Ground Support Aircraft

[l3w53r]

(1)I was just wondering, if the omission of air liason officers(FO's for the Jabo's) were supposed to balance the game or was an oversight.I've read that those guys could put those aerial bombs where they're needed, like a 50 meters north of the bridge or that building west of the church.and they could make the pilots drop the bombs even if friendly units are within about 100 meters of the target and still not hit the friendly units.

(2)I know this has been somewhat asked before, but how will airpower change in CMBB?

Russian's had "organic" ground-support aircraft as far as I know.Meaning- unlike in cmbo,where the aircraft just go around looking for targets of opportunity,the soviet aircraft act like artillery,bombing and strafing when they're needed, when they're needeed.

(3)I've read somewhere that aircraft has 3 classifications.But what I want to know is whether the german's and russian's aircraft's performances would be different from each other,I think the Sturmovik's more lethal than the Stuka-G.

and (4)would the aircraft be seen?what I know is that those sturmovik's strike from tree-top level,literally,so that they would be harder to shootdown(as against the western front approach of go high,dive,try to kill the target)

[The Commissar]

1 and 2 are very good suggestions.

3, as far as I know, the two planes were intended for different roles, but later in the war the experienced Stuka pilots were asked to do anything needed of 'em and could probably pull it off.

The IL-2 was a ground attack air craft as opposed to a dive bomber like the Stuka. The early Stukas only had 4 machine guns and could carry a number of different bombs. The Shturmovik on the other hand had 2 machine guns, 2 cannons, a number of different rockets, bombs ranging up to 600kilo, and a sort of "napalm" bomblet.

I believe later in the war the Stuka was modified to carry a cannon, but don't trust me on that.

4) No, BTS has said that there will be no aircraft representation. I think the main reason is that this will require a lot of work graphically, and since aircraft are used quite rarely, probably wouldn't be worth the effort.

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by l3w53r:

(1)I was just wondering, if the omission of air liason officers(FO's for the Jabo's) were supposed to balance the game or was an oversight.I've read that those guys could put those aerial bombs where they're needed, like a 50 meters north of the bridge or that building west of the church.and they could make the pilots drop the bombs even if friendly units are within about 100 meters of the target and still not hit the friendly units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You may be exaggerating. Early in the campaign, during the fighting in Normandy, identification of targets and bombing accuracy were nowhere near consistently that good. It got a lot better as the war progressed but I believe the kind of accuracy you describe was only consistently achieved in the Pacific by the USMC. BTS got that part of it right. I think the only thing they did wrong is allowing the player to buy the planes singly. They flew in flights of four or squadrons of twelve or sixteen.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar:

The early Stukas only had 4 machine guns...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Three, I believe. Two in the wings and one in the aft cockpit firing to rearward.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I believe later in the war the Stuka was modified to carry a cannon, but don't trust me on that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you are quite right about that. It was fitted with a modified 37mm Flak cannon under each wing.

Michael

[The Commissar]

Michael,

Ju-87 D-3, 1942:

Arnament:

2x 7.9mm (MG-17), in the wing.

2x 7.9mm (MG81Z), location not listed.

My source is the IL-2 Shturmovik sim by 1C Maddox games. Unless this was a typo, I trust their sources, as the rest of the game was very well researched.

[ 10-21-2001: Message edited by: The Commissar ]

[Iron Chef Sakai]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar:

1 and 2 are very good suggestions.

3, as far as I know, the two planes were intended for different roles, but later in the war the experienced Stuka pilots were asked to do anything needed of 'em and could probably pull it off.

The IL-2 was a ground attack air craft as opposed to a dive bomber like the Stuka. The early Stukas only had 4 machine guns and could carry a number of different bombs. The Shturmovik on the other hand had 2 machine guns, 2 cannons, a number of different rockets, bombs ranging up to 600kilo, and a sort of "napalm" bomblet.

I believe later in the war the Stuka was modified to carry a cannon, but don't trust me on that.

