Close air support?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cpl Dodge:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cabron66:

(In my head I begin to do the math.)

10,000 posts X average 10 minutes per post

100,000 minutes divided by 60 minutes in an hour

16,666 hours by 24 hours in a day...

And he has trouble with math.

Dorosh, I loved your pirate talk. That was hilarious. </font>

[Becket]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I think he should be banished to the Goodale thread for life for that.

It's already happened. I had no idea I was surrounded by rabid anti-grapites.

Couldn't find the quote re the South Africans at Alamein that I was looking for, but I did find this: "Meanwhile, the DAF was demonstrating the limitations of light bombers in the close air support role by persistantly dropping their bombs on the South Africans in the Alamein box. The difficulties of precision bombing at the best of times were aggravated by the haze and dust when bombing from 7-8000 feet."

[ September 20, 2003, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: Becket ]

[Andreas]

Just another bit of info on the FF incident I quoted. The distance from the Durhams' startline to the German line was 800 yards. I guess that would count as reasonably far in terms of an infantry attack.

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Just another bit of info on the FF incident I quoted. The distance from the Durhams' startline to the German line was 800 yards. I guess that would count as reasonably far in terms of an infantry attack.

No. Depends I think upon how you define "an attack" but 800 yards is actually not that much of an advance before contact. It depends most upon terrain - in Europe, 800 yards might be a bit long, in the desert, its very close. Either way, its only a very quick stroll.

I've recently been doing some maps and I have to keep reminding myself that most of the distances I've seen in CM maps are pretty tiny compared to real life. Most designers cram or attempt to cram rather, much too much into too small an area IMO.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

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

Just another bit of info on the FF incident I quoted. The distance from the Durhams' startline to the German line was 800 yards. I guess that would count as reasonably far in terms of an infantry attack.

No. Depends I think upon how you define "an attack" but 800 yards is actually not that much of an advance before contact. It depends most upon terrain - in Europe, 800 yards might be a bit long, in the desert, its very close. Either way, its only a very quick stroll.

I've recently been doing some maps and I have to keep reminding myself that most of the distances I've seen in CM maps are pretty tiny compared to real life. Most designers cram or attempt to cram rather, much too much into too small an area IMO. </font>

[imported_Wildman]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

Depends I think upon how you define "an attack" but 800 yards is actually not that much of an advance before contact. It depends most upon terrain - in Europe, 800 yards might be a bit long, in the desert, its very close. Either way, its only a very quick stroll.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wildman:

[imported_Wildman]

Not then, but even now the TAC 9-line gives a run-in line in degrees from a known point.

The biggest difference now and then is communication and GPS. If possible position is given by six number grid or GPS Lat/Long.

Heck the AC-130 can block out a section of the gun arc and prevents a weapon from firing at a friendly.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Wildman:

[snips]

and one degree is below the precision level of the magnetic compass used then and now.

Navigator to pilot: "Come one degree starboard."

Pilot to Navigator: "Don't be so bloody stupid, I can't fly to one degree!"

{ Silence }

Navigator to Pilot: "Go four degrees port."

Pilot to Navigator: "Four degrees port, OK."

{ Short pause }

Navigator to Pilot: "Go five degrees starboard."

Pilot to Navigator: "Five degrees starboard, OK."

Navigator to Pilot: "See? Easy when you know how!"

All the best,

John.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Becket:

Couldn't find the quote re the South Africans at Alamein that I was looking for, but I did find this: "Meanwhile, the DAF was demonstrating the limitations of light bombers in the close air support role by persistantly dropping their bombs on the South Africans in the Alamein box. The difficulties of precision bombing at the best of times were aggravated by the haze and dust when bombing from 7-8000 feet."

Becket - bombing from 7-8000 feet, those would be mediums - baltimores, Marylands, and the like, not FBs (Hurricanes, Kittyhawks). Hopefully (?) no-one is suggesting that Mediums have a place in CM?

Regards

JonS

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Wildman:

[Becket]

Originally posted by JonS:

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

Couldn't find the quote re the South Africans at Alamein that I was looking for, but I did find this: "Meanwhile, the DAF was demonstrating the limitations of light bombers in the close air support role by persistantly dropping their bombs on the South Africans in the Alamein box. The difficulties of precision bombing at the best of times were aggravated by the haze and dust when bombing from 7-8000 feet."

