Close air support?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

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

Wouldn't surprise me that Hurricanes were used in Italy to the end; Fireflies and the US 76mm variants were also rare in-theatre, no? They really were a backwater after D-Day in Normandy.

D-Day Dodgers </font>

[JonS]

I think, from the context, Hurribomber means the person (Roger David), probably their FAC. Hurricanes were used till the end in the East, but I think even the Med had seen the end of them by 1945.

Carver served in Italy with 7th Armd Div in Italy from September to November 1943, when they all returned to England. (5th Canadian Armd Div took over their equipment - without much relish as most of it had driven from El Alamein by that time.) He had previously served with 7th Armd Div in the desert, and subsequently in Normandy.

I've heard the story about the Scots Greys too (he talks about it on pages 193-195 of his biography). The only difference was that the order wasn't rescinded.

Regards

JonS

[ September 24, 2003, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

(5th Canadian Armd Div took over their equipment - without much relish as most of it had driven from El Alamein by that time).

Yup; it was in sad, sad shape!

Both Cdn Divs in the Med had hard luck as far as motorized tranport went. 1st Div lost much of theirs when one of the ships carrying their transport was sunk on the way to Sicily. The anti-tank platoon of the 48th Highlanders, for example, went throughout Sicily and many months in Italy without universal carriers and relied instead on trucks.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Old Lady Astor, please listen here to this,

Don't stand up on the platform, and talk a lot of piss,

You're the nation's sweetheart, the nation's pride,

But your bloody big mouth, is far too wide...

Hmmm...

The recording i have goes...

Dear old lady Astor, you think you're mighty hot,

Standin' on your platform, talkin' tommyrot.

You're Englands sweetheart and her pride

We think your mouth's to bleeding wide"

[ September 21, 2003, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Berlichtingen ]

[Firefly]

There were quite a few different versions of D-Day Dodgers, it was a genuine folk song, so soldiers changed it to suit their circumstances and added parts as the war in Italy progressed. The Canadian version, that Mike's probably quoting, uses different battles to the British version for instance.

The verse:

Forgotten by the many, remembered by the few,

We had our Armistice when an Armistice was new.

One million Germans gave up to us,

We finished our war without much fuss.

We are the D-Day Dodgers in sunny Italy

suggests that it was still being added to after the end of hostilities

[Cabron66]

OK, Micheal, have it your way. Let it not be said I did not try.

If you are forwarding my correspondence to BFC may I ask that you be sure to forward the whole message and not just carefully selected parts. Since I have no intention of forwarding anything, my only defence will be the words I sent you. Please do not take away my right to a "fair" hearing.

If my apologies were not sufficient then let me say that I do not understand your logic. Perhaps I was wrong to assume that someone who spends so much time speaking of logic and academia would be rational and at least accept an off-forum dialogue in the earnest and polite manner in which it was offered.

Your staunch conviction to your own beliefs was strong enough to lead me to attempt to arrive at an agreement with you and make several (embarrassing) concessions of my own stupidity in the events of the past few days. Concessions which I made in a public manner in the hopes that my humility would be reciprocated.

However, you have rejected my attempts on the grounds that "I do not understand the forum". While this is undoubtedly true it has little or nothing to do with what happened between us. I enjoy this game tremendously and intend to be a part of it in no small way (a decision which you undoubtedly made several thousand posts ago). Since we have a common goal and must walk the same road to arrive at it I believe we will be seeing each other frequently.

I no longer believe any of your "explanations" for your behaviour and have no doubt as to your intentions past and present. You are a small and petty man who, although cleverly concealed behind the facade of civility, is no different from a junkyard dog who urinates and growls at those who would smell it.

I am truly sorry for you, Micheal, but unfortunately my pity will not soften my approach to you.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cabron66:

OK, Micheal, have it your way. Let it not be said I did not try.

If you are forwarding my correspondence to BFC may I ask that you be sure to forward the whole message and not just carefully selected parts. Since I have no intention of forwarding anything, my only defence will be the words I sent you. Please do not take away my right to a "fair" hearing.

If my apologies were not sufficient then let me say that I do not understand your logic. Perhaps I was wrong to assume that someone who spends so much time speaking of logic and academia would be rational and at least accept an off-forum dialogue in the earnest and polite manner in which it was offered.

Your staunch conviction to your own beliefs was strong enough to lead me to attempt to arrive at an agreement with you and make several (embarrassing) concessions of my own stupidity in the events of the past few days. Concessions which I made in a public manner in the hopes that my humility would be reciprocated.

