The VC forces were so smashed during the TET offencive that after around 69 the war became more and more conventional. In fact the US essencially won the gurillia war, the problem was after 69 the NVA still had over 500,000 men and were training over 30,000 more men per year, so without an invasion of the north victory would not be attainable.

Though people dont realize the linebacker campaigns did do a number on the norths ability to fight the war. There is some evidence though nothing is certain that had the US airforce been bombing the north the whole war rather than their typical bomb real heavy for a couple weeks and then dont bomb for a year that with the ground war the way it went the NVA could have been brought to its knees in a couple of years.

Also air power saved the south in the Easter Offencive and had the US airforce still been aiding the south during the final offencive in 75 odds are the south would have survived that offencive as well.

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 33

RE: Close Air Support - 2/12/2008 5:51:15 PM

Feltan

Posts: 1160
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan

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

It can really do a number on formed troops. As I noted earlier, its effects are much longer lasting than those of artillery if they hit the target at the right time. That's why USMC ground commanders like their USMC air support.

No argument -- but you are pointing out a shortfall in game mechanics, not real life affects of CAS.

Regards,
Feltan

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 34

RE: Close Air Support - 2/12/2008 6:00:02 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan

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

It can really do a number on formed troops. As I noted earlier, its effects are much longer lasting than those of artillery if they hit the target at the right time. That's why USMC ground commanders like their USMC air support.

No argument -- but you are pointing out a shortfall in game mechanics, not real life affects of CAS.

Regards,
Feltan

Yes, I learned that the hard way. I flew some attack aircraft into a front-line airbase to provide CAS, and they got grounded and overrun. I guess the game designers hadn't realised what was going on in Imphal during the Japanese offensive.

_____________________________

(in reply to Feltan)

Post #: 35

RE: Close Air Support - 2/12/2008 6:50:59 PM

niceguy2005

Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

Interesting thread. I posted twice on this last year also suggesting that CAS was not well modeled in the game. I have changed my mind. After playing the game another year, if anythihng I think it's possible that it is too effective.

My first realization was that yes, if you order ground attacks the same turn you order an LCU attack the enemy ground forces are much less effective. YOu do need to use a reasonable number of planes...the size of the attack should be scaled to the number of defenders.

Second was the realization just how ineffective CAS was going to be thoughout the Southwest Pacific and Southeast Asia. Sure it was used, but it didn't bring nearly the results it did in places like Europe.

_____________________________

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 36

RE: Close Air Support - 2/12/2008 8:14:23 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

Interesting thread.� I posted twice on this last year also suggesting that CAS was not well modeled in the game.� I have changed my mind.� After playing the game another year, if anythihng I think it's possible that it is too effective.

My first realization was that yes, if you order ground attacks the same turn you order an LCU attack the enemy ground forces are much less effective.� YOu do need to use a reasonable number of planes...the size of the attack should be scaled to the number of defenders.

Second was the realization just how ineffective CAS was going to be thoughout the Southwest Pacific and Southeast Asia.� Sure it was used, but it didn't bring nearly the results it did in places like Europe.

The effectiveness in Europe reflected learning by the air staffs in Europe. In the Pacific, the Marines had good CAS, but they owned their own aircraft.

_____________________________

(in reply to niceguy2005)

Post #: 37

RE: Close Air Support - 2/12/2008 9:22:52 PM

AcePylut

Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

I still remember all the "we'll bomb them into the stone age" boasts by the UASF, along w/the over-estimated enemy casualties/body counts during Vietnam.

Doesn't really mean much to say "we'll bomb them into the stone age", when they pretty much were already living in the stone age.

(in reply to Joe D.)

Post #: 38

RE: Close Air Support - 2/12/2008 9:25:29 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

Terrain and the nature of the campaigns were probably a more important factor than the relative capabilities of the staffs. Learning how to blow up Adolph in the Libyan desert was far easier than learning how to blow up Mitsuo at Kokoda or Guadacanal. Being continental campaigns, they also had continous opportunities to learn and refine technique, unlike the relatively short island campaigns conducted in the Pacific. Just my $.02.

