Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

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.] >> [Modern] >> FlashPoint Germany >>

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 3/15/2003 2:06:45 AM

IronManBeta

Posts: 4132
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Burlington, Ontario
Status: offline

Does anyone else have an opinion on either of these two issues? I can see peacetime intentions being one thing and wartime realities being another.

One of my concerns is that since a modern arty barrage is so incredibly violent it would be virtually impossible to visually identify a target under bombardment. I am somewhat less concerned about an arty shell intersecting an aircraft in mid-air, but low level straffing a zone under bombardment sounds like a complete non-starter to me. This is where we need the voice of experience to chime in!

Also unasked is the question, should all friendly anti-air assets be stood down if a friendly airstrike is supposed to be coming in? Friendly fire is no joke either and it can happen to anybody. Or should I be assuming that every single AA asset on the map will blaze away at everything that is aloft? They aren't supposed to of course, but lots of crazy things can happen....

Cheers, Rob.

(in reply to Paul Wykes)

Post #: 31

- 3/15/2003 4:36:04 PM

jrcar

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline

Well the theory is the arty stops... I can appreciate there would be times when this may not occur BUT AF chaps are notoriously reluctant to go in in these circumstances...

Friendly fire is an unfortunate reality. Again in theory all AD assets in the zone that the strike goes in are supposed to 'check fire'. Again in a war this may/would not occur.

Maybe a flag for the first one? 'Arty stops yes no' with a chance the aircraft aborts anyway and/or a chance of the aircraft getting destroyed.

The second one should be a random chance as well... **** happens, with low moral units likely to blaze away anyway?

I suppose Rob are you tring to do a doctrinal/training game or the real grittieness of a war that never was.

Cheers

Rob

(in reply to Paul Wykes)

Post #: 32

- 3/18/2003 11:39:31 PM

IronManBeta

Posts: 4132
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Burlington, Ontario
Status: offline

Well, I am still not quite happy with the design.

At what speed would a CAS sortie actually fly as it made the attack? What would be a reasonable generic upper and lower speed that would cover most cases? My guess is that the speed would be quite high and at this game scale the attack would be over in an instant. This impacts the way air defense is resolved considerably!

"Combat speed" for a A-10 Thunderbolt II was 700 kph, so it could fly the entire 20 km width of the map in just 1.75 minutes. Cruising speed was 555 kph or 2.16 minutes. Is this a long time or a short time for air defense weapons to get into action?

Cheers, Rob.

(in reply to Paul Wykes)

Post #: 33

- 3/19/2003 1:20:19 AM

IronManBeta

Posts: 4132
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Burlington, Ontario
Status: offline

Targets can easily move from one point to another in the time it takes for an airstrike to arrive. If a pilot is told to hit a particular piece of ground but when he arrives it is clearly empty and there are a pile of enemy vehicles just 500 or 1000 m away, all else being equal, it makes sense to me that he would shift his point of attack to the observed target of opportunity.

Is this unrealistic? Or would be have to attack the target location as originally assigned regardless? Or would he abort the original mission, call in for instructions and ask permission to attack the target of opportunity? I believe that they are more or less in constant contact with their controllers (electronic warfare permitting) so presumably it would be but the work of a few seconds to get clearance to alter that attack to suit the circumstances. I would expect this to be a constant part of every drill and rehersal, but does anyone know that for sure?

I could frame the mission so that it is "attack this location and nothing else" or "attack the best target of opportunity within x meters of this particular location". The latter is a new thought to me (!) and might make for a more realistic game.

Thoughts?

Rob

(in reply to Paul Wykes)

Post #: 34

- 3/20/2003 7:20:25 AM

jrcar

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline

Good questions Rob, I can't answer them at the moment BUT I don't think an A-10 would fly that fast because it needs target acquistion time as well. (Just asked a few people and while no definitive answer the general answer was slow....).

Acquisition for AD assets is why items like Shilka have Radar (and RAPIER, SA13 etc) so as to get the bearing of attack so as to reduce engagement time. I have no experiance with "cloud punching" so I can't advise if this is a long or short time.

I think its reasonable for the airstrike to re-target within a radius of upto 2km, as long as its the same target type (Ie you are tasked to take out a bridge, and take out vehicles instead, that would be 'wrong' IMHO).

It should be 'attack this target type with X m of this point'.