However, you have rejected my attempts on the grounds that "I do not understand the forum". While this is undoubtedly true it has little or nothing to do with what happened between us. I enjoy this game tremendously and intend to be a part of it in no small way (a decision which you undoubtedly made several thousand posts ago). Since we have a common goal and must walk the same road to arrive at it I believe we will be seeing each other frequently.

I no longer believe any of your "explanations" for your behaviour and have no doubt as to your intentions past and present. You are a small and petty man who, although cleverly concealed behind the facade of civility, is no different from a junkyard dog who urinates and growls at those who would smell it.

I am truly sorry for you, Micheal, but unfortunately my pity will not soften my approach to you.

Quote for posterity. Board admin, please reference the last sentence and note the comments in my email to you about threats.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Cabron66:

OK, Micheal, have it your way. Let it not be said I did not try.

If you are forwarding my correspondence to BFC may I ask that you be sure to forward the whole message and not just carefully selected parts. Since I have no intention of forwarding anything, my only defence will be the words I sent you. Please do not take away my right to a "fair" hearing.

If my apologies were not sufficient then let me say that I do not understand your logic. Perhaps I was wrong to assume that someone who spends so much time speaking of logic and academia would be rational and at least accept an off-forum dialogue in the earnest and polite manner in which it was offered.

Your staunch conviction to your own beliefs was strong enough to lead me to attempt to arrive at an agreement with you and make several (embarrassing) concessions of my own stupidity in the events of the past few days. Concessions which I made in a public manner in the hopes that my humility would be reciprocated.

However, you have rejected my attempts on the grounds that "I do not understand the forum". While this is undoubtedly true it has little or nothing to do with what happened between us. I enjoy this game tremendously and intend to be a part of it in no small way (a decision which you undoubtedly made several thousand posts ago). Since we have a common goal and must walk the same road to arrive at it I believe we will be seeing each other frequently.

I no longer believe any of your "explanations" for your behaviour and have no doubt as to your intentions past and present. You are a small and petty man who, although cleverly concealed behind the facade of civility, is no different from a junkyard dog who urinates and growls at those who would smell it.

I am truly sorry for you, Micheal, but unfortunately my pity will not soften my approach to you.

Why are you bothering to air your inane threats of retribution and petty "hatred" on the board? Are you looking for valediction? A moral victory that you can trumpet to the "masses?" Go take your pathetic attempts at gaining talionis else where, the board is for the discussion of CMBB and the period that it represents (along with the more exotic waffle and cess threads).

Good god man you go into the cesspool, get insulted and then proceed to take offence. Unable to take the heat in a rational discussion in this thread you then proceed to launch personal attacks and play martyr. Get over yourself or buy a parrot.

[ September 21, 2003, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Firefly:

There were quite a few different versions of D-Day Dodgers, it was a genuine folk song, so soldiers changed it to suit their circumstances and added parts as the war in Italy progressed. The Canadian version, that Mike's probably quoting, uses different battles to the British version for instance.

The verse:

Forgotten by the many, remembered by the few,

We had our Armistice when an Armistice was new.

One million Germans gave up to us,

We finished our war without much fuss.

We are the D-Day Dodgers in sunny Italy

suggests that it was still being added to after the end of hostilities

Actually, that was another of the British verses, but I have heard both actually - Berli's is available online in MP3 format somewhere, I have a copy on my HD.

[Firefly]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Actually, that was another of the British verses, but I have heard both actually - Berli's is available online in MP3 format somewhere, I have a copy on my HD.

Yes, I did a bit of internet 'research' on the song a couple of years ago and found a few different versions (including the Canadian), I tried to start a discussion about it and any other WW2 folk songs on the GF, but no-one seemed very interested. Perhaps I should have entitled the thread 'Cowardly Brit sing-song' or sumfink .

[JonS]

From 1943-45, in Italy and NWE it took on average, for impromptu CAS missions, 75 minutes from the time of the initial request until the attack was conducted.

If CABRANK (RAF) or Armoured Column Cover (USAAF), was available the time delay from request to ordnance on the ground was on the order of 20 minutes.

CABRANK/ACC took an inordinate amount of resources to achieve. For ACC, the air resources of an entire army (ie, a TAC) were required to provide ACC for a single division, which naturally meant that the rest of the armys' divisions got none. In general it took 3 Typhoon sqns to keep a single CABRANK filled. There were a total of 20 Typhoon sqns in 2nd TAF supporting 21st Army Group. As a specific example, it took 10 of the 11 Typhoon squadrons in 83 Group (supporting 2nd (British) Army) to provide the CABRANK for Guards Armoured Div on the opening day of Op MARKET GARDEN.

