Allied Air power effectiveness.

[arado234]

I was doing a little research on this and came across a comment made by Fritz Bayerlein about what Allied jabos did to the Panzer Lehr on June 7 1944.The formation lost in one day

-40 tanker trucks

-90 other vehicles(only 5 were tanks and the rest were trucks halftracks and S.P.guns).

Looks like airpower could be very effective.Not to well against tanks but if the tanks cant be fueled or moved by primemovers to be brought back for repair it takes away alot of their overall effectiveness.

[SeaMonkey]

And to add to A234's observation, since the Tank Groups TO&Es represented in SC are not 100% tanks don't you think their supporting cast should take some damage from air attacks also?

[Colin I]

The real power of Allied air was supply interdiction and restriction of German movement and preventing concentration of German armour in counter attacks.

I always thought in SC you should be able to interdict any tile and make supply through it impossible.

[xwormwood]

Absolutly correct.

And you should be able to install anti-air and garrisson in evey hex as well,

plant minefields on land and sea hexes .

[SeaMonkey]

You know Colin in a way you can interdict any tile, albeit not directly, if your playing WaW with roads and rails.

Simply bomb/ard all supply sources down to the lower values, 1, 2, 10% efficiency etc. There was hardly ever a case in WW2 at least on this scale for SC turn periods that supply never got through, seems there was always a way to get a trickle and of course the inherent ability of the tile itself. Combat groups always seem to find a way to forage.

[Colin I]

Yes, I would concede that the WaW rail/road net is elegant and bombing the cities that act as railheads/supply sources is good enough to simulate this. Indeed its one of the great advances of SC/WaW - that you can attack supply sources/port as a strategic alternative to direct attacks on troop concentations.

A trickle of supplies is not enough to mount a high intensity or sustained attack (look at the fuel problems the Germans had at the Bulge).

[Big Al]

Artillery was a far more important weapon than airpower to destroy units. Thats how the USA pushed back the Germans not tactics usually.

[arado234]

Thats true Big Al but it goes to show that airpower could and in some cases was quite effective at wiping out the effectivness of an armored unit.

I also read the report about the Allies way overestimating the german tanks they destroyed during the Mortain attack.But the fact that Germany had so few tanks shows the overall effectiveness of the Allied air campaign through interdiction and the attack on the support units in a tank formation.

My dads friend who fought in Normandy told me that one thing the Germans feared alot was moving during daylight out in the open.P.O.Ws told him that being bombed constantly is not a pleasant feeling and it had a big effect on the overall morale of the troops.Not knowing if that next bomb that falls is going to blow you to bits(yes they werent all that accurate) ill bet is very unpleasant.

[Big Al]

Sure being bombed sucks and it does affect moral, it just doesnt destroy as much as people think. But there is a difference knowing where you are being attacked from and not knowing. A friend just came from Iraq and he told me, which goes with what I read, that rebels would rocket attack his airbase ~ once a month at night. A few rockets would be launched until the rebels zeroed in on the base then they would unleash a ton of rockets. He said it was terrifying. The earth shook worse than an earthquake and the noise was louder than fireworks. He never got hurt but he told me his life is forever changed. Very terrifying he told me.

Airpower does do damage but what people fail to see is the ratio of bombardment between airpower and artillery. Lets say you have 1000 operational bombers, which is a hell of a lot. How long does it take to load them fly them accross the channel, bomb targets and return? Would it be reasonable to assume they do it twice a day? So 2000 bombs dropped. Now take artillery. Reload times in what 3 minutes? A 1943 US infantry division has (according to Ellis's book) 90x 60mm mortor, 54x 81mm mortor, 54x 105mm howitzers, 12x 155m howitzers. Thats 210 guns... lets say 1/2 of them are functioning and round down. 100 guns firing every 3 minutes. In 1 hour of shelling they put out 2000 rounds of artillery. That equals what 1000 planes can do in a day in just 1 hour. Im making guesses here too but I assume that artillery shelling, especially for the allies, was not just for an hour. Naval gunfire was even worse. Massive ship guns firing every few minutes a rifiled projectile on coastal targets.

Im just glad Im not in the military. Air power is not a factor of how accurate they are, how effective it is per unit, its simply that you can't deliver as much quantity of firepower as you can with artillery and naval gunfire.

I would say if you could put out as much tonnage by air per day as artillery does it would be just as effective, if not more for accuracy if you have close air support.

Stukas didnt do massive damage, they just did focused damage in one spot to open up opportunities for infantry and armor.

What I did in my game is lower how much air destroys but increase moral loss.

[arado234]

The last thing you say Big Al I also agree with.Especially against infantry.

The real big atvanyage of airpower is that it can strike anywhere.

The B24d,7500 pound payload B24j,11,000 pound the B17g 20,000 pounds .If they were dropping 500 pound bombs(which weighed alot more than any Artty round except from ships)thats way more than 2000 bombs.The problem like you say was accuracy.Its also got to be demoralizing though to watch the other side bring wave after wave of planes and you can do nothing about it except hope they arent coming for you.

[SeaMonkey]

Yep, bombing doesn't quite have the range restrictions artillery does.

One thing not brought up yet, but was effective in its own right, trying poking your head out for a look at the enemy assault when you're being strafed by 50 caliber machine guns.

Worse yet...caught out in the open.:eek:

Unless you're Patton, I don't think you'll be very concerned with accuracy.

[thetwo]

An oft overlooked factor is relative cost per round. In my attempts to engage flyers on this topic, they clam up. Artillery is dirt cheap.

Even in WWII, the cost per round fired was staggeringly in favor of artillery. If anyone has ever come across a financial analysis I would love to see it.

Arado and I've talked back and forth a few times. Interdiction of supply was air power's best point, the "reach factor."

The unpredictability point is nice and I appreciated that it was brought up in modern terms. It doesn't have to be air power. It seems in every war there is something that will get under a soldier's skin and cause that extra degree of nervousness.

Let's not forget that Allied troops preferred dealing with their own organic artillery when in the attack. It was easier to call off than air attacks. Friendly fire sucks. Extra motivation to push the aircraft out a little bit farther.

[Sombra]

ssshhh, I think what we learn in SC2 is...Hitler should have used more Stukas and less tanks ...

[SeaMonkey]

Actually it should have been the FW190 fighter Bombers!

Or perhaps sharks with fricken laser beams on their heads!

[arado234]

thetwo thats true about the cost per round but the Amis.had so much they didnt care.Imho tac.bombers have to much punch against inf.but against objects(tanks,Artty,rockets,etc)I like the ideathey can wipe them out.A.A.guns are quite cheap and effective at reducing the effectiveness of tac. bombers.Heavy bombers are good just the way they are.

The one thing that maybe should be changed also is that tac.air can interdict?

SeaMonkey you always have that one interesting comment(lol).I like it.