Mother F***ing Flyboys

[Redwolf]

Just reading a book with pix of the aftermath of a friendly fire incident in 1940. Some Stukas nailed the spearhead of the German attack near a French town named Chemery. (Going by memory.) Several dozen casualties.

That's just a quick example I read about in passing in the last week. There were many more.

But ask redwolf whether or not that example is ridiculous.

That's a valid example for the attacks modeled in CM.

Now, to make it a useful example you need the number of attacks that did not cause friendly fire so that we can look at the percentage.

[Hessian deserter]

Thanks for the feedback, Friends. And thanks BFC for this amazing MG module. Playing the missions in this module, there is such a realistic sense of immersion that I feel as if I am participating in the actual MG battles! and I like the new ditch feature's...Rave on and Kudos!!!!

[ASL Veteran]

That's a valid example for the attacks modeled in CM.

Now, to make it a useful example you need the number of attacks that did not cause friendly fire so that we can look at the percentage.

Obviously that sort of data is probably impossible to obtain. However, the good thing is that since the developers are using the same unreliable data set as the players, there is no basis for an argument that the developer's opinion on this topic is any less valid than that of anyone else.

What you fail to understand is that the burden of proof isn't on the developer to meet some mythical standard, but rather for the player to show that the developer is wrong and that a change or adjustment needs to be made. The game has the information modelled in the game now and thus is the current default behavior. Unless someone can prove otherwise that default behavior isn't going to change. Why? Because that behavior is already in the game and your desired behavior isn't.

Before you make attempts at being a clever disruptor fighting the good fight on behalf of those pining for the days of CMx1 redux you have to understand what the score is, what pieces are on the board, and how to play the game.

[db_zero]

Many of the examples pointed out were missions flown by the Army Air Force-not because they wanted to, but ordered to. Eisenhower demanded control of the Army Air Force for a period before and after the Normandy landings. The Army Air Corps was more interested in strategic bombing.

The Pacific was a whole different beast. Island hopping and naval operations would be next to impossible without land based air.

In WW2 the Air Force was under the Army. After the war the Army Air Corps demanded and got independence to become the USAF and in the divorce got the airplanes and control over how they would be used. The Army was by law forbidden to operate armed fixed wing aircraft-something that I think still exists to this day.

The Army was allowed to have the newfangled helicopters. Some believe if the Air Force knew the Army would eventually arm helicopters and turn them into gunships they would have had congress forbid the Army from having them in 1947.

The rumor that the Air Force always hated the A-10 and wanted to get rid of it back in the 70's and 80's still exists. So does the rumor the Army has coveted the A-10 and wouldn't mind having them....

[Redwolf]

If CAS missions from fighters had the friendly fire rate that CMx2 represents they would have been stopped. Just like the larger bomber using missions around the Normandy breakout had been canceled because they hit friendlies too often.

[Redwolf]

Obviously that sort of data is probably impossible to obtain. However, the good thing is that since the developers are using the same unreliable data set as the players, there is no basis for an argument that the developer's opinion on this topic is any less valid than that of anyone else.

If studies of sample size 1 are your thing more power to you.

What you fail to understand is that the burden of proof isn't on the developer to meet some mythical standard, but rather for the player to show that the developer is wrong and that a change or adjustment needs to be made. The game has the information modelled in the game now and thus is the current default behavior. Unless someone can prove otherwise that default behavior isn't going to change. Why? Because that behavior is already in the game and your desired behavior isn't.

Before you make attempts at being a clever disruptor fighting the good fight on behalf of those pining for the days of CMx1 redux you have to understand what the score is, what pieces are on the board, and how to play the game.

How was CMx1 CAS any better?

[c3k]

Redwolf,

Why don't you tell us how many CAS missions actually flown in WWII were as close to the troops as the ones in the game? C'mon, give us a percentage so we can figure out what to do.

Sheesh.

CAS in WWII was USUALLY much further ahead of the troops. BECAUSE of the issue of fratricide.

Let me use a "ridiculous" example. When the air support was desired to be more effective, there were DAYS of planning and it still killed friendlies. Get it? Planned attacks killed friendlies. Unplanned, on-call, attacks killed friendlies. See the parallel? Or is it still too ridiculous for you.

How many combatants used CAS as shown in game? How often, based on the total number of CAS sorties flown, were they done as close as is shown in game? How many of them resulted in fratricide? (Please break it down based on the target types involved; infantry only, tanks only, geographic positions, or a combination of the previous.)

We await your analysis.

Seriously. Or ridiculously.

Ken

[Buzz]

"Unless someone can prove otherwise that default behavior isn't going to change. Why? Because that behavior is already in the game and your desired behavior isn't. "

Makes sense to me. If it was "Combat Mission Redwolf" then it would play the default way Redwolf wants it to and his customers would have to enjoy it as is or lobby for changes or not buy the product. Battlefront has a solid track record of proving products that sell and improving products in response to customer input.