Becket - bombing from 7-8000 feet, those would be mediums - baltimores, Marylands, and the like, not FBs (Hurricanes, Kittyhawks). Hopefully (?) no-one is suggesting that Mediums have a place in CM?

Regards

JonS </font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JonS:

Hopefully (?) no-one is suggesting that Mediums have a place in CM?

Regards

JonS

Bah, you zealotous Taleban. clearly the mediums need to do the interdiction, which we otherwise won't see in CM. Clearly we can see now what reading Bidwell does to one's brain.

Send me a turn and stop yapping.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Becket:

The quote is accurately typed -- "light" bombers and 7-8000 feet. Whether Latimer or his sources are in error for that particular quote, I know not. Also, in this section, Latimer doesn't define "light" bomber -- so I cannot say what type of plane was at issue.

Whoops - sorry Becket. I didn't read your quote closely enough and missed the 'light' bit. Still, I think he is referring to twin-engined planes and formations, rather than single engine FBs. Do you have a page number for that passage?

By-the-by, I think Latimers is certainly the pick of the rash of ALamein books that have come out in the last couple of years - with the possible exception of the one on the Aussis, but that is very narrowly focused. It does have excellent maps though.

Regards

JonS

[Becket]

Originally posted by JonS:

Whoops - sorry Becket. I didn't read your quote closely enough and missed the 'light' bit. Still, I think he is referring to twin-engined planes and formations, rather than single engine FBs. Do you have a page number for that passage?

By-the-by, I think Latimers is certainly the pick of the rash of ALamein books that have come out in the last couple of years - with the possible exception of the one on the Aussis, but that is very narrowly focused. It does have excellent maps though.

Regards

JonS

It's at the bottom of page 64 and top of page 65 (in a paragraph discussing the transition of DAF from taking targets from the army (wherein the South Africans got bombed) to taking targets from Air HQ).

"pick of the rash" -- I assume that means good? I'm just now getting into books on the North African campaign, and in the absence of any standout recommendation picked Latimer's book.

[Firefly]

Originally posted by JonS:

Whoops - sorry Becket. I didn't read your quote closely enough and missed the 'light' bit. Still, I think he is referring to twin-engined planes and formations, rather than single engine FBs. Do you have a page number for that passage?

From what I've read in various places (can't think of any exact sources, so uber-grogs feel free to contradict me), single-engine FBs tended to dive-bomb, although 8000 feet would be a reasonable height to start the dive. If the reference was to level bombers then, I'd think 'light' refers to smaller two engined bombers such as Blenheims and Beauforts.

[ September 20, 2003, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: Firefly ]

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by JonS:

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

Couldn't find the quote re the South Africans at Alamein that I was looking for, but I did find this: "Meanwhile, the DAF was demonstrating the limitations of light bombers in the close air support role by persistantly dropping their bombs on the South Africans in the Alamein box. The difficulties of precision bombing at the best of times were aggravated by the haze and dust when bombing from 7-8000 feet."

Becket - bombing from 7-8000 feet, those would be mediums - baltimores, Marylands, and the like, not FBs (Hurricanes, Kittyhawks). Hopefully (?) no-one is suggesting that Mediums have a place in CM?

Regards

JonS </font>

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by Andreas:

That was my badly made (and incorrect) point. What is already a fair distance for an infantry attack (I thought) is really "danger close" for the flyboys, even when it is pre-arranged (one assumes done with briefings, maps, sock-monkeys, and stuff).

OK, I can agree with that. Yes, 800 yards is a within, as someone else suggested "danger close". Orientation of the attack is also important for aircraft, attacking along the FEOT is actually more dangerous than bombing away from it.

[Becket]

Cabron, I don't understand -- why would you edit the thread title and your opening post? To try to make everyone look like fools for continuing to post on an interesting topic that you've lost interest in discussing?

BFC gives us the ability to edit our post titles, so that we can correct typos and what-not. Please don't abuse that right.

Thanks.

[Cabron66]

All comments withdrawn.

[ September 21, 2003, 06:37 AM: Message edited by: Cabron66 ]

[Cabron66]

All comments withdrawn.