4) No, BTS has said that there will be no aircraft representation. I think the main reason is that this will require a lot of work graphically, and since aircraft are used quite rarely, probably wouldn't be worth the effort.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, the ju-87 model r i beleive, was the tank buster, wich was fitted with the 37mm cannon, and was used in roles of searching out and destroying soviet armor, i'm only going from memory here so look it up if you want, i know for a fact it wasnt the models b or d, it's been awhile since i;ve read anyhting on ww2

[Iron Chef Sakai]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar:

Michael,

Ju-87 D-3, 1942:

Arnament:

2x 7.9mm (MG-17), in the wing.

2x 7.9mm (MG81Z), location not listed.

My source is the IL-2 Shturmovik sim by 1C Maddox games. Unless this was a typo, I trust their sources, as the rest of the game was very well researched.

[ 10-21-2001: Message edited by: The Commissar ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the Ju-87D was not the tank buster, it was an improvement on the model b and could fly further, the JU-87R was the tank buster, it was fitted with 2 37mm cannnons, and carried a bomb load

[THumpre]

Early Stukas had 2 mgs in the wings and a single mg mount for the gunner. Later modles had a dual mount for the gunner IIRC

[Patgod]

the Ju87G-2 model was the(a) tank buster.

[The Commissar]

Thanks for the correction Chef, put up the only stats available to me. Im just getting into the whole air combat scene, no tech books as of yet.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

yes, it was the JU-87 type G was was first used for the role of destrying armor, but it used 2x pak 37mm cannons, not 30mm, the r came later , my mistake

[Slapdragon]

The current system used by BTS was adopted after a great deal of research on how aircraft really effected the battalion level battle. Aircraft at this level mostly were cab rank flyers called in to help attack enemy targets from the command structure, for example US air net radios in the hands of air liason and later air radios carried in tanks.

The trick was that these units did not say, "bomb those two tigers over there" they said, "village with resistance 1000 meters from purpole smoke" and let the aircraft choose their own targets.

Really really tight integration of aircraft to battle did occur until Korea.

[Kirill S.]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> BTS has said that there will be no aircraft representation <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The strangest thing, I recently had a dream where I was an Ostwind commander and I saw 2 mustangs firing at me from above.

:cool:

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

yes, it was the JU-87 type G was was first used for the role of destrying armor, but it used 2x pak 37mm cannons, not 30mm, the r came later , my mistake<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One correction: as I stated in my first post, the cannon were not Paks but modified Flaks. If you want to argue that functionally they were Paks, that is another matter, but it tends to confuse their lineage. They were mechanically different and, IIRC, used different ammunition.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

To expand a bit on what Slapdragon has posted, the primary use of tactical airpower in the ETO was emphatically not close direct support, but deep and battlefield interdiction. Their job was to range beyond the frontline and attack enemy units in motion and their logistics and support.

Michael

[offtaskagain]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

One correction: as I stated in my first post, the cannon were not Paks but modified Flaks. If you want to argue that functionally they were Paks, that is another matter, but it tends to confuse their lineage. They were mechanically different and, IIRC, used different ammunition.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were a modified Flak 43 and fired Pzgr 40 (tungsten cored) ammo. There weren't more than a few dozen made but Rudel flew one.

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> BTS got that part of it right. I think the only thing they did wrong is allowing the player to buy the planes singly. They flew in flights of four or squadrons of twelve or sixteen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Michael, the way BTS did *might* be right, in that with even flights of 4 aircraft only one would be diving at the target at a time, the others would be alternating between lookout for enemy fighters & looking for new targets/lining up for the next run.

Gyrene

[Panzer Leader]

Madmatt recently posted a cryptic message where he stated that aircraft representation will be significantly improved...

[Madmatt]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

Madmatt recently posted a cryptic message where he stated that aircraft representation will be significantly improved...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MAY be, I said MAY be....

Madmatt

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by l3w53r:

(2)I know this has been somewhat asked before, but how will airpower change in CMBB?

