Use of CAS is gamey recon ? (Well, kinda sort of :-)

[Polar]

If you ever saw the great documentary "A Fighter Pilot's Story", he talks about at least one instance where a tank commander lead him to his target... so it did happen, and probably also in the reverse.

But the whole thing about the blown flanking maneuver is kinda silly... if I was a U.S. tank commander and I saw some Thunder bolts hammering something behind me, I'd be on the radio to find out what it was!

Ya just have to deal with it. If you want an even playing field, your Luftwaffe should have put up more of a fight.

I guess I should be complaining as a Allied player that the Allies should have made better tanks, huh? Since the Germans have an unfair advantage in armor.

Joe

------------------

"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

[Terence]

"if I was a U.S. tank commander and I saw some Thunder bolts hammering something behind me, I'd be on the radio to find out what it was!"

yeah, thats what pretty much settles this one for me. When I see the strafing and bombing start, I think "Something is over there, and its interesting enough for the jabos to look at. Hmm, wonder what it is."

[Guest Big Time Software]

Just to pipe in a little here...

CAS recon is no more "gamey" than having one unit on the West side of a hill "report" something to another unit 1000m away on the East side. Currently this is possible because the spotting system is Absolute and not Relative. In other words, CAS functions no differently than any other unit spotting something.

But... as the discussion has shown... there are various ways the troops on the ground would know SOMETHING about the area being bombed. The only difference is that because CM is a game this information is far more accurate than you would have in real life in most situations.

Steve

[JoePrivate]

These are some excerpts from Doubler's 'Closing with the Enemy'.

"Although the HORSEFLY air control system employed in Italy in the spring of 1944 showed great promise, communication problems hampered air-ground operations. FBs and ground formations still had no way of communicating by radio because the VHF radios used in aircraft did not net with the sets used in infantry and armour units."

As a result of the severity of the bocage fighting....

"General Quesada(CoIXTAC) set the standard for cooperation by collocating his HQ with General Bradley's. IX TAC staff personnel permanently manned an Air-Ground Operations center that worked closely with 1st Army HQ. Each 1st Army Division had an AAF air support party and every corps had an air control element. Thirty ground liason officers from 1st Army's G-3 Air staff worked on a permanent basis with every wing, group, and squadron within IX TAC."

"The difficulties aviators had in differentiating enemy targets from friendly forces was the first coordination problem solved in Normandy... Soldiers determined that the best way to mark CAS targets was with artillery smoke shells... Early combat experience showed that FBs could not always appear over the target in time to observe the smoke missions. Direct VHF radio communications between FBs and artillery units solved the problem."

"In Normandy the most common use of CAS was as preparatory bombardments for ground attacks."

"The most important development in air-ground operations in Normandy was the creation of new types of FAC parties and the concept for the effective use of FACs with frontline units was General Quesada's own brainchild... Only an experienced aviator could convey to another pilot in familiar terms the kinds of information needed to guide FBs to their targets."

Prelude to the COBRA offensive...

"The initial plan was to provide each armored column with a VHF radio and an experienced FAC. Eventually Bradley agreed to provide Quesada's IX TAC with Sherman tanks, installed with VHF radios, that would carry FAC parties among the lead elements of armored columns."

"The autumn campaigns led to improvements in the HORSEFLY system of forward air control... expanded air-ground liason teams produced a functional system of airborne FACs. Each TAC dedicated several L-5 Sentinel aircraft to HORSEFLY operations. (mentions earlier fast flying fighter aircraft weren't very successful at spotting the enemy) The typical airplane carried an extensive set of VHF radios that allowed the FAC to talk simultaneously with a FB formation, the corps or division air staff, and the ground units directly below... the improved HORSEFLY system solved almost all of the communication and target identification problems American forces had experienced since North Africa... were a standard practice by the time US divisions were advancing east of the Rhine."

[Doug Beman]

Lessons from the Marines (read in Flags of Our Fathers):

Marines never leave dead or wounded on the battlefield, officers always eat last, the Army is chicken**** in combat, the Navy is worse, and the Air Corps is barely on our side

DjB

[Guest tero]

Originally posted by Polar:

>If you ever saw the great documentary "A Fighter Pilot's Story", he talks about at least one instance where a tank commander lead him to his target... so it did happen, and probably also in the reverse.

How many bomb runs did he tell he made on bogus targets ?

>But the whole thing about the blown flanking maneuver is kinda silly... if I was a U.S. tank commander and I saw some Thunder bolts hammering something behind me, I'd be on the radio to find out what it was!

