Learned my lesson on airpower

[flamingknives]

But CM does not make a difference between situations with low risk of FF and high risk of FF

However, it seems that real life does not make such distinctions, given sources presented here, amongst others.

Any chance of any sources that say CAS friendly fire was less likely in given situations? Other than friendly CAS being absent, of course.

To come back to the more recent past, in Desert Storm and Telic, British forces (Warrior MICVs and Scimitar CVR(T)s respectively) were strafed by A10s. This was when driving in convoy, with recognition panels and despite the fact that, even at a distance, these vehicles look like nothing the Iraqis had.

FF happens, and seems to be very random. The current situation is better than what it was, when 'planes would always attack something, so if all you troops were in good cover, your highest value unit would still get attacked.

[rune]

So where are you getting your stats for that? out of thin air? What study said moving targets were hit more often then a stationary target?

I have shown written histories where defensive positions at bastogne were hit instead of the attacking germans. Daily. I listed true stories where units not even moving, taking r&r in a town were strafed.

Show me anything in writing that backs what you stated.

Rune

[Redwolf]

Well, at Bastonge, in a surrounded area, circle-shaped, inside the enemy area. That's a great choice of example.

You don't think it is obvious that tanks crossing open fields under no enemy fire, north to south, in Normandy July 1944 would get less friendly fire from aircraft than intermixed tanks from both sides in a meeting engagement?

If you don't get the meaning of "less" as opposed to "none" then what can I do?

[rune]

Here from an artillery unit:

Occasionally enemy aircraft were active, usually about dusk or slightly thereafter, but they did practically no damage. Twice bombs from friendly planes were dropped in the Battalion area with no damage reported. The first fires conducted by the Battalion from 8 October 31 October were defensive fires, harassing fires, and counter-battery missions fired with air OP observation.

This is BEHIND the front and in friendly lines.

Rune

[rune]

Redwolf,

Again, cite me a written example instead of inventing things.

Did you NOT read the examples I posted, including recon units moving from the beaches being hit by p-47s? Distinctive vehicles, going in a direction friendly forces would go STILL got shot up.

Have you EVER flown low level fast? You have ANY idea how hard it is to ID a target? this at a time when air-ground co-ordination was not at its best? Before you ask, YES, i have experince with it.

Rune

[xerxes]

I'm surprised by the results of Combined Arms testing. It suggests that CAS friendly fire in CM is fairly predictable. Difficult for anyone to say how realistic it is, but it makes sense that things like tanks/trucks are a lot easier to pick out that infantrymen (even if they are hard to identify).

Thanks!

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by xerxes:

I'm surprised by the results of Combined Arms testing. It suggests that CAS friendly fire in CM is fairly predictable. Difficult for anyone to say how realistic it is, but it makes sense that things like tanks/trucks are a lot easier to pick out that infantrymen (even if they are hard to identify).

Thanks!

I'm glad somebody thought to thank me. Your welcome, xerxes!

I ran one more test with 4 vet P47 pilots vs. German inf in scattered trees vs, 10 US tanks in the open. Results were pretty consistent with my previous try. 1 dead US tank, 1 gun damaged, 1 dead TC, 5 bombs on US targets. German inf in scattered trees had 72 casualties. 7 bombs on German targets.

I decided to see what happened if I added back some German tanks, so I put two PzIVs into a separate patch of scattered trees in each of the two German quadrants--a total of four German tanks. I wanted to see if tanks in scattered trees would attract fire away from the allied tanks in the open, and away from the German infantry, and they did--to a significant extent, but not completely.

My results were 3 bombs on US tanks: 1 gun damaged, 2 TC losses. No tanks killed.

9 bombs on German tanks in scattered trees, 2 dead tanks, two TC losses. 31 inf casualties (i.e., non-TC losses). All four German tanks took some damage and were the targets of nine bombs. The German inf casualties were all from strafing. Clearly tanks are the preferred target for bombing, but there was little or no strafing of the tanks--with the bombs gone, the planes switched to soft targets.

More extensive testing could certainly be conducted (and I'd be glad to send my test files to somebody who wants to play with them more thoroughly). But I think some tendencies are already pretty clear. We've sort of reverse engineered our way into reading some of the Air AI protocols, I think.

1. The Air AI prefers vehicle targets to infantry, at least for bombing.

2. If tanks of both sides are in the open, the planes will target the enemy tanks and avoid FF with great consistency.

3. Even enemy infantry in the open will attract most of the fire away from friendly tanks. Enemy infantry in the open will be truely mauled by airpower that that is its best target.

4. If enemy forces are hidden to some degree, friendly vehicles are subject to increasing danger.

5. If a smaller number of enemy tanks are hidden in scattered trees, they will still attract more fire than a larger number of friendly tanks in the open, but those friendly tanks in the open are at some risk.

6. The greatest risk of FF is when friendly tanks are in the open and enemy forces are infantry in cover, with few or no vehicles.

7. Enemy inf in woods were never targeted, only those in scattered trees.

Overall, this seems pretty reasonable to me...pretty consistent with what I've read about CAS. There might also be some tactical advantage in knowing how CAS works in CMAK (and presumably BB). I will be leary of having my armor in the open if I know the enemy infantry is lurking in cover and my own flyboys are on the way!

[xerxes]

Certainly does, it suggests that if you're defending, CAS will be quite effective and even more so if you skip that AFVs. If attacking, CAS is a definite risk. If your opponent gets tanks you'll be in good shape.

[Other Means]

yes thanks CA this is good stuff. now do the tests 500 times so we can be sure.

Originally posted by xerxes:

Certainly does, it suggests that if you're defending, CAS will be quite effective and even more so if you skip that AFVs. If attacking, CAS is a definite risk. If your opponent gets tanks you'll be in good shape.

keep your AFV's in cover till the planes have hit. then mop the remains up.

[Boo Radley]

Originally posted by John1966:

CAS!!!!!

Just everybody keep their head down...

So why don't they?

I just had most of the remnants of a company routed by a FW190 (those that just weren't killed outright, that is). Why, when a plane starts in on it's dive, don't troops hit the dirt? Is this something that isn't possible with the game engine?

Just curious.