Film of Stuka 87G in action

[ozi_digger]

Originally posted by JasonC:

1 in 500 to 1 in 750 are believable scale for those results, if we allow in addition for most attacks not being directed at armor, capped at 15-20% being so directed. (Probably lower; that is an upper bound).

Geez mate, I'm taking the helmet and flak jacket off now, OK?

Now we have a common ground I wanna throw it out there (being an air power advocate myself) - if CAS was so ineffectual (even versus a lot of 'soft' targets) why was it so highly demanded by the ground commanders?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

...I wanna throw it out there (being an air power advocate myself) - if CAS was so ineffectual (even versus a lot of 'soft' targets) why was it so highly demanded by the ground commanders?

Because it was psychologically potent even if not physically so. Why did they call for the massive air bombardment of Monte Cassino? Because they believed—wrongly, as it turned out—that such a massive pounding would at least soften up the German defenses. People believed in airpower—still do in many cases—with a Fundamentalist's religious zeal.

That doesn't mean that airpower was worthless, far from it. But it does mean that its worth got inflated and often misapplied as a consequence.

Michael

[ozi_digger]

Perhaps then CAS, in CM, would be better off 'pinning and panicking' more than causing casualties?

[JasonC]

It was demanded because the way you get an asset is to call for it. If you don't, it goes to somebody else. It is free firepower from the standpoint of the ground commander. He doesn't pay for it.

If you told him, though, you can either have (1) enough fighter cover to keep the enemy off your own guys, and an occasional armed recce taking out an occasional truck in the enemy rear areas, *plus* double your artillery with five times the ammo per gun, or (2) CAS every now and then, and only the arty you have - then you'd get a different answer.

Which is closer to the real economic decision at the force planning stage. But by the time a ground pounder is calling for air support, he doesn't know anything about such choices, which are water under the bridge by then, anyway. He just either gets some air support, or he gets nothing. He prefers something, so he asks for it.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

Perhaps then CAS, in CM, would be better off 'pinning and panicking' more than causing casualties?

Something like that, although it should still be moderately deadly against soft vehicles or personnel not dug in.

Michael

[JasonC]

The real effect of tac air in WW II conditions was off the CM-scale, tactical battlefield, not on it. Armed recce by fighter bombers reduced logistical deliveries to combat units by taking out trucks and trains, and by restricting the movements of trucks and trains in order to reduce attacks. Everything else was pinprick stuff and ephemeral. That was a real effect.

[dieseltaylor]

I am curious why the observations of the Germans on the receiving end have not been dissected by ME and JC.

I can fully understand the cost free benefit for the Allied ground forces.I have no problem with the ineffectiveness of the TAC against tanks. Particularly in view of the tests carried out in a sister thread on the potency of flak in CMAK and CMBB which showed that if reasonable flak was present TAC was ineffective over the immediate battlefield.

However we do know that the Germans loathed and suffered from the attentions of TAC but we apparently are prepared to take average figures for 5 years of warfare to establish how it felt to be under the cosh in Normandy. Is there much from the Germans in the way of saying it was ineffective and they did not mind it whilst engaged in a battle? I have not come across anything but then my grogginess is not hugely deep.

As has been raised before averaging out can really distort but I am happy if we can reconcile to a degree the recorded feelings of the Germans to the average effectiveness as postulated.

It is amusing to think that Wittman in Normandy, if gamed by the averaging crowd, would have been seen as showing a flaw in the rules. But it did happen in RL despite averages and everything else so perhaps we should accept that on the very small areas we fight on, and the extreme reluctance of anyone to retreat off-board, then bloody battles will occur far more than normal life and of course will be above average in losses also.

[Guest Mike]

The psychological effect of air attack was enough to make at least some tankers abandon perfectly serviceable tanks - that's how powerful it could be without hitting anything at all.

[JonS]

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

However we do know that the Germans loathed and suffered from the attentions of TAC but we apparently are prepared to take average figures for 5 years of warfare to establish how it felt to be under the cosh in Normandy. Is there much from the Germans in the way of saying it was ineffective and they did not mind it whilst engaged in a battle?

Most (all?) of the stuff I've seen from the German side refering to CAS (well, Armed Recce) talk about the effects supply lines and operational/strategic moves. Especially, they refer to the delay, disorganisation occasioned by each air attack. When losses are mentioned it's generally a few men, and a few trucks. The other main mention is of the use of heavy bomber in direct support of ground forces (GOODWOOD, COBRA, TOTALISE, etc), which is of course a different beast.