That would be my action too. But in CM, unless you suffered casualties yourself you can be 100% certain there was somebody from the opposing team in the receiving end. You do not have to radio the pilot to hear he thought he saw a something move in that location but he can not see it anymore.

>Ya just have to deal with it. If you want an even playing field, your Luftwaffe should have put up more of a fight.

Even playing field is not what I am after. I can deal with CAS by buying AAA. I just want to see some randomness in the target selection when it comes to CAS. Historically they shot everything that moves, and that includes branches swaying in the wind. They also hit dummy targets set up by the Germans to deceive the CAS pilots.

>I guess I should be complaining as a Allied player that the Allies should have made better tanks, huh? Since the Germans have an unfair advantage in armor.

But the Allies did have better tanks available.

They just opted not to shift to producing and shipping the Pershing over for fear of depleating the ranks of the armoured divison until sufficient numbers of Pershings were available.

The M3/M5 light tank could have been replaced with a better design long before the M24 was designed but the evaluation team wanted to turn the design into a medium tank and it got buried as it was a failure as a medium tank.

I think there is nothing wrong in the way CM represents CAS except for the fact it is on target 100% of the time. It is TOO perfect and that leaves room for it to be used in fashion that can be said to be gamey.

[Guest tero]

Originally posted by Terence:

>When I see the strafing and bombing start, I think "Something is over there, and its interesting enough for the jabos to look at. Hmm, wonder what it is."

But would you act on it if you knew there was a, say, 50% chance the Jabos hit a bogus target instead of a valid target ?

[Guest KwazyDog]

But do you think that CAS accuracy was that bad though Tero?

Granted I am sure there were times when ordinance was dropped on absolutely nothing, but I think youll find that a good portion of the time is was dropped on at least *something*, be it vehicles, people or even just movement.

This is what CM currently represents, you know generally something is over in that direction, nothing more. If we change is so that 50% of the time they dropped on absolutely nothing, I am sure we would have a lot more upset people, not to mention the fact it would be historically inaccurate...

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 01-10-2001).]

[Guest tero]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

>CAS recon is no more "gamey" than having one unit on the West side of a hill "report" something to another unit 1000m away on the East side.

I agree in principle. But with units on the deck you have at least that one unit which does the spotting "legitimately". With the CAS being 100% on target you can hope to use it as flank picket security (an extreme example I know ) and you can deploy the ground units accordingly. That is a luxury the commanders could not afford historically.

>Currently this is possible because the spotting system is Absolute and not Relative. In other words, CAS functions no differently than any other unit spotting something.

Would you say that CAS being 100% on target is historically accurate ?

>But... as the discussion has shown... there are various ways the troops on the ground would know SOMETHING about the area being bombed. The only difference is that because CM is a game this information is far more accurate than you would have in real life in most situations.

That is why I for one would like to see CAS hit targets that are not legitimate from time to time. To have them get fixated on a bogus target XX % of the time would be both historically accurate and it would diminish the "gamey recon" aspect to a level that would also historically accurate. Or at least acceptable.

[Bastables]

take a look at this page and click on the section that deals with Allied air power. http://home.swipnet.se/normandy/articles/article.html

------------------

Absolutely Shatter, you have been completely misunderstood. When Andreas, Chuppy and Peter posted pictures of themselves at the IWM I took the earliest opportunity to complement Chuppy on how hot he looked in that T-shirt. Of course the next time an appropriate thread about the front bogey wheel on the Matilda II came up I skillfully insinuated a subtle remark about what a spunk PeterNZ was and a redhead too!

But alas, shatter, everyone thought I was a dickhead as well.

------------------

Muddying the waters as usual.

by Simon Fox

Mr T says "I pity the foo!"

[Guest tero]

>But do you think that CAS accuracy was that bad though Tero?

Nononononono. The accuracy of CAS as such is not the issue.

I am just concerned that gamey recon is acceptable in one case but not the other. As a matter of cause.

>Granted I am sure there were times when ordinance was dropped on absolutely nothing, but I think youll find that a good portion of the time is was dropped on at least *something*, be it vehicles, people or even just movement.

Yes. But in CM, the game, there is 100% certainty CAS picked a unit (what ever unit) as a target. In WWII, the real thing, CAS was not that consistent. There are examples how CAS had supposedly cleared an area in front of the advancing armour but it turned out they had barely scratched the paint of the panzers.

>This is what CM currently represents, you know generally something is over in that direction, nothing more.

With the preference on armour you can questimate both the direction of the treath AND its nature.