[ September 21, 2003, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: Cabron66 ]

[Cabron66]

All comments withdrawn.

[ September 21, 2003, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: Cabron66 ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cabron66:

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

[QB]

Poorly worded post. It's not controversial. I didn't want to include his more controversial assertions for fear of sidetracking the thread. To which end I added on the little joke about the time machine. The example was not meant to offer evidence towards his controversial nature, but rather to explain what I said in a previous post (which I thought was being questioned by Micheal Dorosh). My apologies. I will edit it immediately.

Originally posted by Cabron66:

Sounds like a very logical point. The Blitzkrieg often sped ahead of its own supporting artillery.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Did they? There were actually substantial limits imposed on armoured commanders in Poland, France and Russia, and requirements that infantry be able to keep up with the armour.

To which I replied in the manner you saw. To be honest, I found the question a bit odd. According to what I have read it was not uncommon for the Germans to break with their own doctrine and allow the armoured components of their ground forces to speed ahead of slower elements. Is this not true?

I have heard several theories given as possible explanations for the problems between High Command and the Wehrmacht, but I am no expert. I would be happy to discuss the topic with you on a separate thread or by e-mail, but I think it would end up being a class with you as the teacher and myself as the student. </font>

Quoted for posterity.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cabron66:

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

The RAF (and the USAAF?) did develop the 'cab-rank' system whereby loitering a/c could be quickly called down on targets in the frontline by FACs.

However, these kinds of missions were strongly resisted by the airforce because they were extremely wasteful in resources. In addition to the planes waiting around in the air, more needed to be kept ready on the ground to take over when fuel and/or munitions ran low.

Scott, Desmond. Typhoon Pilot. London: Secker & Warburg, 1982. would possibly be a fair place to start looking at CAS from the RAF point-of-view.

Regards

JonS

Thanks again JonS. All your points have been verified by my investigations except the rarity of these kinds of missions and their success. According to Momyer in his book "Air Power in Three Wars" the surplus of available fighter-bombers and resources in 44 and 45 made it possible for these kind of missions to be tolerated even with their high price tag. He also stresses the importance of the P-51 Mustang which was capable of staying in the air long enough, depending on the en route flight time, to make these missions viable. Once again, there are a lot of factors.

Also, I was not aware the RAF or RCAF had developed this style of mission. I have only found evidence of its use in and after COBRA by American forces. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cabron66:

Originally posted by Grisha

Not sure if this discussion is limited to just western allies and western front Germans...

Not at all. The discussion is really about the inclusion/prominence/importance of CAS in CM or, more specifically, its relevance to the "CM-scale battlefield."

The information you've posted is fascinating and very relevant. Unfortunately I was ignorant of many aspects of the ETO when I started this thread and have not, as of yet, rectified that situation. Currently I am looking at the Luftwaffe in the early years of the war. Next stop, Russia.

Originally posted by Gyrene

An important element of true CAS, which I'm not sure if it has been brought up yet in this thread, is how much "live" interaction there is between the aircraft & the controller.

It has been brought up and is central to the discussion, but as of yet no one has quantified the role of the FAC to the degree that your post just did. My only changes would be minor ones. "Level 6" CAS sounds like the escorted armoured columns of 44 and 45 (i.e. loitering aircraft directly controlled by FACs mounted in tanks moving along with the columns). What separates this from the operations you refered to in the Korean War? Also, where would airborne FACs fit into the list? Did airborne FACs act as a bridge between the ground troops and the fighter-bombers? What do you know about these kind of FACs? Although level 7 is a bit advanced for WWII, there were different types of munitions available to CAS aircraft. An interesting question would relate to the logic behind ordnance selection. Why did AC carry certain types of weapons and how often was it possible to tailor the load-outs to specific CAS missions?

Originally posted by dieseltaylor

Very detailed little book which also includes up-to-date detailed tour guide to the battlefield.

Sounds like a good source of info. I've got a tonne of reading to do, but your post is the kind of thing I want to get to. Actual battlefield observations of the effects of CAS. What are your impressions of the book as a whole? Could you give some details of the circumstances surrounding the FF incidents? I want to know not only how often they occurred, but why they occurred.

Quoted for posterity