A cool wish- AIR LIASON OFFICERS

[ww2steel]

A cool addition for CMII would certainly be the ability to purchase an air liason officer and a Storch or something similar that could be used like an attack aircraft... that would not attack.

Just have it fly over and spot targets normally, then tell you through your on field air liason officer. I guess you could even have attack aircraft relay information back to you as well.

Though obviously rare in the field, they did exist, and nearly always existed on higher levels. I just think it would be a great addition.

Mike

[Sergei]

No. It would be unrealistic due to the player's All-Seeing-Eye. Maybe giving inaccurate approximations of larger concentrations of men and with a delay, but not by telling you the exact locations and number of every unit it spots from the air at 0 sec delay.

I think they mostly were in contact with artillery, not infantry (even less with battalion/company commanders). Hmm, artillery batteries with flying spotters that instead of telling you enemy locations order barrages on enemies by their own initiative - now there's an idea that I like. And spotter balloons for Soviets.

[Sirocco]

I'd include FO's under armour before FO's overhead.

[ww2steel]

The problem with armored FO's is that my halftracks get wacked almost instantly... unless you use it out of LOS of course.

I think air recon would work... shoot, many commanders would go up in the Storch themselves to survey the field. I think that just to have the units in the open, and only some of them, pop up as the plane flys over and then go to the lost unit symbol quickly afterwards would be realistic. There would be no more delay than that of a tank commander communicating by radio (and yes, I understand they were on different nets).

Just my thought,

Mike

[Sirocco]

I would imagine an air observer would operate out of scope for CM, while an observer under armour might have the same relevance at the CM scale as an FO on foot, while being more rare and hence much more expensive.

[flamingknives]

Armoured FOs didn't generally operate out of HTs. They either had a seat in a regular tank or a dedicated FO tank. The British in NWE used Valentines for this purpose.

[Big Jim]

I think an officer on the map, who could call air support like artillery, would be extremely useful for integrating air ops better into CM- maybe in CMx2...?

[JonS]

Originally posted by Big Jim:

I think an officer on the map, who could call air support like artillery, would be extremely useful for integrating air ops better into CM- maybe in CMx2...?

It would be extemely useful. Unfortunately it never happened, or happened so rarely as to be irrelevant.

ALOs, FACs, et all did exist of course, but they tended to be further back, and work on longer timescales than represented in CM battles. Do a search using my member number on either this or the CMBO forum for many previous discussions of frontline air support, including alternative ways to represent it in CM. Edit to add:Also, look for Ian Goodersons book, and you could try a google for his name for some interesting excerpts.

British FOs in NWE used a variety of tanks, including Shermans* with the guns removed for the more senior ones - the bty commanders, who would generally be co-located with their supported bn CO. 'Regular' FOs would use a variety of transport, and would generally be co-located with the supported company commander (or equivalent). SP Fd regts held their own FO tanks (RHA regts,a nd one of the Fd regts in each Armd Div), while Armd and Tank Bdes held a pool of 3 or 4 FO Tansk for use by whichever FO was assigned to them.

Blah. This obviously isn't overly relevant to CMBB. Sorry about that

Regards

JonS

* There is a fairly well known photo taken in the aftermath of Villers Bocage showing a Sherman sporting artillery TAC markings, with it's splintered wooden 'barrel' lying on the road beside it.

[ May 18, 2004, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Big Jim]

According to one JonS' posts in 'close air support', the air force resisted FAC coordinated strikes due to the waste of aircraft, fuel, etc. for the number of targets hit. I suppose they had artillery for the front line stuff.

If for example though, CM went into the Cold War time period, would a FAC be more applicable in the game then?

Ian Goodersons book 'Cassino' looks like a good read, I think I'll have to track it down.

[JonS]

Sorry, I meant this book.

Don't know about FACs in the Cold War, though I do suspect they would have made their way forward. There are, however, two points, both related to the US worth picking up.

Firstly, as has been bought up on any number of occasions, the USMC had, and has, a very integrated and responsive system of air support, which includes FACs right up at the company IIRC. While this is a very good system, it is something that few other militaries seem to have copied.

Secondly, the USAF (and the RAF to be fair) as an institution were never very interested in close air support. Wars would be fought and won, they believed, by big bombers carrying big nuclear bombs. Shortly after WWII the techniques and equipment for CAS were discarded, and had to be painfully rebuilt for Korea. Then they were discarded again, only to be rebuilt in Vietnam, and so on. Institutional resistance to the A-10 could be seen as a continuation of that tradition.

[Skolman]

in CMAK you would not need such a thing ! Just look at the sand clouds and you know the exact positions of all enemy vehicles.

[Splinty]

Originally posted by JonS:

Sorry, I meant this book.

Don't know about FACs in the Cold War, though I do suspect they would have made their way forward. There are, however, two points, both related to the US worth picking up.

Firstly, as has been bought up on any number of occasions, the USMC had, and has, a very integrated and responsive system of air support, which includes FACs right up at the company IIRC. While this is a very good system, it is something that few other militaries seem to have copied.

Secondly, the USAF (and the RAF to be fair) as an institution were never very interested in close air support. Wars would be fought and won, they believed, by big bombers carrying big nuclear bombs. Shortly after WWII the techniques and equipment for CAS were discarded, and had to be painfully rebuilt for Korea. Then they were discarded again, only to be rebuilt in Vietnam, and so on. Institutional resistance to the A-10 could be seen as a continuation of that tradition.

By the current U.S. Army doctrine, there are dedicated FAC's from the BN level on up.