>If we change is so that 50% of the time they dropped on absolutely nothing, I am sure we would have a lot more upset people, not to mention the fact it would be historically inaccurate...

Not from what I have read.

While the Allies congratulated themselves for haveing created a monster the sad truth is most of the ordnance expended was expended on targets that were not verified.

Mind you, I am not trying to belittle the value of CAS, only the "established version" of the damage it inflicted on frontline combat troops.

[Guest tero]

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

take a look at this page and click on the section that deals with Allied air power. http://home.swipnet.se/normandy/articles/article.html

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Than you for the support.

[Dschugaschwili]

What's the problem here anyways? If my opponent really wants to spend 225 points to get a tiny amount of information about my forces, I don't have any problems with that. Think about it that way: if the pilot has dropped the bomb on an infantry/support unit or a vehicle, it's now dead. If was a tank and it has survived, it might be anywhere by the time you can do something about it. If it was a pillbox, you don't get it with arty too. So does the crater tell you anything useful? Hardly.

Just my 2 cents,

Dschugaschwili

[Guest KwazyDog]

Actually, that document is mainly talking about the damage inflicted upon an enemy once found by air support, and I think CM lines up quite well with it (from the perspective of damageor lack there of, caused by aircraft).

Interesting read bas

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 01-10-2001).]

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 01-10-2001).]

[Slapdragon]

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

take a look at this page and click on the section that deals with Allied air power. http://home.swipnet.se/normandy/articles/article.html

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is an excellent article. I don't agree with several of its contentions -- they are pretty far off of the USAF study done of Tacair after Korea which used similar vehicles, and the US Army study of Cab-Rank comes to an opposite conclusion, but the article is very well done.

Here is my problems with it:

US and British planes carried 5 inch rockets, 40mm cannon, and 37mm cannon to deal with tanks, each of which were deadly when fired at tanks on the move. The article asserts no heavy ordnance was carried by Allied planes. The .5 cal mg carried by Allied planes was great at killing trucks and halftracks. Air power in Korea, using the same planes, was so effective at its role that during the mobile phase Korean and Chinese units were showing up half strength (part of that was because their food transports were also blown up and the soldiers starved and froze to death).

I can definately see German generals all saying "well, allied air power did us in" to ease the blow of their own loss, but lots of other German soldiers writing post war told stories of allied air cutting apart ground units, blowing up tanks, and making things rough on moving units.

The recon value of air under discussion is sort of backwards. It should be way better, since the communications channels once things got worked out (not early like June / July when all that was a mess) could pass rough information from hundreds of cubs, aircobras, P-51As, and Hurricanes running about the battle field. Sure, not detailed information, but a couple of crosses on the hill side from previous air recon is a pretty good start.

[Guest tero]

Originally posted by Dschugaschwili:

>What's the problem here anyways?

Does there have to be a problem to have an interesting debate over a feature of the game ?

>So does the crater tell you anything useful? Hardly.

Well... that depends on the circumstances. In the very EXTREME, off chance occurance CAS acts as a gamey target indicator. Sort of a pointer to the general direction of the treath. But as I said that only applies in certain tactical situations. I think that even if it is a remote, off chance possibility it does warrant some looking into.

[Guest tero]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

>...they are pretty far off of the USAF study done of Tacair after Korea which used similar vehicles, and the US Army study of Cab-Rank comes to an opposite conclusion, but the article is very well done.

In Korea the terrain was different, so were the tactics and technology employed.

>US and British planes carried 5 inch rockets, 40mm cannon, and 37mm cannon to deal with tanks,

Which models ???? The Hurricane II with the 40mm guns was not used at that stage of the war anymore. The British models had four 20mm cannons. Which model used the 37mm gun ? Kingcobras and Airacobras were not see widespread service in Normandy.

>each of which were deadly when fired at tanks on the move.

I think you mean in the open. The article does give a different picture of the actual accuracy of the CAS weapons though.

>The article asserts no heavy ordnance was carried by Allied planes. The .5 cal mg carried by Allied planes was great at killing trucks and halftracks.

Yes. But as it is "only" 12,7mm it does not count as heavy ordnance. Even if you have 8 of them aboard. I think even the 20mm does not count as heavy ordnance.

>Air power in Korea,....

A different ball game.

>I can definately see German generals all saying "well, allied air power did us in" to ease the blow of their own loss, but lots of other German soldiers writing post war told stories of allied air cutting apart ground units, blowing up tanks, and making things rough on moving units.

Agree on the units in transit bit. But what about the units in the front lines ?