Cheers

Rob

(in reply to Paul Wykes)

Post #: 35

- 4/2/2003 12:45:20 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

I don't know anything about Air Force doctrine or the capabilities of Soviet AA weapons. But the A-10s I saw flying around and making runs on poor 'ole me seemed to be flying fairly slow - probably 300 knots or less. Since their tactics are to pop up, do a violent roll onto the target, and then shoot, it would seem that they would need some acquisition time, which can only be gained by flying slower. This is even more true if they are attempting to line up a cannon shot on one or maybe even two targets.

Seems to me that we should be able to find a CAS jockey somewhere to help out. I would think we could call a reserve unit with A-10s that hasn't deployed to Iraq, talk to the operations officer and, after they've checked out the web site, they would be happy to talk. We could also call some Air Force museum that keeps things like doctrinal manuals, contact a squadron web site for someone willing to discuss the doctrine of a fifteen years ago, or even call the Air Force Academy. There's bound to be some frustrated fighter jockey sitting at his desk on spring break that would love to talk about the good old days. You know, kind of like Sabre and his stories about flying through tunnels in his Cobra. We all love to talk about this stuff, and I would think any pilot would be happy to help because this is old doctrine and they can verify Matrix's credentials on-line.

Just a suggestion. Better to have the real poop than have a bunch of us non-pilots speculating.

(in reply to Paul Wykes)

Post #: 36

- 4/2/2003 7:34:05 AM

IronManBeta

Posts: 4132
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Burlington, Ontario
Status: offline

Hey Byron - that would probably be overkill! Your own observation was just the sort of thing I was looking for - in the real world they have to slow down to get the time to line up the shot properly. If that is what you experienced then that is what I will go with.

The air stuff is somewhat abstract anyway - the main part is to get a reasonable end result in terms of casualties in the impact area. Knowing they slow down from a 385 knot max combat speed to circa 300 knots tells me what I need to know...

Many thanks, Rob.

(in reply to Paul Wykes)

Post #: 37

- 4/2/2003 10:52:23 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

Thanks for the unwarranted compliments. I'm just thinking that we're speculating a lot as to how long it would take CAS to arrive, whether they would attack a target under artillery attack, whether they would make a second run if the target moved, etc., etc., und so weiter, ad nauseum. Certainly a lot of the input already provided is valuable, educated, and based on some experience. But there ain't no source like someone that lives and breathes it on a daily basis and, like the input of some vets on other subjects herein, is the result of considering how peacetime tactics might work in an actual war.

Don't know where you're at on development, but I'll volunteer to try and find a fighter jock that could provide some input. Not going to put THAT much into it, but I'll take a stab at it. :)

Cheers, laddies.

(in reply to Paul Wykes)

Post #: 38

A10's - 4/2/2003 12:07:47 PM

Sabre21

Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

Hi guys

I know I have been off the board for a while, but I will add my 2 cents worth here.

We used to practice on a regular basis a joint operation referred to as a JAAT..Joint Air Attack. This involved the close cooperation of close air support aircraft, and in every case I did this but one it was done with A10's. Also included was the use of Army Attack Helicopters and Artillery fires.

This mission could be pre-planned, as on a pre-determined engagement area, or it could be a hasty attack where all the pieces come together on a short notice...that's why we practiced it so much.

The way this would work is that the Army Aviation unit would be in control of the operation. The sequence of events would begin with the Attack helicopters engaging the enemy air defense assets within the engagement area with direct fire weapons like hellfire or tow. The timing of the sequence was very important.
As the first wave of missiles hit, the impact of artillery would occur within seconds. The A10's would also be inbound and as the rounds completed impact, the A10's would begin strafing the hard targets with their 30mm. As A10's vered off from performing 1-2 runs, usually a 2 or 4 ship attack, the AH's would have a second volley of missiles hit any missed critical targets followed by another impact of artillery as suppression as all the air assets egressed.

We worked on a 60 second clock. From the moment the initial Call for Fire with the artillery is started, the time of flight of the artillery rounds is calculated, anti tank missiles fired so they arrive seconds prior to the arty, followed by the first runs of the A10's all occur within the first 60 seconds.

The entire engagement from the initial attack by the AH's to the artillery's last impact was typically 2-3 minutes.