It is amusing to think that Wittman in Normandy, if gamed by the averaging crowd, would have been seen as showing a flaw in the rules.

Yes, misrepresenting someone's position is always amusing.

perhaps we should accept that on the very small areas we fight on, and the extreme reluctance of anyone to retreat off-board, then bloody battles will occur far more than normal life and of course will be above average in losses also.

You are of course welcome to accept that. However, it seems to me a particularly poor way to approach the problem. You eat the elephant by taking it one bite at a time, not by ignoring it and starting on dessert.

[ August 29, 2005, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[dieseltaylor]

"However, it seems to me a particularly poor way to approach the problem. You eat the elephant by taking it one bite at a time, not by ignoring it and starting on desert."

Gobi anyone?

[ozi_digger]

Well the weaponeering book has arrived and I found another text in the library.

The other text is Ian Gooderson, Air Power at the Battle Front: Allied Close Air Support in Europe 1943-45 .

His account sums up the pros and cons of CAS and armed reconnaissance and includes some weapon accuracy figures gathered by some ground-truth teams (even though ground-truth can be misleading a la Wittman).

Some of the tables I'll post soon.

He includes some first hand accounts from Germans.

To sum up, Gooderson says CAS was effectual but flawed by drawbacks such as the air vs armour myth (which he fully acknowledges). CAS was effective against soft targets (kill) and to produce a demoralising effect against other targets (neutralise). It was useful when artillery was unavailable or to support airborne ops. It was useful ahead of an armoured spearhead. It produced its best effects when an artillery bombardment had little effect and a short, sharp dose of hurt and pain from above was needed to produce a breakthrough (*sorry, my air power bias is showing, I'll just cover that up*)

Interesting, though, from his reading is that I get the impression that CAS in CM is modelled more toward armed reconnaissance - a single or pair of aircraft appearing at a random time and attacking targets of opportunity, rather than a flight of fighter-bombers arriving 'on call'. IMHO the question of CAS or armed reccie, in the CM setting, is purely semantics.

[JonS]

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

Ian Gooderson, Air Power at the Battle Front: Allied Close Air Support in Europe 1943-45 .

Good book. Highly reccomended.

[ozi_digger]

As promised, I have a table to post.

"Typhoon Scale of Effort Necessary Against Typical Targets"

Note: Low-stress data taken from armament practice camp firing 3" rockets from 1000-2000m

Target: Small Gun Position, Size: 5yds diam., Horizontal Projected Area (45deg. dive) 19 sqyds, % Shots Hitting Target: 0.2, For 50% Chance of Hit - Rockets Needed: 350 & No. Sorties: 44.

Target: Panther Tank, Size: 22'6"x10'9"x9'10", Hor. Proj. Area (45deg.): 50 sqyds, % Shots Hitting Target: 0.5%, For 50% Chance of Hit - Rockets Needed: 140 & Sorties: 18.

Target: Large Gun Posn, Size: 10yds diam., Hor. Proj. Area (45deg.): 80 sqyds, % Shots Hit: 0.8, For 50% Chance of Hit - Rockets Needed: 88 & Sorties: 11.

Target: Army Hut, Size: 60'x30'x20', Hor. Proj. Area (45 deg.): 270 sqyds, % Shots Hit: 2.8, For 50% Chance of Hit - Rockets Needed: 24 & Sorties: 3.

Target: Large Building, Size: 120'x54'x50', Hor. Proj. Area (45 deg.): 1000 sqyds, % Shots Hit: 10, For 50% Chance of Hit - Rockets Needed: 7 & Sorties: 1.

Note low % hits, and these are the low-stress figures! RAF Op Research boffins noted that a 10mph wind could result in significant changes in MPI.

"CAS Attacks on Gun Positions and Strongpoints 1945" (high-stress)

.......................Rockets........Bombs

No. of Attacks...........37............11

No. Within 150yds........33(89%)........5(45%)

Note rockets more accurate but have less destructive effect.

High Stress Bombing Against Point Target: average radial error 158 yards, with CEP = 130 yds.

High Stress Bombing of Rail (linear) Target: average line error 69 yds, with CEP = 50 yds.

