8th Army Luftwaffe

[Berlichtingen]

A question about airpower. As I understand it, the US Army never really developed a working close air support doctrine. I know the air corps caused merry havoc in the German rear areas, but when hitting targets close to friendly troops they were just as likely to nail friendly troops (I think it was 30th division that got hammered twice). Is this modeled in CM?

[Moon]

Yep. The player has no control over his CAS. The planes are roaming above the battlefield and looking for their targets independently. They are following the same spotting rules like ground units, so the chance to misidentify the enemy is there, and the closer your own guys are to the enemy lines, the bigger the chance that your air power will be more annoying than helpful.

[Mattias]

Are we talking about 8th Air Force here or ordinary TAC?

The former would mean heavy and medium bombers. Never heard them mentioned on chat before.

The latter would mean close air support ability progressively improving to a very high standard in the later parts of the campaign (sure, still risky at times though).

M.

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The latter would mean close air support ability progressively improving to a very high standard in the later parts of the campaign<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never read anything that indicated that they ever achieved a "high standard." The only forces that I have read reaching high standards in close air support were the Germans and the USMC... both of which non entities in CM.

[Mattias]

I just read chapter three in Michael D. Doubler´s "Closing with the Enemy" where he describes the development of US tactical air support during the war in general and during the campaign in western Europe in particular.

Though "high" and "very high" are relative terms of course it seems quite clear from what he writes about the use of "ordinary TAC" (i.e. fighter-bombers plus FAC´s), that they were indeed deployed with dramatically increasing skill and success from the beaches of Normandy and onwards.

In the end reaching what, to me, looks like a high level of proficiency.

Now, heavy and medium bombers, hence my initial question, was another matter entirely.

I assumed you were referring to the ones used by the 8th Air Force, perhaps I was mistaken

M.

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I assumed you were referring to the ones used by the 8th Air Force<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I remember correctly, they were the ones who managed to miss the town of St. Lo... they didn't miss 30th Div waiting outside. They bombed them again later in the war... Aachen I believe.

[Mattias]

Things really do get knotty on the net don’t they

The US never really succeeded in using medium and heavy bombers as a tool for direct tactical air support. These were the ones used by the 8th Air Force.

On the other hand, what I referred to as the "ordinary TAC" was, for example, the fighter-bombers of the IX Tactical Air Command.

Those units matured into a potent and flexible weapon during the course of the campaign in western Europe.

What got me wondering was the name of the topic, "8th Army Luftwaffe" and the fact that Moon´s answer, while covering what has been mentioned before about CAS, did not make clear weather or not bombers are in the game. Nor did he, I guess, intend to.

M

[Guest Big Time Software]

Fighter bombers only in CM. Anything larger than that was used in formations and on general targets. Way too powerful for a CM sized battle, even if it was ever done tactically like that (never to my knowledge). It was even rarely done in a operational support role. Mostly just strategic rear area bombardments with a few exceptions.

Steve

[Guest Bobb]

I believe some unintended "tactical" effects were experenced on other occasions than that imfamous pair before St Lo. For example a town on the northern shoulder of the Bulge, Malmedy, was visited by the 8th on more than one occasion while occupied by US troops; One hundred and twenty five civilians, and 37 US died. The term may have been :the American Luftwaffe".

The use of flying artillery preperations was applied in other actions than St. Lo. The use of it there probably came closer to what was intended than in any other place. Yet shorts in that case and hashed up terrain in all cases created problems. On the recieving end soldiers surviving were often unable to perfom. Still always some who did survive made exploition a dangerous proposition.

These were actions decided at theatre command levels and likely never requested as low as division level. The experence at CM level was either as a misfortune of war or as an awesome display of explosive might and sometimes a massive disappointment as the pattern fell too far back to make any immediate impact on the impending attack. In the front lines either a few survivors or replacements maybe enjoyed a few hours of respite after their attack went in and enemy reinforcements were moving in to plug the hole blown in the rear echelons and transportation facillities. But their turn would come later as the battle moved on.

A question remains for me, did any medium weights participate in the actions of

the Tactical Air Commands? I think some of these aircraft were even modified or designed for such a role. The A20 for instance.