flamingknives Posted October 19, 2003 Share Posted October 19, 2003 The following is an extract from "Combat Lessons" published in early '45. It details the way that CAS was controlled in the same manner as artillery fire by an observer under armour. AIR SUPPORT OF ARMORED COLUMNS Lieuteunant Colonel James L. Zimmerman, Air Support Party Officer (ASPO) with a combat command of the 2d Armored Diuirion, FRI\NCE, gives an excellent account of air-ground cooperation: Communications "I rode in an M-4 tank. The tank commander and driver were Armored Force, but the remainder of the crew were Air Force personnel. Our normal position in the march column was in the point, about the fourth tank. The tank commander maintained contact with the column commander over an SCR-528. I used an SCR-522 to communicate with the planes. Originally I occupied the loader’s station, but had the tank seatingrevised so that I occupied the assistant driver’s station to have outside vision and to control my own radio. This arrangement worked perfectly. "Four fighter bombers were assigned to cover each column. As each flight approached, the leader contacted me by radio giving his call sign. He remained over us until relieved, usually about 30 minutes, whether he had expended all bombs and ammunition or not. A Successful Mission "Column cover was maintained whenever we were moving in daylight. However, on one occasion, near VILLEBAUDON, we had not expected to move, and no cover had been provided. It appeared that a counterattack was developing. A group of hostile tanks was reported in some woods 3 or 4 miles away. I called direct to 2 plane operating in another corps area, reporting the tanks and asking him to relay a request for fighters to Fight & Control Center. Within 15 minutes, two flights totaling about 12 planes reported in to me. All our tanks were carrying red panels. I had a yellow one placed across the rear of my tank. I called the leader over until he could locate my tank by the yellow panel, then directed him to the woods where the enemy was reported. When he appeared to be over the target, I directed him to circle and check the woods under him, He located the tanks and attacked successfully. Accuracy "The Commanding General of the combat command was dubious of the accuracy of the planes in close support, as he had been bombed repeatedly by our planes in ITALY. However, the planes worked very close to US with generally excellent results. One day we were held up near LF. MESN~. HERRMN by some resistance on the other side of the road and hedges from me. I directed some planes onto the resistance. They dived so close they made me nervous, but not a bullet hit our tanks, and the resistance was knocked out. Only two instances of bombs falling near our troops came to my attention. While we were passing through CANISY one lone plane from some other area dropped a bomb that hit our column. Then near TESSY, I tried to direct a flight onto a German battery, a target that is usually hard to locate, and they made a mistake and dropped bombs within 300 yards of me for no damage. Normally, however, my constant contact with the planes kept them well informed as to the location of the head of the column, and since they could locate my tank with its yellow panel crosswise, they always checked in before attacking doubtful targets." Tactical Reconnaissance "We got no direct information from tactical air reconnaissance so far as I know. The best TAG/R information came from the column cover." In some instances G-2 asked me for specific information, and I in turn would ask the planes to get it. In most cases the pilots would report information to me without request, especially enemy motor movements. When they were about ready to leave, the flight leader would tell me of all likely targets he could see, and I could direct the incoming flight onto them. Location of ASPO "It is my opinion that the Air Support Party Officer with armored columns should bc used in the way that I was, in effect the same: as FO for the artillery. He should be in a tank, able to move near the head of the column Assigning a tank for this purpose need not reduce the tank strength of the armored unit. We habitually stayed in the immediate rear of the attacking wave of tanks, and in many cases we took part in the fight. On one occasion my tank captured 31 prisoners. The crew of the tank, at least the commander, should be Armored Force personnel if the tank is to be handled in the most efficient manner. However, the Air Support Party Officer must have outside vision and control of his own radio." [ October 19, 2003, 05:37 AM: Message edited by: flamingknives ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_the_wino Posted October 19, 2003 Share Posted October 19, 2003 I am guessing that this is a veiled call for improved CAS. If so, I think that would be an outstanding idea, provided that the cost was high enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted October 19, 2003 Share Posted October 19, 2003 Originally posted by flamingknives: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />A Successful Mission SNIPPED a lot It appeared that a counterattack was developing. A group How many? 1, 5, 500? of hostile tanks was reported in some woods 3 or 4 miles away Nice and precise. When he appeared to be over the target, I directed him to circle and check the woods under him, He located the tanks and attacked successfully Who says? More importantly, who checked?.