Learning to fly: my experiences with air support

[Evzone]

During the past few weeks, I have been using a portion of my points to purchase air support. This practice began rather reluctantly, my understanding being that it was not a sound investment,ineffective, unpredictable at best. Now, they are an essential component of my forces, particularly when I'm on the offensive.

I have found that even the cheaper, light fighters (strafing only) almost always deliver and more than make up for their cost.

Air support will usually be the first unit to make contact with the enemy, thus providing precious recon before your ground units are exposed to any threat. By examining the trajectory of their ammo or the point of impact of their bombs, you can estimate enemy positions and hit those areas with long range guns, etc.

When attacking they appear to get their priorities right as they go for vehicles (open tops don't stand a chance) and artillery. Planes not carrying bombs will go for an Armor's tracks thus immobilizing it. A fighter/bomber can completely knock out a tank or at least send their crews packing, abandoning their stations in a state of panic.

On one occasion, by the time my forces reached their objective the enemy was in such a shambles that they could not put up a decent fight. Usually they will take out a vehicle or two, that gun in the far back that just won't die, decimating any infantry squads it spots in the process.

However, there is such a thing as friendly fire. In one game, I had my guns on a hill in rough terrain, concealed from the enemy but, alas, not from the air. My own Bf-109 took out an 88, a smaller flak, and a howitzer, weakening my offensive considerably. **** happens.

I understand many players don't like to use air support as they have no control over them. I quite like this aspect as it means that I (and my men on the ground) can concentrate on the approach to the objective, whilst the enemy is kept occupied.

Furthermore, I suspect their worth is often overlooked as we are not informed of their kills in the AAR. Someone suggested this be estimated by means of deduction, i.e., calculating known kills by all the other units and attributing the rest to the plane. Personally I don't have the logistical head to sit and work that out.

Overall, I think they're well worth the points (Regular Kittyhawks and Spitfires cost about 80pts.) and I wholeheartedly recommend their use to all -except my opponentts.

Anyone who has similar experiences to share, please do so. Thanks.

[dieseltaylor]

I am glad to see someone who experiments with airpower in the game . It is a much neglected in most games. Of course I routinely buy AA assets so I really appreciate plane power : )

What gets my goat is people who demand no airpower be purchased or rig the weather to stop it.

[Evzone]

I just finished reading North African Victory - The Eighth Army from Alam Halfa to Tunis 1942 1943 by Adrian Stewart.

Monty was perhaps the first military commander to work closely and in co-operation with air support, in this case the Desert Air Force. Before that campaign, the air force operated pretty much independently from the other arms. Players who want realism and historical accuracy should include them more often than not.

dieseltaylor, have you ever shot down a plane with your AA? In the short time I have been using air support I have not had a plane destroyed, according to the AAR. I wonder if AA work more as a deterrent and merely keep planes at bay. There have been occasions when I could hear my planes approaching without actually attacking any targets. The units promise a maximum of strafes; perhaps a number of well-positioned AAs work towards reducing this number.

[dieseltaylor]

If you search the archives you will find more info. The nitty gritty is yes they can be shot down. I did some experiments so if you search my user number/name and "air", CAS or variations you should find it. It is possibly in the CMBB section as we had arguements about air power running in both at the same time.

Quad 37mm and singles work well so a couple or three of those will cover a big battlefield sufficiently well against Stormovik's. Early war 20mm should do for early war aircraft.

The Russians are generally AA light until they get the quad AA's , the US is fairly potent bristling with .5 Mg's from virtually every vehicle. The British are intrinsically light of AA. Some of the German A/c's AA capability -- those mainly with the 20mm : )

[Evzone]

Ok, thanks. I will definitely check out your findings.

Having the option of excluding enemy air support would have been every real commander's wet dream. Yes, they are a menace, but they were there and they played an important part. For the sake of realism and historical accuracy they should be included more often than not. If a player chooses not to call upon their own air support, that is their prerogative. But to deny your opponent of the option, I don't know, there's something not quite right about that.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Evzone:

Monty was perhaps the first military commander to work closely and in co-operation with air support, in this case the Desert Air Force.

Oh, I don't know about that. I'd say that Guderian and the Luftwaffe did pretty well together at Sedan.

Michael

[Mike Summers]

I can attest to CAS effectiveness, particularly in the Sturm's ability to take out my platoon of T-34/85's. That was not the Red Army's finest moment in gaming.

[John Kettler]

dieseltaylor,

Methinks thou hast garbled things a bit! There is no quad 37 I ever heard of, leading me to suspect you meant quad 20s and single 37s work well in keeping away those pesky Il-2s.

Evzone,

I agree with Michael Emrys. The Meuse could not, IMO, have been crossed without effective Luftwaffe

support, even if its major effect was just keeping the French gunners from manning their guns and shelling the crossing sites.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

The Meuse could not, IMO, have been crossed without effective Luftwaffe

support, even if its major effect was just keeping the French gunners from manning their guns and shelling the crossing sites.