>The recon value of air under discussion is sort of backwards. It should be way better, since the communications channels once things got worked out (not early like June / July when all that was a mess) could pass rough information from hundreds of cubs, aircobras, P-51As, and Hurricanes running about the battle field. Sure, not detailed information, but a couple of crosses on the hill side from previous air recon is a pretty good start.

Agreed. I would not mind the inclusion pre-mission air intel. Provided it is inaccuarte enough (to the point of being missleading or totally bogus).

But my main gripe here is the fact that as things stand CAS is on target 100% of the time.

[Slapdragon]

Some corrections for Grogs:

Korea was fought the first year with WWII vintage weapons a from rile to airplane, and using WWII tactica (which did not work against Chinese light divisions.). The P-51, F-4U, M24, M26, M4A3E8 all were front line in 1950.

The Aircobra was in use in Europe by US, British and French forces. US and Brits had done away with it by the end of 44 but the French kept it in service for CAS until wars end.

The 40mm armed Hawker IIE replaced the IID and was in service until after wars end. In fact, these 40mm armed Hurricanes stayed in UK service until 1947.

The Typhoon, Hurricane, Tempest, Mustang, and Thunderbolt all could carry 5 inch rockets with considerable antitank capability.

[Guest tero]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

>Korea was fought the first year with WWII vintage weapons a from rile to airplane, and using WWII tactica (which did not work against Chinese light divisions.).

Hardware is one thing. The communications facilities and procedures had improved significantly since 1945.

The Finns used artillery pieces left over from the 1870 war during Winter War for crying out loud ! I manhandeled a WWII Soviet 45mm AT piece during my service in 1985-86 one day and state of the art communications devices the next. I was also tought to field strip a Maxim HMG and a LS LMG along with the then usual Suomi SMG. I also got to handle a Degtrayev.

The WWII vintage AA-HT's and fast arty were the only things that could stop the Chinese light divisions.

>The P-51, F-4U, M24, M26, M4A3E8 all were front line in 1950.

P-51 was mainly used as an interceptor during WWII. F-4U did not see service in Europe. M24 replaced the M3/M5 light tank series only after the end of the war. M26 entered front line service so late it did not have any siginificant impact on the results. The M4A3E8 was picked to soldier on after the war. It was not the most numerous variant of the M4 family during the course of WWII when compared to the total production numbers of the M4 series.

>The Aircobra was in use in Europe by US, British and French forces. US and Brits had done away with it by the end of 44 but the French kept it in service for CAS until wars end.

How many free French squadrons were equipped with Airacobras ? What was the total number of Airacobras in free French service ?

>The 40mm armed Hawker IIE replaced the IID and was in service until after wars end. In fact, these 40mm armed Hurricanes stayed in UK service until 1947.

In how many squadrons ? Where were they deployed ? What was the ratio between Typhoon/Tempests and Hurricanes ? How may Hurricane squadrons took part in the battles in France as opposed to the numbers of Typhoon/Tempest squadrons ?

>The Typhoon, Hurricane, Tempest, Mustang, and Thunderbolt all could carry 5 inch rockets with considerable antitank capability.

There is no question about their potential potency. Only about their actual accuracy and ability to find targets.

[This message has been edited by tero (edited 01-10-2001).]

[Bastables]

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

Some corrections for Grogs:

The 40mm armed Hawker IIE replaced the IID and was in service until after wars end. In fact, these 40mm armed Hurricanes stayed in UK service until 1947.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The forces of North Korea and China, never had the effective level air defence that the Germans had. AKA Korea is not Western Europe

The Hurricanes Mk IV, only saw combat in North Africa, Italy and Burma. It was never deployed in Western Europe.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 01-10-2001).]

[Slapdragon]

About 300 Free French Aircobras, plus some Kings (not used by the US in Europe) were deployed, representing a half dozen squadrons.

Allied communications, tactics, and equipment were virtually the same in 1950 as 1945, and Korea was even fought by many WW2 vets.

Basically we have two frames of thought -- aircraft work fine and aircraft work poorly. Perhaps the best solution is for German players who fear allied air to specify that they will not play Allies with aircraft. I have had several German players specify no 155+ arty, no M18s, no M24s, and several other requirements. If I want to play them, then I have to bend to those rules. I think this may be a case. Just tell the person you are playing that you will not play with air in the game and if they do not like it. then don't play them.

It probably wont effect things much, I have only played air with allies in a PBEM game twice in 100 odd games.

[Guest tero]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

>Basically we have two frames of thought -- aircraft work fine and aircraft work poorly.