Low-stress Straffing Accuracy (bomb camp)

Weapon.........Rds/Attack/Acft......Hits on 10sqft

20mm................120..................32(27%)

3" rocket.............8..................0.045

End result: straffing much more accurate than rockets and bombs.

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

As promised, I have a table to post.

"Typhoon Scale of Effort Necessary Against Typical Targets"

Note: Low-stress data taken from armament practice camp firing 3" rockets from 1000-2000m

Target: Small Gun Position, Size: 5yds diam., Horizontal Projected Area (45deg. dive) 19 sqyds, % Shots Hitting Target: 0.2, For 50% Chance of Hit - Rockets Needed: 350 & No. Sorties: 44.

Target: Panther Tank, Size: 22'6"x10'9"x9'10", Hor. Proj. Area (45deg.): 50 sqyds, % Shots Hitting Target: 0.5%, For 50% Chance of Hit - Rockets Needed: 140 & Sorties: 18.

Target: Large Gun Posn, Size: 10yds diam., Hor. Proj. Area (45deg.): 80 sqyds, % Shots Hit: 0.8, For 50% Chance of Hit - Rockets Needed: 88 & Sorties: 11.

Target: Army Hut, Size: 60'x30'x20', Hor. Proj. Area (45 deg.): 270 sqyds, % Shots Hit: 2.8, For 50% Chance of Hit - Rockets Needed: 24 & Sorties: 3.

Target: Large Building, Size: 120'x54'x50', Hor. Proj. Area (45 deg.): 1000 sqyds, % Shots Hit: 10, For 50% Chance of Hit - Rockets Needed: 7 & Sorties: 1.

Note low % hits, and these are the low-stress figures! RAF Op Research boffins noted that a 10mph wind could result in significant changes in MPI.

"CAS Attacks on Gun Positions and Strongpoints 1945" (high-stress)

.......................Rockets........Bombs

No. of Attacks...........37............11

No. Within 150yds........33(89%)........5(45%)

Note rockets more accurate but have less destructive effect.

High Stress Bombing Against Point Target: average radial error 158 yards, with CEP = 130 yds.

High Stress Bombing of Rail (linear) Target: average line error 69 yds, with CEP = 50 yds.

Low-stress Straffing Accuracy (bomb camp)

Weapon.........Rds/Attack/Acft......Hits on 10sqft

20mm................120..................32(27%)

3" rocket.............8..................0.045

End result: straffing much more accurate than rockets and bombs.

Actually i do not beleive that these data answer the question about the effectiveness of Typhoon.

They make things more complicated.

I do not have the book and it seems really an interesting one.

For the time being i just read your table and notice the following things.

First , i am not familiar with close support tactics but i was wondering since the beginning about the choice of range in firing rockets.

It seemed to me that 1000 to 2000 meters was too much.

Maybe when you dive to hit the target this might be typical but i was not sure if this was the only method used to attack ground targets.

So i was not so much surprised when i saw a little bit later an interesting paragraph from your data.

Look the data about strafing and notice that strafing is not limited only to 20mm rounds but it can also include rockets!

It is even more interesting to pay attantion to results .

The data regarding strafing talk about number of hits on a 10 sqfeet target!!.

That is really a very small surface compared to the data used about hits from a 1000-2000 range.

Notice now that during strafing we have 0.045 hit after firing 8 rockets against a target of 10 sq feet surface.

On the other hand a target will be certainly larger than that.

We do not know how much larger since this will depend on the relative position of the aircraft to the tank but consider that during the previous case of firing rockets from a 1000-2000 meters ,the data give a surface of 50 sqyards for a panther tank.

A surface of 50 sq yards is equal with 450 sq feet!!

Now if we have 0.045 hits inside a target of 10 sq feet, how many hits we can expect inside a target 45 times larger (450 sq feet) ?

Tough question to answer without going to details but again imagine that if someone claims that the number of hits will be also 45 bigger then suddenly the 0.045 hits per 8 rockets, becomes

2.025 hits per 8 rockets.

That is 2 out of 8 rockets strike the target area

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Rockets were horribly inaccurate. Your 450 square foot target wouldn't get hit by anything like 2 out of 8 rockets. Look at the stats for a 50% chance to hit on a Panther sized target. Takes 18 sorties and 140 rockets.

Also 1000-2000m is not long range by any means. At 300mph you are covering 146.6 yards/second. You only have a few seconds after firing to make sure you don't augur in at that range.