Also, and despite this concentration of effort, CABRANK/ACC had smaller target effects than pre-planned strikes since a typical CABRANK/ACC 'attack package' consisted of 4 a/c at most, while a pre-planned strike could consist of an entire squadron or more.

Sources: mostly Gooderson Air power at the battlefront, but also 2nd TAF and the Normandy Campaign, which includes an org for 2nd TAF, and links to the two key doctrine pams for CAS in the RAF.

Regards

JonS

Edit: my spelling still socks

[ September 24, 2003, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JonS:

CABRANK/ACC took an inordinate amount of resources to achieve.

Ah, thank you for proving that it was really effective in a single sentence.

I will go with some others to see CABRANK at work in the National Film Theatre on Wednesday - they are showing 'A bridge too far'. Based on that research trip (I should really ask BFC to pay for the ticket, I guess), I will come back and state my considered opinion on its effectiveness.

[Terence]

WEDNESDAY??? Who can wait that long????

[xerxes]

Doesn't everyone and anyone get insulted in the cesspool? I thought that was a given.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by xerxes:

Doesn't everyone and anyone get insulted in the cesspool? I thought that was a given.

Yes, but they're supposed to expect it.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by xerxes:

Doesn't everyone and anyone get insulted in the cesspool? I thought that was a given.

Of course. Which makes the complete and utter lack of comprehension all the more precious and magical.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by JonS:

From 1943-45, in Italy and NWE it took on average, for impromptu CAS missions, 75 minutes from the time of the initial request until the attack was conducted.

If CABRANK (RAF) or Armoured Column Cover (USAAF), was available the time delay from request to ordnance on the ground was on the order of 20 minutes.

Wow. Finally, in this rather gone-to-seed thread, some really useful information.

Twenty minutes to ordnance on the ground actually makes called-in CAS (as opposed to pre-planned) possible within a CM battle, albiet only for longer battles.

From your information, it sounds like it might ultimately be most realistic to have two types of CAS available: (1) "impromptu" with a ~ 75min call time, and therefore only useful for 'pre-planned' targets, and (2) 'CABRANK' type, with ~ 20min call time, and therefore somewhat usful for callable CAS in longer battles.

1 would be cheaper, and probably available over a greater range on times/nationalities. 2 would probably only be available for a limited range of times/nationalities, and would be more expensive.

Sounds good to me.

Cheers,

YD

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

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

From 1943-45, in Italy and NWE it took on average, for impromptu CAS missions, 75 minutes from the time of the initial request until the attack was conducted.

If CABRANK (RAF) or Armoured Column Cover (USAAF), was available the time delay from request to ordnance on the ground was on the order of 20 minutes.

Wow. Finally, in this rather gone-to-seed thread, some really useful information.

Twenty minutes to ordnance on the ground actually makes called-in CAS (as opposed to pre-planned) possible within a CM battle, albiet only for longer battles.

From your information, it sounds like it might ultimately be most realistic to have two types of CAS available: (1) "impromptu" with a ~ 75min call time, and therefore only useful for 'pre-planned' targets, and (2) 'CABRANK' type, with ~ 20min call time, and therefore somewhat usful for callable CAS in longer battles.

1 would be cheaper, and probably available over a greater range on times/nationalities. 2 would probably only be available for a limited range of times/nationalities, and would be more expensive.

Sounds good to me.

Cheers,

YD </font>

[JonS]

YD, for completeness, ther should probably be two more:

1) Pre-Planned Mission. For these, the request had to be in by 2359 of the day before mission was required.

2) Armed Recce. Planes doing something else that decide to drop in on your party.

In general, I agree with your characterisation of the mission types as either pre-turn bombardment, or in game with long delays - and let's face it, 20 minutes in a CM game is an eternity.

As a general outline, and following Berlis earlier model, I propose - as a starting point - the following:

Accuracy, greatest to least (and never very great to begin with):

* Pre Planned (large target area, with a reasonable chance of getting within that target area - say 75%)

* Impromptu (large target area, with a moderate chance of getting within that target area - say 50%)

* CABRANK/AAC (smallish target area, with ok chance of getting within that area - say 25%)

* Armed Recce (random across entire map)

In essence the target areas are an attempt to tell the pilots where you'd like the rockets/bombs/straffing to go.