Just finished reading The Blitzkrieg Legend a couple of weeks ago, and the author makes the point that almost the entire Luftwaffe in the West was concentrated in bombing a very small area for six hours before the crossing began. Only a couple of bunkers were destroyed, and IIRC only 59 fatal casualties, but for the most part, the French defenders were so demoralized that they only put up a half-hearted defense, or none at all.

Michael

[dieseltaylor]

Couple of bunkers - they may have been as in crucial big bunkers and therefore highly important to success , or not. Answers please. Anyone who played Moltke Bridge knows exactly how painful bunkers can be, and that is in CM which does not particularly favour them.

JK: 37mm quads Yes I thought I got it wrong just after I posted : (

This might be interesting:

(Michael Bench's reply)

In PG2, air defense units are rated for their ability to engage enemy tactical aircraft. It is true that a single 37mm AA round is more lethal to an aircraft than a single 20mm round. However, there is this really important factor with weapons called 'volume of fire'. To put it simply, a quad mount 2cm AA weapon is better at killing lower flying tactical aircraft than a single barrel 3.7cm AA weapon - a single 2cm round will disable a tactical aircraft if it hits it anywhere near the pilot, fuel tanks, or cockpit. A single 3.7cm AA round will do the same, without having to strike as close to the given vital area as a single 2cm AA round. However, the RATE OF FIRE of that quad mount 2cm gun is OVER 5 TIMES AS HIGH as the single 3.7cm AA weapon - when you are throwing over 500% as many shells at a target (especially a fast moving one like a tactical aircraft), you are MORE EFFECTIVE at disabling that target. In other words, a single 3.7cm AA round is about 2.5 times as destructive as a single 2cm AA round, but the quad 2cm AA weapon more than makes up for this with its far superior rate of fire.

Furthermore, the Germans did not try to convert to 3.7cm AA weapons across the board - they bypassed both the 2cm and 3.7cm round and were working on dual and quad mounted 3cm AA weapons. Why? The 3cm round was more than effective against the tactical aircraft of 1945, and the 3cm weapons had a far superior rate of fire (when compared to the 3.7cm weapon).

(Counter point from Steve)

With regards to the 37mm vs 20mm debate... Michael seems to champion the 20mm, yet it was the Germans themselves who abandoned the 20mm (yes, even the quad) in favor of the single 37mm gun.

I don't argue the fact that the quad 20mm puts out considerably higher volume of fire, this is not what is at issue. The issue is the PURPOSE of the AA weapon itself. The purpose is PROTECT ground equipment first and foremost. A higher volume of fire is naturally desireable, but if you don't have the range to hit an enemy aircraft, the point becomes moot. A 37mm gun has the range to protect equipment around it... the 20mm gun (even the quad) simply does not have range to protect much of anything other than the AA battery itself! If the 20mm AA battery comes under direct fire itself, then yes, it will defend itself better than than a single 37mm gun, but it can't protect something further down the road!

The PG2 Armory Roster shows all the above points by giving the quad 20mm gun a HIGHER AA value (and it has been this way from the start), but gives the range to the 37mm gun, as it is better at protecting neighboring equipment.

As for the 3cm AA, Michael speaks of things yet to come, it never entered full-scale service as both the quad-20 and single-37 did. I only speak of factual history, and in-facts, the quad-20 WAS ditched by the Germans in favor of the single-37... quad-20's only continued to see service because there wasn't enough 37's to go around.

web page

[John Kettler]

dieseltaylor,

I think the points you made are excellent, but I'd add that for intimidation effect against an inbound aircraft, the quad 20 has it all over the single 37.

There's something to be said for a cloud of tracer

whizzing past the cockpit and knowing full well that for every tracer seen, five or six more with no tracer are also going by.

The reach issue, though, becomes very important, especially once aircraft start using rockets prior to strafing. The 37mm got significant numbers of kills clear through the Vietnam War. Moreover, the same dynamic you describe in the German preference for the 37 was also made manifest in the battle between the radar directed Soviet ZSU-23/4 and the aircraft and helicopters which were its prey. The ZSU-23/4 was okay against early attack helos, started to have problems when the TOW became common, and was completely outranged by the Hellfire on the Apache, the GAU-8 on the A-10, the Maverick on fixed wing aircraft and later, helos. This led to the 2S6 Tunguska armed with, interestingly enough, 30mm cannon and surface-to-air missiles. In a sense, then, weapon development history is repeating itself, for 30 mm

was the weapon of choice for the Kugelblitz (Ball Lightning) flak tank in development at the end of WW II. Also, I believe there was a Panther flak tank, Coelian or somesuch, in the mill armed with, wait for it, twin 37s.