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe:

Rockets were horribly inaccurate. Your 450 square foot target wouldn't get hit by anything like 2 out of 8 rockets. Look at the stats for a 50% chance to hit on a Panther sized target. Takes 18 sorties and 140 rockets.

Also 1000-2000m is not long range by any means. At 300mph you are covering 146.6 yards/second. You only have a few seconds after firing to make sure you don't augur in at that range.

All you say is right as long as we do not talk about strafing.

When we talk about strafing using rockets , the table gives different data .

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Originally posted by pamak1970:

All you say is right as long as we do not talk about strafing.

When we talk about strafing using rockets , the table gives different data .

The table does not give "different data". You are saying that increasing the target size by 45 times increases the accuracy by 45 times and that is clearly not the case. The data shows that it takes 140 rockets just to get a 50% chance of ONE hit on that 450 sq ft target.

By the way, strafing is just the term that refers to making a low level fired ordnance attack against a ground target. Doesn't matter whether you use machine guns, cannon, or rockets.

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by pamak1970:

All you say is right as long as we do not talk about strafing.

When we talk about strafing using rockets , the table gives different data .

The table does not give "different data". You are saying that increasing the target size by 45 times increases the accuracy by 45 times and that is clearly not the case. The data shows that it takes 140 rockets just to get a 50% chance of ONE hit on that 450 sq ft target.

By the way, strafing is just the term that refers to making a low level fired ordnance attack against a ground target. Doesn't matter whether you use machine guns, cannon, or rockets. </font>

[Guest Mike]

Accuracy doesn't increase - the weapons are no more accurate than they were before.

The number of hits increases - but that's not the same thing

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by Mike:

Accuracy doesn't increase - the weapons are no more accurate than they were before.

The number of hits increases - but that's not the same thing

I remember there was a similar issue in another thread about the term of accuracy.

Anyway,i think it is better to use the term accuracy regardless of any objections so that we can follow more easily the data provided by the tables.

For example when the table about strafing is labeled "low-stress strafing accuracy" we can make things much more easy by sticking to the same term .

We might say that the table links the word accuracy with the "strafing", not the "weapon".

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Okay, I can see there is no reason to read this anymore, but, fwiw, strafing is the act. There are not strafing and non-strafing data above.

Everything in the earlier data post is in regard to strafing. Any attack involving rockets is strafing, unless you are at 10,000 feet and just hosing them off at nothing to waste the taxpayers money.

We have already seen the results of firing at a 450 sq ft target above, the Panther. Number of rockets to get ONE FREAKING HIT as stated before.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe:

Any attack involving rockets is strafing, unless you are at 10,000 feet and just hosing them off at nothing to waste the taxpayers money.

Well, yo could nearly as justifiably say that hosing them off at 400 ft was a waste of taxpayers money

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe:

Okay, I can see there is no reason to read this anymore, but, fwiw, strafing is the act. There are not strafing and non-strafing data above.

Everything in the earlier data post is in regard to strafing. Any attack involving rockets is strafing, unless you are at 10,000 feet and just hosing them off at nothing to waste the taxpayers money.

We have already seen the results of firing at a 450 sq ft target above, the Panther. Number of rockets to get ONE FREAKING HIT as stated before.

i can not force you talk about the data.

Have a nice day

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by pamak1970:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mike:

Accuracy doesn't increase - the weapons are no more accurate than they were before.

The number of hits increases - but that's not the same thing

I remember there was a similar issue in another thread about the term of accuracy.

Anyway,i think it is better to use the term accuracy regardless of any objections so that we can follow more easily the data provided by the tables.

For example when the table about strafing is labeled "low-stress strafing accuracy" we can make things much more easy by sticking to the same term .

We might say that the table links the word accuracy with the "strafing", not the "weapon". </font>

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by Mike:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by pamak1970:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mike:

Accuracy doesn't increase - the weapons are no more accurate than they were before.

The number of hits increases - but that's not the same thing

I remember there was a similar issue in another thread about the term of accuracy.

Anyway,i think it is better to use the term accuracy regardless of any objections so that we can follow more easily the data provided by the tables.

For example when the table about strafing is labeled "low-stress strafing accuracy" we can make things much more easy by sticking to the same term .

We might say that the table links the word accuracy with the "strafing", not the "weapon". </font>