Oh...and if you ever get to watch A10's do their thing, it is mighty impressive, I usually hovered right at about tree tops and on many occasions I would lose sight of the A10's as they egressed and re-engaged the targets by using any terrain to their advantage including dipping down to treetop levels. On the run in they would pop up and go inverted so as to better see the target, fire and then dive for cover. Exposure was not very long...maybe 20-30 seconds at most. Just so you know the A10's had a canopy painted on the bottom side of the aircraft in them days to confuse ground observers.

Sabre21

(in reply to Paul Wykes)

Post #: 39

- 4/2/2003 11:17:41 PM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

Once again, great information from Sabre. While I absolutely believe that only through repetitious training, such as that described, will something ever work in battle, I also absolutely believe that the shock of a war as intense and as violent as one in Western Europe will severely impair the benefits of that kind of training until the shock wears off. Once everyone has gotten used to being fired at - maybe 4 - 7 days - I would think things would get back close to what was trained. It's kind of like the first couple of plays in the Superbowl: everyone is so jacked up for the first play that they're not thinking and miss assignments. People tend to think too much when the "game" first begins and forget their training. But after they've taken the proverbial "first hit," they settle down and play normally. And the stakes aren't nearly as high in the Superbowl as they are in the Mother of All Battles.

Not sure why I'm saying all this. I guess it's just consistent with all of my earlier posts that I would expect a lot of confusion and stupid mistakes in the first several days of battle, and the only reason anyone survives their mistakes is that the other side is making the same mistakes.

Yeah, the A-10s were fun to watch. Suddenly popping up, looking for all the world like a balsa wood plane, making amazingly violent maneuvers so close to the ground in slow motion, and leaving you with nothing but that distinctive whine in your ears and the realization that you were toast. And the sound of that cannon . . . . I don't understand the painted canopy, though. What the h**l good does that do? "Gosh, Igor, my lead was off because I thought he was inverted!" "I'm not launching because my heat-seeking missile won't track upside down exhaust plumes." Unless you've got some hot shot sniper trying to shoot the pilot (through the bullet proof canopy and titanium tub), what difference does it make? Of course, all of their after action reports would be wrong: the report of shooting down two inverted A-10s would be wrong becase they weren't inverted.

(in reply to Paul Wykes)

Post #: 40

- 4/3/2003 5:27:38 AM

jrcar

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline

Thanks Sabre, I have limited experiance in close air support (tactical F-111 and FA-18 strikes and Hueys with mini-guns).

When ever battle drills comes up a big smile comes to my face. In training, and in many publications, the SOVIETS penchant/reliance for drills is frequently derided as an example of their backwardness an inflexibility... and then the next day we launch into section - coy battle drills like quick ambush etc...

Battle drills are a very important part of war, and these are behavours that can be easily programmed. But as always the terrain impacts on how the drill is executed.

Cheers

Rob

(in reply to Paul Wykes)

Post #: 41

- 4/3/2003 2:34:15 PM

Sabre21

Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

Byron

You are right in the sense that this takes some practice to really get down to a fine art. That's why the AF assigns FAC's to maneuver Brigades and lead battalions. Us poor guys in the Cav are usually left on our own, athough I noticed an AF Fac asigned to the 3/7 Cav as they charged across Iraq.

When I was at Ft Polk, we had the luxury to have 2 entire A10 wings to work with, one at Barksdale and the other at England AFB (the latter was closed down several years ago). We worked with them guys probably on live fire missions every other month.

When in Germany, I probaly did this only annually. So depending on where you were based would affect the kind of training you focused in.

At Ft Campbell, we did a lot of air assaults (101st Airborne Div), and we practiced lots of long range night time navigation and performing escort, where as in Germany we did a lot of work with heavy armored forces, and in Korea...well...we frequented many of the "juice" bars:)

Sabre21

(in reply to Paul Wykes)

Post #: 42

- 4/7/2003 8:49:00 AM

Golf33

Posts: 1962
Joined: 3/29/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

Couple of random observations from someone reading the thread purely because I was curious to see what jrcar was up to now :)

- arty fire continues as a strike is inbound, with last rounds and the mark round impacting generally around 60 sec before the TOT (ie bomb impact). Fires can resume as soon as the aircraft has egressed, generally about the same timeframe.

- arty will specifically be used to target any identified AD threats as close to the TOT as possible - again the barrage would lift 60 sec or so before TOT, although if the FAC is being clever he may even be able to continue SEAD fire throughout by routing the aircraft away from the line of fire. This is preferred as it avoids the 'pregnant pause' caused by all guns in the area stopping while the strike occurs.

