Close air support

[Tactical Wargamer]

How realistic to have close air support in the size of maps within CMBN. How accurate should it be?

Is a FOO normally with a Battalion.

[YankeeDog]

Not very in the Normandy timeframe.

First, the easy part; Germans:

The Germans basically didn't have any coordinated CAS in Normandy. In limited instances, the Luftwaffe managed to stage quick hit-and-run attacks by small numbers of planes on Allied forces in Normandy. But these were not directly coordinated with ground action. Coordinating airstrikes with ground controllers generally requires the aircraft to loiter over the target area, something the Luftwaffe simply couldn't safely do in June, 1944.

Now, Allies:

Very late in the Normandy campaign (mid-August), both Americans and the British began to implement true CAS systems that placed Fighter-Bombers "on station" above the forward elements of attacking forces. These systems put planes in direct contact with Forward Air Observers in the advancing columns on the ground. There are earlier examples of formal CAS systems in WWII (e..g, U.S. Marines in the Pacific), but Mid-August was the earliest that really formal and organized CAS systems were used by the Allies in the ETO. It was extremely expensive logistically (bear in mind that they didn't have aerial refueling in 1944 to keep the F/Bs in the air for extended periods of time), so this wasn't the sort of thing that was available as a matter of course for any old Allied formation anywhere on the front. Prior to Mid-August, such close coordination between fighter-bombers and ground action was extremely rare.

More typically, airstrikes close to friendly lines were planned well ahead of time. And even then, fratricide incidents happened frighteningly often.

AFAIK, there were was nothing like an organic Forward Air Observer at the Battalion level in Allied forces in 1944. I would have to check sources, but my recollection is that once the Allies began to experiment with Forward Air Observers, these were organized at a higher level, and assigned to lower-level formations on an as-needed basis.

[Tactical Wargamer]

When you say "More typically, airstrikes close to friendly lines were planned well ahead of time. And even then, fratricide incidents happened frighteningly often." does that mean pre-placing turn 0 area support missions would be realistic during the early normandy campaign scenarios or not?

[Michael Emrys]

...does that mean pre-placing turn 0 area support missions would be realistic during the early normandy campaign scenarios or not?

Depends on what you are trying to depict. If the firefight in your battle is part of the opening of a major action, then yes, it is reasonable to have some preparatory air support. If it is just a company of troops that have happened to run into opposition, then no. Also probably not if it is after the first day of an ongoing operation, although you might have a little wiggle room there.

There really wasn't a lot of CAS in Normandy prior to mid-August as YD posted. Allied air power was mostly devoted to interdiction, reconnaissance, and artillery direction.

Michael

[Tactical Wargamer]

Fair enough thanks for the response. What would constitute a Major action? ie. Size of the units. Would it be in the scale of CMBN for turn 0 attacks.

[YankeeDog]

It has less to do with the size of the units involved than it does how far in advance the action was planned. In the case of something like an assault where the plans were drawn up a day or more ahead of time, pre-planned airstrikes by fighter-bombers to soften up known or suspected enemy positions could certainly be realistic. Not the most common way of doing things, mind you, but definitely not totally ahistorical.

It all depends on the conditions at hand. Generally, ground artillery was preferred for doing prep fire close to friendly positions as you'd see on most CM-sized maps, but there were cases where, for whatever reason, fighter-bombers were used for this kind of job (and heck, even medium and heavy bombers, if you want to include the action around St. Lo).

[Michael Emrys]

What would constitute a Major action?

A corps sized offensive. Mind, I'm not saying that you have to have the whole corps on the map, but the action you are depicting would be a key part of such an attack.

Would it be in the scale of CMBN for turn 0 attacks.

See above. Also see YD's comments in post above.

Michael

[Wolseley]

Hah! This very issue was the subject of my MA thesis.

In essence, I would endorse Michael Emrys's comments above.

Just to add my two cents, here are some links:

I have a website with some detailed explanation of how (British/Commonwealth) air support worked: http://tactical-airpower.tripod.com/system.html

In particular, this page details the (somewhat cumbersome) standard arrangements for calling in airstrikes: http://tactical-airpower.tripod.com/standard.html

In a nutshell: air support teams were not deployed lower than brigade HQs, and would take at least an hour to get air support on target.

I also published a quite detailed article in the journal Air Power History, copy available here: http://pauldjohnston.tripod.com/brit-us-tacair.pdf

Cheers,

Paul Johnston

[Tactical Wargamer]

Thanks guys you put to rest a debate in our LAN group!

Cheers

[JonS]

Cheers,

Paul Johnston

Well, it's a distinct pleasure to see you posting here. I've devoured most (all?) of your writings, and referred to them often in these kinds of discussions.

Thanks

Jon Sowden

P.S. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=87069 is an old thread, from long before CMBN was released, that covers CAS in Normandy. It includes a very broad-brush conception of Allied CAS in normandy, split between June, July, and August.

[CM1fan]

As I recall my CM1 experiences with close air support, I never knew how it would work out. If I had a budget with which to purchase my forces, the CAS cost a lot. I'd only buy CAS when I expected my opponent was more skilled at CM1 than I was -- which admittedly was most of the time.

If the CAS broke right and mostly attacked my opponent's units, it could turn the situation in my favor. If the CAS broke wrong, my expected tactical defeat would just turn into a major defeat. [in duplicate bridge circles, buying CAS would be called a top or bottom bid.]

In CM1, both German CAS, whenever it was available, and German rocket and Nebelwerfer fire were similarly dual-edged purchases, sometimes inflicting heavy allied casualties, sometimes German casualties, and sometimes no casualties at all.

[Michael Emrys]

Thanks guys you put to rest a debate in our LAN group!

BTW, since you cast your original question in terms of historical authenticity, that's the way you were answered. But also keep in mind that CM is a game and thus can be played many ways. If you ever want to set up a QB or scenario with CAS just to see how it looks and plays, well by all means knock yourself out! Have fun and don't feel guilty about it. Just remember that you have taken a step into The Twilight Zone®.

Michael

[Steiner14]

Translation:

"The Flivo observes and guides from a radio equipped armoured vehicle (in this case a Sd.Kfz. 250/3) the employment of bombers, usually Stukas. He was responsible that the ground operations of the army were supported at the exact time by fire from the air."

[Sublime]

Steiner - while Im not debating that the Germans had FOOs somewhere in their military, I doubt very much they were common at all. And even further - they have no place in Normandy of '44, at least not a battle trying to be historically accurate that is.

By the by, notice the FOO's arms in a sling? And it looks like he's wearing a pilots helmet. Is the Ost Front Luftwaffe punishment for breaking a limb while drunk? Go out with the landsers and spot for the pilots?

[pzr_leader]

so, having some allied plane straffe my troops over and over and aover and over with terrifying accuracy is not strictly realistic. the hell you say...