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 39

RE: Close Air Support - 2/12/2008 9:28:19 PM

blam0

Posts: 133
Joined: 3/24/2004
Status: offline

I'm suprised that no one has mentioned the role of aircraft at Falaise Gap. Also, quite famously, CAS covered the right flank of Patton's "dash across France." And again, at the start of Operation Cobra, Heavy and Medium bombers opened the path through the German lines.

Further, consider the reliance that the Germans placed on bad weather for the launch of the Ardennes offensive in '44. The timing of the operation was predicated on the idea that Allied CAS would be impaired of unavailable, as the Germans had no effective way to gain air superiority over the area.

I think the short answer is that CAS is much more effective in a war of movement such as that in Europe, rather than siege warfare as was seen in the Pacific.

Just my .02

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 40

RE: Close Air Support - 2/13/2008 2:38:49 AM

histgamer

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline

However the question is what is CAS? You are all for the most part not really talking about CAS but Interdiction. CAS is bringing ordinence in the middle of a battle in on the front line troops of your enamy via air power. Hitting troops as they move into position or manever while not in direct contact is Interdiction. WW2 interdiction was very effective in Europe much more so than CAS.

(in reply to blam0)

Post #: 41

RE: Close Air Support - 2/13/2008 2:50:08 AM

niceguy2005

Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

However the question is what is CAS? You are all for the most part not really talking about CAS but Interdiction. CAS is bringing ordinence in the middle of a battle in on the front line troops of your enamy via air power. Hitting troops as they move into position or manever while not in direct contact is Interdiction. WW2 interdiction was very effective in Europe much more so than CAS.

I agree. Although it might be interesting to see some documents on what the Army considered CAS to be at the time. I suspect that as technology has advanced the concept of this mission has changed.

< Message edited by niceguy2005 -- 2/13/2008 2:51:43 AM >

_____________________________

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to histgamer)

Post #: 42

RE: Close Air Support - 2/13/2008 3:27:32 AM

Cutman

Posts: 71
Joined: 10/26/2002
From: Florida
Status: offline

Until 5-6 years ago the services had different perpsectives on what CAS meant.

We went more to a Joint definition after OIF I & OEF.

The TACP/FAC FAC (A) where first done during WWII in 43/44 I think in the PAC. Close CAS was conducted, but one of the biggest problems was geography with the small Islands. Okinawa is 30 nm acrross. If it takes 8-10 miles to control a flight in how many can run at once? The 3 division fronts in that small of a space would make it difficult to get them in while they where firing artillery and Naval Guns. The jungle,caves, terrain and weather did not help either. There was a request system in place to get the airborne CAS.

Korean War was when the Request system and C2 of it was put into place. The names have changed to get officers promoted, but the doctrine (basics) is still the same for all of the services. There was airborne CAS/XCAS and it was done quickly. I read a book about Chosin and the if I remeber right the Army/Marines/Brits/ROKA all agreed that CAS From TF 77/MAW/ and AF took out at least 1/3 of all chinese estimated KIAs

. Another third was the cold!

I totally agree that todays aircraft and bombs are much more effective at CAS. The TACP/FAC/JTACs on the ground providing the control also have much better means of marking targets. There are still problems. Officers get sold on systems and not training. As the ARMY gets bigger there is a concern in the AF that they may not have enough CAS aircraft to train the JTACs... Not trying to get into a a service fight here.

As my wife knows I love to argue!

cutman

(in reply to blam0)

Post #: 43

RE: Close Air Support - 2/13/2008 6:22:17 AM

histgamer

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline

I would say the problem is that the airforces CAS platforms mainly the F-16 and A-10 are aging and that coupled with the US airforces production methods is the problem.

The US airforce tends to produce aircraft for a couple years and then once the order is met they stop production. The way the tend to keep those aircraft in service is by scraping older aircraft. (by the way the aircraft bone yards in Arizona are truely a phenominal sight, thousands and thousands of aircraft for miles and miles) This production style is starting to seriously limit A-10 activities as they are our best CAS aircraft but theere are only so many parts left. The F-16 not so much since its still being produced for export so spares are still being produced.