- the strike itself is conducted in conjunction with the FAC, who is in radio contact with both the guns and the aircraft. When the air comes on station, they contact the FAC, who sends the threat and target briefs (including target loc and description). The FAC coordinates the aircraft and arty, assigning TOT to each and talking the aircraft on to target using either a mark or just a target description. If the target moves during the aircraft run in, the FAC can talk the pilot on without aborting depending on the terrain and distance - I would think any more than a couple of hundred metres from the briefed coordinates, or maybe up to half a kilometre if there is clear visibility and a very distinctive mark (like BE or WP smoke).

- the FAC may abort the strike at any time; if the aircraft have fuel endurance, he may direct them back out to a marshalling area and call them in again. This could be used to change the target location if required.

- low and medium level pop-up attacks (ingress low, climbing to around 2000' to 10000' AGL to acquire and roll in) are generally flown between 480 and 540 knots for fast air like F-16s or F/A-18s (figures from a USMC Hornet trainee, accompanied by HUD tape). A-10s will be a lot slower, I don't have figures for them, but generally it's in multiples of 60kt to make the mental math easier for the pilot (nautical miles/minute etc). If there is a low-threat environment, the pilots may choose to conduct a wagon-wheel attack where they will circle the target at over 10000' AGL, and will then roll in when they are satisfied with target ID and attack geometry.

The practical upshot is that arty will fire pretty much right up until the strike; will recommence immediately after; the Battalion Commander will find out from his FAC if the air is available, usually 10-15 minutes before TOT; and the FAC can change the timing and target of a strike, up to a couple of minutes before TOT, within the limits of aircraft fuel endurance. This last would almost never occur, because as discussed above the majority of tac air is used as part of a fireplan and there are a lot of interdependencies and timings that go out the window if the strike gets cocked up. The whole thing happens bloody fast, especially if you're trying to coordinate it as the FAC (or in my case, half-baked ACO with much less training :)).

Regards
33

(in reply to Paul Wykes)

Post #: 43

- 4/7/2003 10:43:08 AM

jrcar

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline

Thanks Steve! I'm up to lots :)

I knew the arty stopped before and after, but I've always seen larger time seperations on HQ's, but as you were an FO you have the good goss :)

The 60 knot thing is interesting, never thought of that before! I will file that one away... I keep meaning to talk to a few fighter types in Canberra... but I generally prefer to keep as far from them as possible :)

This game is going well, and as it has PBEM I can actually play it, unlike AA :(

Cheers

Rob

(in reply to Paul Wykes)

Post #: 44

CAS Operations - 4/8/2003 1:00:26 AM

Tbird3

Posts: 21
Joined: 3/19/2002
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline

I just felt the need to throw my measly two cents in this discussion. Overall, I think most of the key areas of CAS planning was addressed. However, I would like to stress that US CAS was and is extremely flexible in comparision to many of the other nations in this scenario. In reference to artillery it is not necessary to "turn it off" during CAS operations. Especially if this was a preplanned air request. Through the use of establishing certain air coordination measures you can easily keep the artillery firing during CAS support. As long as the gun target line is identified and the issue of the artillery max altitude is addressed you can coordinate the airspace management to allow artillery to continue to fire. When I say that you can continue to fire the artillery I mean you can continue to engage other targets in the vicinty of planned CAS Target. Additionally, even during the 80's you would find combat air controllers all the way down to the battalion level. If there was a critical point on the battlefield you could even move a team down to the company level. It should also be noted that all US artillery officers and fire support teams were also trained to provide terminal guidance to inbound CAS. The key problem then, as well as now however is that you must ensure you have the communications ability to talk to the aircraft. It is interesting to note that that Airforce has been very slow on equipping their aircraft with FM communications to allow direct coordination with troops on the ground. If I remember correctly, in the 80's only the A-10 and A-7 had FM communications ability. Lastly, the key issue with air coordination is that the Airforce tends to be time oriented versus "event" oriented. This makes planned CAS a difficult proprosal for the ground commander. The key phrase that we use around our shop is that unfortnately, the enemy gets a vote in every operation. Bottom-line, this sounds like a great game with a lot great potential! Good Luck!

Tbird-3

[QUOTE]Trust is good.........control is better![/QUOTE]

(in reply to Paul Wykes)

Post #: 45