Regards,

John Kettler

[MOS was 71331]

I like German AAA, so I usually buy some if I have the choice and the force budget. (I prefer letting the game select my forces and then making lemonade from whatever lemons I'm given.) I've seen enemy air power arrive in perhaps half a dozen games, and I've had some AAA in most of them. I can recall at least three games in which my quad-20 or a 37 shot down enemy fighter-bombers. I can also recall my pleasure when it happened -- great.

[37mm]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Just finished reading The Blitzkrieg Legend a couple of weeks ago, and the author makes the point that almost the entire Luftwaffe in the West was concentrated in bombing a very small area for six hours before the crossing began. Only a couple of bunkers were destroyed, and IIRC only 59 fatal casualties, but for the most part, the French defenders were so demoralized that they only put up a half-hearted defense, or none at all.

Michael

Yeah I read the same thing & about the same length of time ago… he also, IIRC correctly, mentions that the majority of the allied airforces were dispersed away from the front in preparation for a ‘long war of attrition’.

It seems the Luftwaffe & the Panzer divisions had differing views on the length of the war.

As to the effectiveness of air support I once blew my whole artillery budget on the stuff & all I got were a few pings… they didn’t even drop any bombs

Boo won that one

[Michael Emrys]

I am currently reading Air Power by Stephen Budianski, and came across an interesting statistic. He claims that accompanying the Heer during Fall Gelb were 700 88mm, 180 37mm, and 800 20mm AAA. Can anyone either confirm or repudiate those numbers? Please provide a source if you have one.

Michael

[coe]

hmmm I know this is off the wall but I'm trying to imagine what would happen if you concentrated the fire of 800 20mm on a heavy tank (maybe not at the same exact spot but lets say you had an IS-II wander in get stuck and have no ammo and for some reason you had several hunderd 20mm quads hanging around....

[dieseltaylor]

Coe. It is not off the wall and has been covered before. Crews bail - eventually.

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

Operating from general principles alone, I find it all but impossible to believe the heavy flak to light flak ratio Budianski reports. For one, it makes absolutely no economic sense.

coe,

There was an incident (Tunisia, I believe) in which a German infantry platoon or company (forget which) using nothing but small arms, shot up a cornered Sherman to the point where it was disabled. The radio antenna was shot away, and every vision block was smashed. ISTR they shot off the tracks and jammed the turret, too.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Operating from general principles alone, I find it all but impossible to believe the heavy flak to light flak ratio Budianski reports. For one, it makes absolutely no economic sense.

It struck me as odd too, which is why I asked. My own thought is that he may be reporting the combined figures on flak for all of western Germany on that date, including that which was detailed to defend German cities, etc.

Michael

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Operating from general principles alone, I find it all but impossible to believe the heavy flak to light flak ratio Budianski reports. For one, it makes absolutely no economic sense.

Based upon what economic premise?

that 20mm is cheaper to build?

At the start of the war virtually every comber force in teh world was trained in LEVEL bombing from medium altitude - over 3000 feet.

@0mm flak would be completely useless agaisnt such attacks. the light flak was mainly intended for local defence of the Flak batteries themselves AFAIK.

Standard pre-war organisation of a FLAK battalons was 3 batteries of heavy (88mm), and 2 of light (2cm)

[Wingmanx]

I know that the times I've played against others, I fear aircraft enough to always justify the purchases of some AA assets. I think it's a less difficult decision to make because it's not a waste, even if no fighter bombers show up. Those quad-20's can work wonders on alot of ground based targets as well, as some of my infantry dashing across a street covered by those AA assets found out the hard way. Ouch.

I can't speak for others, but I think what makes aircraft feared/tempting for me is that they have a chance to do some serious damage if the situation turns out right. Sure, you can suffer friendly fire, like having a Stuka drop his bombs on your own tanks (my PZ II's never even got a shot off), or they can get shot down quick if you're unlucky and effectively be a waste of points, but at the same time they can make life miserable for your enemy if they disable/destroy some important asset he's relying on.

Getting a bomb where you least wanted it, such as your own guys, definetely sucks. But at least you know that flyboy is up there somewhere and going to take a shot at it sooner or later, so you can try to plan for it. If you're lucky, your opponent won't realize until it's too late to scatter and he gets one right in the middle of his troops.

[MikeyD]

One way to judge the utility of air power is to give it to the AI during a battle. Doesn't it always drop his bombs right on top of your carefully positioned AT gun at exactly the wrong moment?

An unsung hero of the air war on the U.S. side is the 37mm/twin .50 cal M15A1 AAA halftracks. I understand they shot down a LOT of Stukas in North Africa. The Stukas had learned to stay just out of reach of .50 cal tracers, and it was a nasty surprise when 37mm HE would reach up past the .50's range and touch them. The M15A1 served on into Korea and was retired only after the 37mm ammo stocks ran out.