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted October 19, 2003 Author Share Posted October 19, 2003 Actually, it's a thinly veiled call for improved CAS, with FACs, and the ability to use OP tanks, or mount arty spotters in tanks in order to support armoured formations, being as this was a frequent occurance, as far as I can see. On a vaguely related note, it would be nice to see demo teams in Churchill AVREs too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted October 19, 2003 Author Share Posted October 19, 2003 Originally posted by Andreas: Quite a bit of conjecture here, not? If that is all the evidence he has (one guesses that it was deemed a 'success' because the flight leader reported it so?) then I would be very hesitant to accept that. Could be anything really. The point of posting the piece is to highlight the ability of ground forces to 'call-in' CAS, not the effectiveness of the same. My guess is that a successful attack is one where the FBs positively identified and enganged the enemy. From the report, one could presume that said tanks didn't then rampage into the column. There are other references to targets being destroyed or knocked out 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 But how common was it? And from the commanding generals comments it seems this practice was not in effect in Italy. Personally I would want a lot more evidence before supporting a change in the handling of CAS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 heh...just do a search of Cabron66's posts for some insightful commentary on this topic... Interesting reading though, flamingknives. [ October 19, 2003, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Armoured Column Cover (ACC) (equivalent to CABRANK for the RAF), which is what the first post describes, is an extremly expensive way to provide air support. Providing continuous ACC for three armoured columns (i.e., a division) took the better part of a TAC. For those who are unaware, one TAC was tasked to provide air-support for each Army. Thus, an army's worth of air support was required to provide a single division with ACC. Now, obviously it could, and was, done when the situation was deemed worth it, but it certainly wasn't the 'normal' way of doing business. Also, and something that generally seems to get lost in the babble about FACs riding in tanks, it still took quite a while for ACC planes to start putting ordanace on the target. Typically, the delay was on the order of 20 minutes to engage a target directed by a FAC (as opposed to a self-selected target). In 1944-45 20 minutes was considered to be pretty bloody wonderful, but think about a 20 minute delay in the context of a CM game. It is about the delay you currently get with Soviet army level artillery. Most CAS missions by the Western Allies in 1944-45 were as the result of air requests submitted before 2359hrs the previous day. (Interestingly, this is still the case for the USAF at least - on the general forum recently was a link to a humourous letter from an A-10 driver who had to give a briefing to the theatre air-commander in ?Dubai?. In that letter he talks about the daily air-tasking conference, held around midnight, to arrange CAS missions for the following day.) Nevertheless, I'd like to see FACs available in future CMs - but at a ridiculously high price. See posts on this page by me for a fuller picture of the air model I'd like*. I'd also like to see Arty FOs who can operate either mounted or dismounted, in tanks, halftracks, carriers or jeeps. Regards JonS * However, having thought about it some more since then, I would combine "Pre-Planned" and "Impromptu" since in game terms they are nearly indistinguishable. Edit: I pressed "Add Reply" instead of "URL", then had to deal with a bit of projectile vomitting while I was trying to edit. Apologies for any confusion created in the meantime. [ October 19, 2003, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: See by me for a fuller picture of the air model I'd like to see*. * However, having thought about it some more since then , I would combine Jon, I have a feeling that something got left out of this statement. At any rate, I found it confusing. Want to have another try? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Mike, yes, you are correct. See editted post above. JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 3-4 miles away. 15 minutes later. Where the enemy was reported. A German battery, a target that is usually difficult to locate. I somehow don't think those were meant as the highlights by the original poster. They certainly were for me. A battalion size armored task force has air support available. The rest is administration. Meanwhile in CM as we have it today, AC readily spot hiding ATGs - in the absence of clearer targets - and bomb them on the first pass. They see trenches invisible to stationary ground troops with binocs at 200m, from thousands of feet going 300 mph. They pick out single weapons teams on a hillside, preferring them to ordinary squads. When there are actual FACs with the latest high tech locating gear in real time communication with strike pros with HUD air to ground avionics and smart weapons, that level of air-ground coordination -still- doesn't happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 I fully agree that targeting is rather interesting to say the least. One thing I will say though is that digging, trenches or foxholes, is often easier to see from the air than on the ground. The cammo is usually situated to avoid observation from the front. With proper supervision you can cammo a position so well that you can't tell it is there till it shoots at you, from the front. From the air though, the disturbed dirt both around and inside the trenches as well as the shadows makes them stand out. On the original post, one has to be careful when taking one example as the rule. If you were to take some samples from 30th Infantry Division during the course of the war you would arrive at a totally different conclusion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wisbech_lad Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 From “By Tank into Normandy” Stuart Hills, P121. August 2nd, 1944, Sherwood Rangers & 7th Hampshires. Somewhere near Cahagnes “We arrived at a T-junction, which was mined, along with the fields around it. The column halted to allow the sappers to come up and clear the mines, when suddenly a Tiger tank emerged from cover and moved to the high ground overlooking the road. It opened fire at about 2000 yards and hit a tank further back in the column. With both ends of the road now blocked, we were bottled up, and the Tiger was out of our range. I shouted “Gunner, traverse right. Steady on Tiger. Smoke, 1,750 yards. Fire when ready”. Our shot landed just in front of the Tiger and soon obscured it from view. We fired again this time to the left of the tank, aiming to keep plenty of smoke between us and it. Other tank commanders did the same, while the air officer accompanying us called up four Typhoon fighter-bombers off the cab-rank to fire their rockets at the Tiger. We fired some red smoke to identify the target, and then the planes came in, very low and with a tremendous roar. The second plane scored a direct hit, and when the smoke cleared, we could see the Tiger lying on its side minus its turret…” So, to learn from this, popping smoke is a historically correct tactic… and air attacks could somewhat be guided by smoke. And in a CMBB/O scenario, four rocket equipped fighter bombers would probably do a hell of a lot more damage than kill one tank… 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reincarnated Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 For me, the CAS system is lacking a bit in CM, but I believe BFC has stated they are going to overhaul it for CMX2. Unfortunately this ruins the fun a bit as none of us know what that game will look like, how long the battles will be, what force sizes will be available, what theatres will be included or even what kind of structure the game will take. If BFC follows industry trends (as well as their own statements) CMX2 should use a much more flexible engine than CM covering more than one theatre of the war. IMO, there is no way this could be done without a MUCH more advanced CAS component (especially if the PTO is included), but that's just my opinion. For some nice and detailed information (and I do mean detailed) anybody interested in the topic should check out "The Army Air Forces in WWII" by James Cate and Wesley Craven (not the guy responsible for Freddy Kruger). The series has a volume covering each of the major theatres. Volume two covers North Africa and I think volume 5 covers Italy (starting with Anzio) and the rest of 44 and 45. After you wade through these books you should have enough firepower to sustain any argument (pro or con). The real challenge, however, would be to find reliable information concerning German CAS starting in the Spanish Civil War and evolving through Poland, France and Russia. They are the ones who started the whole mess, really, but you never see anything written about it besides early war propaganda. Apparently, they even had FO's mounted in AFV's calling in the Stukas. Something which I think would be a great addition to CMX2 if for no other reason than to see what a flight of dive bombers could apparently do to massed infantry. One more thing, CAS undergoes a pretty extensive evolution during WWII. In order to do it well you would have to make this appparent in the game. This would be the hard part, I think. Cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Originally posted by Reincarnated: The real challenge, however, would be to find reliable information concerning German CAS... [snip] They are the ones who started the whole mess...Nope. The German methods were copied almost entirely from the US Marine Corps who first used CAS in central America between the World Wars 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Originally posted by Berlichtingen: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Reincarnated: The real challenge, however, would be to find reliable information concerning German CAS... [snip] They are the ones who started the whole mess...Nope. The German methods were copied almost entirely from the US Marine Corps who first used CAS in central America between the World Wars </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 I don't have any links or references handy, but that's the version I heard too. I think it was Ernst Udet who studied Marine Corps practice and pushed for the Stuka. Might try googling under his name. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Thanks, I'll look into that. Still I suspect that the Germans made major developments in how they incorporated CAS into their operational-level procedures. Central America can hardly have involved the kind of large scale rapid mechanized advance against a modern army that the Germans pulled off at the beginning of WWII. So even if they borrowed the CAS-specific techniques, they must have developed it's role within their overall fighting style. [ October 22, 2003, 06:01 AM: Message edited by: CMplayer ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 They probably borrowed those ideas from the Soviets, but Grisha maybe able to comment on this a bit more meaningfully. Wasn't there something about the Germans buying some dive bombers from the US in the early 30s? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Originally posted by CMplayer: Thanks, I'll look into that. Still I suspect that the Germans made major developments in how they incorporated CAS into their operational-level procedures. Central America can hardly have involved the kind of large scale rapid mechanized advance against a modern army that the Germans pulled off at the beginning of WWII. So even if they borrowed the CAS-specific techniques, they must have developed it's role within their overall fighting style. There's probably some truth to that. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Originally posted by Andreas: Wasn't there something about the Germans buying some dive bombers from the US in the early 30s? Hmm, that vaguely rings a bell. I wish my memory wasn't so shot. I would think it couldn't have been the early '30s though since, overtly at least, the Germans were still bound by the Versailles Treaty then. Maybe they got something that had been civilized. I'm getting a vague stirring in the back of my mind about them buying something from Northrup but I can't seem to call up the details of it. Sorry. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Originally posted by CMplayer: Wow. That's some serious myth-busting. Do you have any links or references? Websites, not that I have bookmarked. IIRC it is mentioned in The First And The Last by Adolf Galland. If I have time today, I'll see if I can dig something up for you 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: I don't have any links or references handy, but that's the version I heard too. I think it was Ernst Udet who studied Marine Corps practice and pushed for the Stuka. Might try googling under his name. Michael Udet sounds right. I seem to recall he was in Nicaragu (sp?) in the late 20's 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Originally posted by CMplayer: Thanks, I'll look into that. Still I suspect that the Germans made major developments in how they incorporated CAS into their operational-level procedures. Central America can hardly have involved the kind of large scale rapid mechanized advance against a modern army that the Germans pulled off at the beginning of WWII. So even if they borrowed the CAS-specific techniques, they must have developed it's role within their overall fighting style. Undoubtedly. I was refering to technique, not application 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Originally posted by CMplayer: Thanks, I'll look into that. Still I suspect that the Germans made major developments in how they incorporated CAS into their operational-level procedures. Central America can hardly have involved the kind of large scale rapid mechanized advance against a modern army that the Germans pulled off at the beginning of WWII. So even if they borrowed the CAS-specific techniques, they must have developed it's role within their overall fighting style. But did Stukageschwader really fight an integrated battle, in constant communication with the ground forces, in 1939-40? I rather thought they were employed against static targets like airfields, fortified lines, radar stations (in the Battle of Britain), and the like, and not used all that often on targets of a "tactical" nature. The Army's dependence on the support of the Luftwaffe, and the relative weakness of that support, also needs mention. In Poland, in the west, and in the Balkans, the German Air Force had rendered valuable assistance to the ground forces, first by gaining control of the air...secondly, by destroying important parts of the enemy's communications system, ...and thirdly by attacking enemy troop concentrations and fortifications.... Cooper, THE GERMAN ARMY, pp.279-280Which "modern army" were the Germans launching these mechanized advances at, incidentally? For that matter, what do you mean by modern? Motorized? Equipped with machine guns? Laser beams attached to their heads? [ October 22, 2003, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.