(in reply to Cutman)

Post #: 44

RE: Close Air Support - 2/13/2008 9:51:09 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

Instead of producing spare parts they use parts that were already in use? The US spends so many billions on their military and doesn�t have the money to order new spare parts? Must be a strange feeling if you�re flying such a bird that will be put together out of spare parts from 3 dozen aircraft that landed on the scrap yard.

_____________________________

(in reply to histgamer)

Post #: 45

RE: Close Air Support - 2/13/2008 9:59:12 AM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Instead of producing spare parts they use parts that were already in use? The US spends so many billions on their military and doesn�t have the money to order new spare parts? Must be a strange feeling if you�re flying such a bird that will be put together out of spare parts from 3 dozen aircraft that landed on the scrap yard.

Yep that is exactly what they do. It's called 'cannibalizing' (rather appropriately) and they simnply take usable parts off of aircraft that aren't going to fly again, refurbish them, and put them back into use to keep other aircraft flying. Any plane type that has been out of production a while goes through this process...and all countries do this, its not just a US thing.

< Message edited by Shark7 -- 2/13/2008 10:00:09 AM >

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 46

RE: Close Air Support - 2/13/2008 10:15:45 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Instead of producing spare parts they use parts that were already in use? The US spends so many billions on their military and doesn�t have the money to order new spare parts? Must be a strange feeling if you�re flying such a bird that will be put together out of spare parts from 3 dozen aircraft that landed on the scrap yard.

Yep that is exactly what they do. It's called 'cannibalizing' (rather appropriately) and they simnply take usable parts off of aircraft that aren't going to fly again, refurbish them, and put them back into use to keep other aircraft flying. Any plane type that has been out of production a while goes through this process...and all countries do this, its not just a US thing.

I know that all contries do this. But I do understand it if Austria is doing this (I think we have some 5 dozen aircraft - ALLTOGETHER!!! it was a national outcry when we bought two dozen Typhoons, which were decreased to 18 later) as we�re not really spending a lot money on our military (below 1% of GDP). While on the other side, I find it strange if the country that spends the biggest amount worldwide for it�s military and which is involved in different wars all the time is relying on spare parts from scrapped aircraft.

_____________________________

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 47

RE: Close Air Support - 2/13/2008 6:17:20 PM

Feltan

Posts: 1160
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline

You have to draw lines somewhere. If the U.S.A.F. did not migrate to new a/c (as painful as that can be), we'd still be ordering parts for P-51's.

Regards,
Feltan

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 48

RE: Close Air Support - 2/13/2008 8:06:14 PM

niceguy2005

Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

It's economics, you can't keep production lines open forever... we aren't communists that can pay people to just stand around.

I believe the way it works is the AF tries to forecast how many spare parts they will need and produces that amount, rahter they plan to keep production open for so long. If they quess wrong, the plane's role changes or its kept in service longer than expected you're going to have logistical problems. The fact that these planes do stay useful and relevant so long and the fact that so many actually do stay in service is actually a credit to the AF. Clearly these aren't 70's Buicks we're talking about but extrememly sophisticated machines that require a lot of parts. Many of which have to be produced at facilities with security clearance.

It's my belief that UAVs, GPS and autonomously guided ordinance have only just begun to make their presense felt and some of these systems are going to find themselves very quickly obsolete.

< Message edited by niceguy2005 -- 2/13/2008 8:07:07 PM >

_____________________________

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Feltan)

Post #: 49

RE: Close Air Support - 2/13/2008 8:33:26 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

Hey, when every hammer costs you $400 you damn sure are gonna cannabalize before ordering another $50,000 widget!

(in reply to niceguy2005)

Post #: 50

RE: Close Air Support - 2/13/2008 9:15:17 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

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...

Oh yeah.... I forgot to add not to try this with a base unless you are sure it is out of supply..