Orders Delay, greatest to least

* Pre Planned (FAC present on map, but only during pre-game bombardment. Strike can occur at any time, will arrive ±upto5 minutes of request time)

* Impromptu (FAC present on map, 75±upto15 minutes, thus really only suitable for pre-game bombardment or long scenarios. Can be ordered for any time)

* CABRANK/AAC (FAC present on map, 20±upto5 minutes. Can be ordered during pre-game bombardment for any time.)

* Armed Recce (no FAC present. A/C cannot be ordered - will turn up whenever or not at all, regardless of player wishes.)

Cost, greatest to least

* CABRANK/AAC (INSANELY expensive - represents four A/C. Also, not available at all for QBs, and only to attacker in pre-made scens, or side with air superiority in MEs.)

* Impromptu (VERY expensive - represents two or four A/C.)

* Pre Planned (very expensive - represents two, four, or twelve A/C. Only available to attacker.)

* Armed Recce (expensive - represents two A/C.)

Naturally, all the above is tailored to represent RAF/USAAF doctrine and usage

Regards

JonS

[ September 22, 2003, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Michael Emrys]

One quibble, Jon. I think the Pre-planned mission should be available to whichever side has air superiority regardless of whether it is attacking or defending.

Maybe the others as well, but I need to think about that some more and I have to run now. Bye.

Michael

[JonS]

Michael,

quite possibly. Who holds AS needs to be taken into account, but I wasn't sure how to go about it in something like CM, so I only touched on it in those places where I thought it important.

Given that dealing with AS is well outside what CM is about, perhpas it could simply be handled with availability tables that track the historical progression of the air-war, in much the same way that vehicles currently have the availability of their models and marks tracked in CMBB and CMBO.

Regards

JonS

[YankeeDog]

I like the system you've outlined, Jon.

The only thing I can think of to add is that it might be possible to create some additional differentiation between CABRANK/AAC and Impromptu for operations.

I'm not sure exactly how to implement it, but considering that Impromptu missions had to be requested the day before, maybe Impromptu missions have to be planned during setup rather than turn one or something (and therefore without the benefit of any fortifications, etc. spotted during setup).

It would be really cool if Impromptu missions had to be plotted the *battle* before they actually came in during an operation, but I can see how that might be difficult to implement with shifting maps and all.

Cheers,

YD

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

One quibble, Jon. I think the Pre-planned mission should be available to whichever side has air superiority regardless of whether it is attacking or defending.

Maybe the others as well, but I need to think about that some more and I have to run now. Bye.

Michael

Wouldn't this be factored into the "rarity" value?

[Seanachai]

Look at 'em, bless their hearts! Posting, discussing, and besporting themselves like gamboling little lambs.

The Peaceable Kingdom.

Grogs. Make ya' sick to your stomach, if they weren't so cute.

From Greenland’s icy mountains, from India’s coral strand;

Where Afric’s sunny fountains roll down their golden sand:

From many an ancient river, from many a palmy plain,

They call us to deliver their land from error’s chain.

What though the spicy breezes blow soft o’er Ceylon’s isle;

Though every prospect pleases, and only Peng is vile?

In vain with lavish kindness the gifts of Grogs are strown;

The Troll in arrogant blindness, casts only sticks and stones.

(Whoops a daisy! Edited to note the usual apologies to the Shade of Reginald Heber, and to note that no Greenlanders, Indians, or Africs...er, Africans, were intentionally insulted in the making of this post. Although some may be shot in CMAK, but that's the business of the Forum Moderators, but I doubt we'll see much abuse of Greenlanders in any case.)

[ September 22, 2003, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Seanachai ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

Michael,

quite possibly. Who holds AS needs to be taken into account, but I wasn't sure how to go about it in something like CM, so I only touched on it in those places where I thought it important.

Given that dealing with AS is well outside what CM is about, perhpas it could simply be handled with availability tables that track the historical progression of the air-war, in much the same way that vehicles currently have the availability of their models and marks tracked in CMBB and CMBO.

Yeah, something like that. You've already said that this option should only be available to scenario designers, not in QBs, which I think is a good thing as that will tend to cut down on ahistorical overuse or use in situations where it would not have happened. (Of course, people will still be able to design ahistorical "for fun" scenarios as they can now.) Anyone wanting to design historically accurate scenarios can find out pretty easily who generally had AS at any point in the war. If this feature does get included, I bet it wouldn't take long for some one to produce and post detailed day-by-day charts for every theater of the war.

Michael