"....the Army would eventually arm helicopters and turn them into gunships..."

I saw the tragic results of helicopter gunship "friendly fire" in Viet Nam. Good friend was really, really messed up because of danger close, unclear location of forces and jungle.

I am fortunate enough to often witness Naval Air training with F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters. A couple of months ago walking our dog, I heard the F-18 going very low and slow. I ran out in the road intersection and waved my bright yellow dog poop bag and jumped up and down to get the pilots attention. Imagine my surprise when I saw him salute from the cockpit and dip his left wing 90 degrees at me and my dog! I wish I could pilot one of those birds.

I was surprised he could see me that well but then I could see him in the cockpit salute. Now if the pilot was at training speed probably not. I can barely keep track of a pair of them flying low across the sky. Unmistakable roar and .... ZIP! Air power kicks a**!

Then there are drones snipers in the sky.

Sorry... I will go walk the dog with my my bright yellow dog poop bag cause you never know

[YankeeDog]

Really?

We all know friendly fire from fighter aircraft happened often on an absolute scale. How do you know it happened often on a relative scale, as in number of close air support missions in relation to those which hit friendlies?

If the ratio was about what it is in CMx2, would they have continued giving CAS at all?

I really think we're making a mountain out of a molehill here. I don't remember the last time I had a CAS friendly fire incident. To achieve this reliability, I usually use CAS point targets, which IME rarely, if ever, go awry. Point target CAS missions will sometimes scrub if the pilot fails to gain LOS to the target point (watch out for point targets into thick woods!), but I don't think I've ever seen one deviate significantly from the target coordinates (beyond expected dispersion).

On the uncommon occasions when I do plot CAS area targets, I keep friendlies at least 400m from the edge of the target area.

Given the communications and spotting restrictions of WWII ground attack aircraft, all of this seems quite reasonable to me. If you tell your pilots to drop ordnance on a specific ground coordinate, the chances of fratricide are very low. If you give your pilots a license to hunt, but keep friendlies well outside of the "kill box", the chances of fratricide are low. Its when you tell your pilots to hunt close to friendlies that you're risking it.

Seems fine to me...

[Placebo]

I think it works fine as is, there is more than enough evidence to show blue on blue contacts in modern warfare let alone back in WW2. I was really commenting on my own mis-fortunes in using CAS, it is not meant as dissatisfaction on the way the game models CAS as I think it is about right.

[Ultradave]

Redwolf,

...

CAS in WWII was USUALLY much further ahead of the troops. BECAUSE of the issue of fratricide.

...

Ken

And things haven't changed much. Even today, you want plenty of room between you and the Air Force. :-) That's not a slam against the Air Force... it's just that they carry a big, big punch and you want to be well clear when they arrive. (at least when the subject is bombs, not rockets)

1. They are moving very fast and therefore dumb bombs have a large probable error that is football shaped, like naval gunfire. We were taught that you NEVER EVER want it coming in with the line of fire/drop the direction you are facing (coming over your head). Always from as much of a right angle to your line of view as possible. That way the error hits the bad guys.

2. 500lb bombs are big. That sounds silly but my point is that the destruction they cause is amazing compared to artillery and it's much more dangerous to be close than "danger close" artillery. For example the warhead of a 105mm is about 35lbs, a 155mm about 95lbs, and an 8" about 250lbs.

3. Hold your position until the air strike is over. Nothing is worse than having the situation on the ground change before the pilot(s) get there. Back in WWII I don't think there was much chance , if any, of communicating changes to the pilots on the way.

Obviously today's modern precision guided munitions alleviate some of this, however, the basic principles are still valid and there are plenty of uses for inexpensive dumb bombs. A fighter bomber low and fast has a split second many times to determine where to drop.

[Buzz]

I think it works fine as is, there is more than enough evidence to show blue on blue contacts in modern warfare let alone back in WW2. I was really commenting on my own mis-fortunes in using CAS, it is not meant as dissatisfaction on the way the game models CAS as I think it is about right.

I think most took your comments as your own mis-fortunes in using CAS dissatisfaction with the game.

Ultradave"..."A fighter bomber low and fast has a split second many times to determine where to drop." I would not want to even vaguely resemble a possible target with a fighter bomber low and fast anywhere near me with a 500lb bomb!

[Michael Emrys]

I would not want to even vaguely resemble a possible target with a fighter bomber low and fast anywhere near me with a 500lb bomb!

And the standard bomb may be two to four times as big as that. There is a reason why the use of laser and GPS guided bombs in CAS has increased vastly in the last 20 years, and that is because they are much safer to use close to your own troops.

Going back to WW II and the ETO, control and coordination of CAS improved greatly after the Cobra breakout. This was mainly due to the inclusion of tacair pilots in armored vehicles with VHF radios that allowed them to communicate directly with the pilots in the cockpits to direct them onto targets in real time. It also helped if targets were marked with colored smoke so that the flyers could see where to put their ordnance. Of course there were never enough FAC to go around, so they were usually only attached to the spearheads of attacks or other prioritized forces. Everybody else just had to tough it out.