Russian's had "organic" ground-support aircraft as far as I know.Meaning- unlike in cmbo,where the aircraft just go around looking for targets of opportunity,the soviet aircraft act like artillery,bombing and strafing when they're needed, when they're needeed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting, does not chime with my reading at all - organic at what level, and how were they controlled? How flexible were they, and do you have any specific battles where they came in 'when they're needed'?

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Interesting, does not chime with my reading at all - organic at what level, and how were they controlled? How flexible were they, and do you have any specific battles where they came in 'when they're needed'?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he meant organic in that the pilots grew bean sprouts in their cockpits, because most of the Soviet airforce except the Stumorvocks and the Wheat Cutters flew into battle as independent air regiments, in essence trying to swamp the Germans. Stus and Wheat Cutters were assigned to air regiments, but they were parcelled out in much smaller numbers. Certianly they were not "organic" to any ground formation though.

[Michael Emrys]

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

Interesting, does not chime with my reading at all - organic at what level, and how were they controlled? How flexible were they, and do you have any specific battles where they came in 'when they're needed'?<hr></blockquote>

My knowledge of Soviet aviation is slim, so take this with a grain of salt, but my recollection is that one command of the Soviet airforce was called, not coincidentally, Frontal Aviation and its regiments were more or less permanently assigned to the various fronts to do with as they saw fit. That organic enough?

Michael

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

My knowledge of Soviet aviation is slim, so take this with a grain of salt, but my recollection is that one command of the Soviet airforce was called, not coincidentally, Frontal Aviation and its regiments were more or less permanently assigned to the various fronts to do with as they saw fit. That organic enough?

Michael<hr></blockquote>

Michael, thanks. That's what I thought. Regarding 'organic enough?', depends. The way I understand the Red Army Air Force air-ground liaison system, it was at a fairly high level. There also seems to have been concentration of effort (as with everything else). So I would think that his point 2 ('where they were needed, when they were needed') would only really hold in planned assaults, e.g. the initial breakthrough operations. Thereafter, in a more fluid situation, I somehow doubt that the system could support the allocation of air support 'on the hoof'. Having said that, I think there is merit in making some changes to air support too, but that would be more of a universal matter, not one of 'this nation did this, the other did that' and modelling that explicitly.

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

My knowledge of Soviet aviation is slim, so take this with a grain of salt, but my recollection is that one command of the Soviet airforce was called, not coincidentally, Frontal Aviation and its regiments were more or less permanently assigned to the various fronts to do with as they saw fit. That organic enough?

Michael<hr></blockquote>

Mmm, my understanding of Soviet aviation was that initially, it was a case of "penny-packetism" with individual regiments being assigned to divisions and so on. In the mid-war period, as the Soviet Airforce's strength was built up, they started to experiment with various types of allocation of aircraft to ground commanders but it wasn't until late in the war that they had sufficient strength and understanding that they had to centralise control and place their maximum air effort in support of one Front or another.

I am aware though, that while the overall direction of Soviet air units was a great deal more centralised than in most other airforces, by war's end they were experimenting with Air-Liason officers who would travel behind the foremost units and direct air support to where it was required. Partly this was being done because they now had sufficient radios in most aircraft to make ground-air comms much easier but also because they had found that pre-tasking CAS was difficult in an extremely fluid situation as they had in the last part of the war.

I think I'll have to redig out my copy of "The Soviet Airforce in WWII".

[Michael Emrys]

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

The way I understand the Red Army Air Force air-ground liaison system, it was at a fairly high level. There also seems to have been concentration of effort (as with everything else).<hr></blockquote>

That is consistent with my own meager information.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>So I would think that his point 2 ('where they were needed, when they were needed') would only really hold in planned assaults, e.g. the initial breakthrough operations. Thereafter, in a more fluid situation, I somehow doubt that the system could support the allocation of air support 'on the hoof'.<hr></blockquote>

You are likely right about that too. I really must do some investigation of the subject. The Soviet Air Force in World War II, eh, Brian?

Michael