Units in the field get this sort of atttention.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 51

RE: Close Air Support - 2/13/2008 9:28:47 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

P.S. On a side note there is one massive success that people never really talk about when it comes to vietnam. The gurrilla war was basically a clean cut victory for the US. The VC forces were so smashed during the TET offencive that after around 69 the war became more and more conventional. In fact the US essencially won the gurillia war, the problem was after 69 the NVA still had over 500,000 men and were training over 30,000 more men per year, so without an invasion of the north victory would not be attainable.

Good point...

One school of thought is that the Northern leaders fully committed the Viet Cong to the TET offensive knowing full well what the results would have been. The North who's true aim was to liberate and unify the entire country was wary of the Viet Cong's independence and feared a power struggle. The TET offensive served two purposes. It sorely crippled the Viet Cong and eliminated any sort of challenge to Northern leadership and it shocked and crippled American and world public opinion thus changing the course of the war. Militarily we kicked butt during TET but nobody really felt that the war was winnable after that. Stragetically, it was a significant victory for the North.

Man, talk about digressing.....

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to histgamer)

Post #: 52

RE: Close Air Support - 2/13/2008 9:33:35 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

It's economics, you can't keep production lines open forever... we aren't communists that can pay people to just stand around.

I think this also holds true for game patches as well....

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to niceguy2005)

Post #: 53

RE: Close Air Support - 2/13/2008 10:53:23 PM

Joe D.

Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

I still remember all the "we'll bomb them into the stone age" boasts by the UASF, along w/the over-estimated enemy casualties/body counts during Vietnam.

Doesn't really mean much to say "we'll bomb them into the stone age", when they pretty much were already living in the stone age.

LOL!

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to AcePylut)

Post #: 54

RE: Close Air Support - 2/13/2008 11:01:15 PM

histgamer

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline

Joe I think you could say in your signature that it was the best fighter bomber of WW II and Korea if you wanted to.

(in reply to Joe D.)

Post #: 55

RE: Close Air Support - 2/13/2008 11:01:27 PM

Joe D.

Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

It just occured to me that fratricide is the flip-side of CAS, esp. today when aerial ordnance is so "smart," i.e., lethal.

And I don't think fratricide is coded into the WitP/UV engines.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 56

RE: Close Air Support - 2/13/2008 11:04:07 PM

histgamer

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline

Honestly I still love Napalm even though we dont use it anymore... Thats to say we are not allowed to use that specific mixture but we still use a varient of it. Napalm might not be smart but you can bring it in closer than any smart bomb for one reason. No Shrapnal... We have lost many soldiers to smart weapons because the enamy was to close so the bomb's metal fragments hit both theirs and our guys. thats not to say napalm hasnt ever hit our own men, but you can bring it in closer safer.

(in reply to Joe D.)

Post #: 57

RE: Close Air Support - 2/13/2008 11:04:53 PM

histgamer

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline

Though napalm isnt a good weapon for urban fighting cause then the predictiblity of its explosion or coverage is much less and you risk hitting your own men. So Afganistan would be good for it, Iraq not so much.

(in reply to histgamer)

Post #: 58

RE: Close Air Support - 2/13/2008 11:30:37 PM

Joe D.

Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

Joe I think you could say in your signature that it was the best fighter bomber of WW II and Korea if you wanted to.

Yes, since it was carrier capable, the Corsair was used during Korea, but F4U ryhmes w/WW II.

I suspect you're one of an elite few who recognized the Corsair in my signature is of Korean vintage, but I needed a good color photo of an F4U that wasn't copyrighted (this one came from Wiki).

The F4U was dubbed the "Angel of Okinawa" and the "Sweetheart of the Mariannas" by Marines on the ground who appreciated the Corsair's CAS.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to histgamer)

Post #: 59

RE: Close Air Support - 2/14/2008 3:29:34 AM

histgamer

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by flanyboy -- 2/14/2008 3:30:11 AM >

(in reply to Joe D.)

Post #: 60