Michael

[womble]

Of course, any assessment as to the verisimilitude of the frequency of fratricide events in game has to account for the possibly ahistorical actions of the friendly troops mistakenly targetted. If the "general player" is pressing harder on his aerial barrage, with more elements up and moving than his historical counterpart, of course "general results" in-game would tend to end up with more blue-on-blue, even if the model of the TacAir behaviour was 100% accurate to historical performance.

[James Crowley]

Lieutenant General Horrocks, c.o. XXX Corps, commenting on Typhoon operations at the start of Market Garden on 17 September 1944:

'and the Typhoons literally shot the infantry onto their objectives, the rockets landing within 200 yds of our leading troops. Nothing could stand up to this and after some bitter infantry fighting the enemy crust was pierced'.

[kensal]

British tactical doctrine was to stay close as possible to an advancing barrage, the watchword being 'the closer you are the safer you are'. Inevitably there would some loss from shorts but on balance that risk was seen to be a lesser evil than letting the enemy get their heads up and MGs firing. More usual with artillery than air power but by September the British and probably the Americans too were a lot more sophisticated in controlling tac air than they were in June.

[akd]

British tactical doctrine was to stay close as possible to an advancing barrage, the watchword being 'the closer you are the safer you are'.

Not relevant to close air support for a number of reasons.

[kensal]

Not relevant to close air support for a number of reasons.

I was responding to the previous post which mentioned CAS being targeted 200 yards ahead of the advancing troops which suggests that the same doctrine was being applied. I agree that it was not usual, as I also say in my post.

[kensal]

Also I've seen the film and the CAS was definitely very close to the Irish Guards in the breakout from Valkenswaard

[sburke]

If studies of sample size 1 are your thing more power to you.

Isn't that what started you down this road, one user stating what their experience has been? Did you stop to ask what other players experience has been before you headed down this path of implying that BF has missed the boat on CAS effectiveness?

To get this back on track beyond simply a funny though frustrated player's experience (which is all it was to begin with before your latest unsupported critique) we would need a couple pieces of info.

1. In CM what is the overall experience with friendly fire and aircraft? - in the recent CMFI AAR I seem to recall that CAS was actually pretty damn effective - did you see that platoon get wiped out? Okay yeah that is just another single incident but suddenly the percentage has swung a long way from where it was eh?

2.What was the overall experience with CAS support in RL in WW 2 - good luck on getting that data.

One observation- perhaps you should play the game more, you might actually have some relevant experience to refer back to before wandering down these paths.

[Andrew H.]

On the uncommon occasions when I do plot CAS area targets, I keep friendlies at least 400m from the edge of the target area.

I really like CAS area targets because they can attack units I can't see and don't know about, often while they are on the move. They also give me a clue as to where the enemy units are based on where they are strafing.

But I almost always do this as a preplanned attack (usually scheduled for 5 minutes in), and I will conceal AFVs and hide troops during the attack.

[Ultradave]

Ultradave"..."A fighter bomber low and fast has a split second many times to determine where to drop." I would not want to even vaguely resemble a possible target with a fighter bomber low and fast anywhere near me with a 500lb bomb!

Yeah, that's the idea. Make REAL sure the flyboys know where you are and where the bad guys are. :-)

Although I jest about the Air Force in my comments, I used to be a field artillery officer in the 82d Airborne, and as such, especially as a young 2LT FIST Chief, I LOVED the Air Force. What firepower at your disposal on the other end of that radio! The infantry CO I was attached to knew it to, and his instructions were that if he turned around and his elbow didn't hit me I wasn't close enough to him.

Just thought I'd add that in case we come across as insulting the Air Force in any way.

[Vinnart]

I am glad to hear there is finally CAS in CMx2 wwII. I don’t have MG, but I know CMBN base had no stock missions with air power. Going by CMSF, which is the same engine, and had lots of air I recall even for modern air power danger close was even a few hundred meters.

[Lille Fiskerby]

The Typhoons that supported the Irish Guards on the 17.09.1944 during the

XXX Corps breakout came in pretty close, this is from 2nd (Armd) Bn. Irish Guards

war diary :

"Our tanks burnt yellow smoke abundantly and though the rockets landed within 100 yds of them, there was never any likelihood of a mistake, so sure was the pilots’ aim"

[A Canadian Cat]

I really like CAS area targets because they can attack units I can't see and don't know about, often while they are on the move. They also give me a clue as to where the enemy units are based on where they are strafing.

But I almost always do this as a preplanned attack (usually scheduled for 5 minutes in), and I will conceal AFVs and hide troops during the attack.

Same here. I like that the CAS can chew up the enemy's rear area. It makes it hard for them to move around too. I use area targets all the time but I make sure that my men stay way back from the area. Way way back. I have not lost any one since I ran a few training drills to see how easy it was for friendlies to be mistaken and targeted.