Rocky Balboa Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Steve, Understandably, Close Air Support (CAS) was very abstract in CM1x however Modern AS and CAS are very tightly integrated features of the Air Land Battle Doctrine. Would like to hear how Battlefront plans to model CAS and AS in CMx2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightningWar Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I am also really interested in this. In WWII things were pretty uncoordinated and the muntions used werent terribly accurate. But on the US side of things will the US player have the ability to pin-point muntions with a spotter? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 We are modeling FAC (Forward Air Controllers) in a 1:1 way. With a FAC you can call in Type 1, 2, or 3 CAS depending on what air assets are at your disposal. That is determined by the scenario designer. The FAC can use another unit as its eyes and ears under some circumstances. In short, we're attempting to simulate CAS just like the real deal. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Steve, This seems to suggest what I had hoped for in that when you have realistic CAS with delys etc., and relative spotting, then "friendly fire" when it happens, will be the players "fault" rather than the AI's, because you will have brought the strike in either too close, or in the wrong place. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Type 1, 2 and 3? Whats the diff? Fixed wing, helo, UAV? High altitude (10k feet or more), low altitude (A-10s), helo? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 10. There are three types of CAS terminal attack control: 1. TYPE 1- Is used when the risk assessment requires the JTAC (Joint Terminal Attack Controller) to visually acquire the attacking aircraft and the target under attack. The most restrictive of all three for A/C and JTAC. 2. TYPE 2- Is used when the JTAC is not required to see the aircraft or the target at weapons release. CAS attacks under these conditions depend upon timely and accurate targeting data. The most common type used. 3. TYPE 3- Is used when the tactical risk assessment indicates that CAS attacks impose low risk of fratricide. The least restrictive of all three, also known as a blanket control. From Google's cache of "CLOSE AIR SUPPORT SUMMARY SHEET" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 The other way to think about it is: Type 1 - eyes on aircraft and eyes on target Type 2 - eyes on target or aircraft, not both Type 3 - eyes on neither target nor aircraft The quote above is a little misleading about what "restrictive" means. Type 1 is the hardest to acheive, but obviously the most effective and safe to friendly forces. Type 2 is the more common form because the FAC usually can at least see the aircraft. Type 3 is the easiest to acheive because it is basically grid coordinates. So using the term "restrictive" to describe how difficult it is to acheive is one way to look at it. However, in terms of authority, the order is reverse since the FAC has the most information for Type 1 and the least for Type 3. Since information gets the intended job done right, or done wrong, obviously FACs don't use Type 3 if it can be avoided. The horrific A-10 attacks on the Marines in Al Nasaryiah were the result of Type 3. Sadly, the Battalion commander had specifically forbiddin Type 3, but the FAC and the aircraft had a communications problem and that was that. The FAC was held responsible for the disaster. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Seems tough on the FAC, I mean if he didn't have absolute confirmation from the ground that it was safe, what was the A-10 pilot doing making an attack. Though as I don't know the specifics maybe there was more to it than that. I suppose the biggest likelyhood of a type 1 error in CM:SF would be underestimating the dispersal zone of something like a cluster bomb and having your own guys to close. Given that these things can cover large areas and that much of this is new to people what about a introductory AI VAI scenario come film, thatgive players an idea of just what the effects of artillery and airpower can be. I know the first couple of CMBB scenarios I tried with Russian rockets when I got the delay wrong, I nearly wiped out half my lead force, and the first time I got a company of Russian infantry caught by the improved air attack in CMBB as opposed to CMBB ( I think it was Stukas) I was stunned by the damage. Some way to show us the lethality of these things other than trial and error, which to be honest is an unrealistic way to find out, would be helpful. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 I don't see how we can show the player what the effects of anything will be, within the game at least, before hand. We can warn people in the manual that Type 3 is not to be taken lightly, but not much more than that. Although there was plenty of blame to go around, the FAC in question deserved to be held accountable. He screwed up. The A-10 leader had been accidentally authorized by the FAC (this is where he screwed up) to go with Type 3. The FAC had instead thought that he was going with Type 2, which requires the aircraft to make the ID instead of the FAC. So when the repots came in that the A-10s were hammering Marines, the FAC asked the A-10s what they were shooting at and they replied "whatever is in the grid", which was not what the FAC had thought was going on. Though it was most directly the FAC's mistake that lead to the friendly fire incident, the Battalion Commander shares some responsibility because ultimately he was responsible for knowing where his units were. He did not. If he had so would the FAC, but the FAC was going on bad information. He was also out of touch with the BN Commander at the time, which IIRC was also partly the BN Commander's fault. The rest is chalked up to SNAFU. Many things had to go wrong for that attack to happen, but unlike some circumstances there was one mistake that directly caused the friendly fire. And that was poor communications from the FAC to the A-10 flight leader. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Steve, What about having the tutorial scenario, as a "Blue on Blue" live fire excercise or something, where all you have to do is move your unit from one end of the map to another. You would therefore be prewarned when and where the Airstrikes? artillery were going to hit, and have to avoid them. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Krejcirik Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: He screwed up. The A-10 leader had been accidentally authorized by the FAC (this is where he screwed up) to go with Type 3. The FAC had instead thought that he was going with Type 2, which requires the aircraft to make the ID instead of the FAC.It was the other way around, the A-10 thought it was on Type 2, while the FAC thought he was on Type 3. Martin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Martin Krejcirik, So your saying that the A-10 thought that the targets he was attacking had been preidentified by the FAC, or that the FAC had cleared him to hit anything in that area that he could see. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Krejcirik Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: Martin Krejcirik, So your saying that the A-10 thought that the targets he was attacking had been preidentified by the FAC, or that the FAC had cleared him to hit anything in that area that he could see. Peter. Yes, the A-10 thought the FAC had seen and identified the targets (type 2), while at the same time the FAC thought the A-10's would identify the targets (type3). Sorry, I'm having trouble with my English. Can quote few lines from the book, if it is still not clear 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Okay got you, I can see why it was down to the FAC... Peter. 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.