I do not see it quite like that. The two frames are in my view: CAS works fine as it is and CAS works fine as it is except it is ahistorically accurate when it comes to target selection.

As I have said before I have no objection to the implementation of CAS in CM as it is except for that it is 100% on target. At least for once I can say there is a feature that is TOO perfectly modelled in CM

>Perhaps the best solution is for German players who fear allied air to specify that they will not play Allies with aircraft.

I personally do not fear them. If I think I'll be against them I buy enough AAA (which is around 95% of the time). And I have no qualms about buying them if I have the points.

[Bastables]

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

About 300 Free French Aircobras, plus some Kings (not used by the US in Europe) were deployed, representing a half dozen squadrons.

Allied communications, tactics, and equipment were virtually the same in 1950 as 1945, and Korea was even fought by many WW2 vets.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would argue that a USAF study maybe a little biased

in favour of proving their part in 'winning' the war, which they did so well that the war fizzled into a stunning cease-fire. In the same manner that Nato Air forces pounded the Serbian army into dust with pin-point accuracy.

The Allied forces were not fighting in Europe vs a German army in Korea; perhaps you should use records pertaining to the European conflict 1944-45 to prove your point. Is it now wrong to acknowledge that the allies beat the Germans with something other than massed formations of fighter-bombers?

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 01-10-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 01-10-2001).]

[Polar]

Again... if you want to argue CAS armament by availability... I have a few points to make about those German trucks with 75mm guns.

It's funny though, from a logical standpoint, that some internet article reports anecdotally on the "notorious" inaccuracy of allied pilots. Ummmm.... I can find a sight that reports inaccuracy of USAF reports concerning the Roswell weather balloon and the proof of extra-terrestrial life visiting Earth... but that don't make it true.

MOre questions for the author... he states that 1700+ U.S. planes were lost during the Normandy campaign (his insinuates that these losses were in CAS, since he quips that it was more dangerous for CAS than the tankss)... but he doesn't make any indication of whether this was a total number of just CAS losses. 1700+ losses sounds staggeringly high for just one small part of the Normandy air campaign. THe British lost under 10,000 planes in ALL services over the entire war (including BoB)... and we lose nearly 1/5 of that number in one small phase of the war in a mater of months?????? I don't think so. I think he is attributing all losses of that time to CAS losses. Which (if this is the case) kind of negates the whole article concerning CAS effectiveness.

If you lok at his main point, he says (essentially) that Allied pilots boasted about their kills, to the toon of 10 times??? While dying at an alarming rate???????? Hell no. If those pilots KNEW that they were dying for nothing, don't you think they would have pointed that out? Hell yes!

Not to mention the page has a definite German slant anyway.

I refuse to believe that a highly trained Thunderbolt pilot would be dropping his bombs just because he saw a branch move, anyway. If he missed a target it was more a function of failed approach than lack of a valid target.

And lastly... 20mm rounds may not be heavy ordinance... but try telling that to the tank crews that get repeated straffe on their flank.

Joe

------------------

"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

[This message has been edited by Polar (edited 01-10-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Polar (edited 01-10-2001).]

[Slapdragon]

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

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

About 300 Free French Aircobras, plus some Kings (not used by the US in Europe) were deployed, representing a half dozen squadrons.

Allied communications, tactics, and equipment were virtually the same in 1950 as 1945, and Korea was even fought by many WW2 vets.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would argue that a USAF study maybe a little biased

in favour of proving their part in 'winning' the war, which they did so well that the war fizzled into a stunning cease-fire. In the same manner that Nato Air forces pounded the Serbian army into dust with pin-point accuracy.

The Allied forces were not fighting in Europe vs a German army in Korea; perhaps you should use records pertaining to the European conflict 1944-45 to prove your point. Is it now wrong to acknowledge that the allies beat the Germans with something other than massed formations of fighter-bombers?

.]

I would not say wrong, what I would say is we have one web site with a well written article suggesting that despite what everyone was writing at the time and afterward everyone was wrong, causualties were huge, and CAS never hit anything.

Using Korea is just an example. The question is, how did US CAS go from shooting as and missing everything that moved and then getting killed in masses, to its hugely effective role in Korea. Sure, less trees, but more hills and places to dig in.

I would agree that Spaatz's study was a little bias, but I doubt he covered up an outright brass plated failure. We know the strategic bombing failures got aired out and their studies were accurate, why assume that the CAS studies were not also.

In other words, I don't buy many of the premises of the article you gave us. It would take more than one well written revisionistic article to counter weigh all the other material written on the CAS role in Europe.