CM:Normandy...Airpower

[Dakuman]

Looking forward to CM:Normandy...Just wondering how aircraft will be represented in the game. Will it be similar to CMx1 where you will see the shadow of a plane go by or will it be more like TOW where you can actually see the planes overhead?

Also wondering if anti-aircraft fire will be represented in the game? Been a while since i've played CMx1 but if I remember correctly, it was possible to shoot down a plane. Would be very cool to see your AA guns open up when an enemy plane flies overhead

[TheVulture]

And since the subject has come up, that reminds me of a question I had: will the air support interface be much the same as in CMSF? I figure probably not, since in a modern setting the communication between aircraft and ground forces is pretty good, while in WWII it was non-existent. So I'd guess that being able to set point targets, area targets for aircraft and have them turn up in 5 minutes isn't remotely realistic for Normandy.

[Battlefront.com]

The graphical representation will be the same as CMx1 (probable) or like CMx2 (doubtful), but not like TOW (absolutely).

The UI will not be the same as CM:SF because, as The Vulture points out, that would be ridiculously unrealistic However, when we get to the second WW2 Family (later war Western Front) the US will have Forward Air Controllers available. Extremely rare, more limited than in CM:SF, but definitely better. I'm going to have to brush up on what the status of tactical air control was for the Germans in 1944. Obviously they rarely had aircraft available in the first place, but earlier in the war they had the equivalent of FACs.

Ground fire will matter like it did in CMx1.

Steve

[McIvan]

Presumably you'll also give the equivalent to the Commonwealth forces, since they certainly had them......?

[JonS]

However, when we get to the second WW2 Family (later war Western Front) the US will have Forward Air Controllers available. Extremely rare, more limited than in CM:SF, but definitely better.

*ahem* Both the British and the US had FACs in Normandy.

I'm going to have to brush up on what the status of tactical air control was for the Germans in 1944. Obviously they rarely had aircraft available in the first place, but earlier in the war they had the equivalent of FACs.

In principle they had FACs, although procedurally they had barely advanced since 1940/42. In practice I'm not aware of any instances of them actually using their FACs to have a/c intervene on the battlefield. All the German CAS-like missions appear to have been tip-and-run type deals.

I believe the German FACs greatest role in NWE 44/45 was as an unwitting conduit of intelligence to the Allies, since their ComSec was markedly inferior to that of the Army.

[Battlefront.com]

Sorry, Commonwealth too

Yeah, that's my recollection on the Germans as well. Like many things, they started the innovation and then lost it due to distractions, such as losing the war

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Jon is right. Although precise air/ground cooperation for the Allies was still in its early stages in June, '44, it advanced rapidly over the next two or three months. During most of the period of the Normandy fighting, when the weather permitted there were "cab ranks" of fighter bombers that could be called on to provide fairly quick and fairly accurate fire on identifiable targets. How quick and how accurate was variable and I haven't been able to come across any tabulated data that would be useful in the design of the game. But general histories on the subject seem to agree that procedures improved dramatically over the course of the summer, especially during the August pursuit across France.

One such history is Over Lord: General Pete Quesada and the Triumph of Tactical Air Power in WW2 by Thomas A. Hughes. IIRC He goes into some detail on how procedure and doctrines improved during that period. I don't doubt that there are equivalent volumes more focussed on the RAF available too.

Michael

[JonS]

... I don't doubt that there are equivalent volumes more focussed on the RAF available too.

Such as "Airpower at the Battlefront".

As I recal, Allied CAS - US and UK - was abysmal through most of June. Lot's of Blue on Blue, poor response, slow, inaccurate, the whole works, and significantly worse than what the Airforeces were providing in Italy at the same time.

Both the USAAF and the RAF took a good hard look at themselves (for the US I understand this was primarily driven by Quesada), started handing out radios to the Army, put pilots on the ground and in the front line to control and co-ordinate things, etc. Performance made a big step improvement as a result.

By the by, cabranks - or Armoured Column Cover for the US - were horribly expensive investments (in terms of # of sqns required to maintain each for any reasonable period), and so were only used in exceptional circumstances.

Broad brush, for CMx2:Normandy, I'd see it for the Allies as something like:

June: you buy a/c, and they might turn up at some point during the battle and will pick their own targets from anywhere on the entire map. They'll try to avoid blue on blue (modified by a/c skill and experience).

July: You buy a/c and get to pick an area target at startup. The a/c will probably appear within 10-20 minutes of battles start, and probably attack something within that area (modified by a/c skill and experience).

August: Same as July, but you can also buy (very expensive) CabRank or ACC. In that case your FAC can specify a point target at any time during the battle and the a/c will probably attack it, probably within the next five minutes (modified by FAC and a/c skill and experience).

Jon

[Michael Emrys]

Agreed on all points, I think, with one possible caveat. The Allies had so much spare airpower over Normandy (again, weather permitting, and that's a big if for much of the campaign), that there were roving squadrons that could potentially be called on as comms improved. This wouldn't always work, as the planes might not get the message or it might be too late to pull them off their briefed missions. But it was one more card in the Allied hand.

Michael

[Sgt Joch]

my understanding is that "cab rank". altough it looked good on paper, was useless in practice.

From my reading on the subject, air power should not play a significant role on the Normandy june-august 1944 battlefield.

WW2 Airpower had the biggest impact on the strategic and operational sphere. Operationally in the normandy campaign, allied air power tried to seal off the battlefield, attacking supply choke points, such as railway yards to delay and limit supply and reinforcements.On the tactical battlefield however, air power had a very limited impact. I have not seen one documented case where a german tank, deployed on a battlefield, was knocked out by an allied aircraft in 1944.

Even though the Allies had total air superiority, german divisions were still able to move to Normandy with minimal losses and disruption.

Terry Copp's "Fields of Fire" provides a lot of detail on the Canadian Army in the Normandy campaign. This is the experience of tactical fighter-bomber air support ("TAC air") in the Canadian/British sector, june-august 1944.

On D-Day, TAC air were given predetermined targets on JUNO beach, namely german strongpoints along the shoreline. In all cases TAC air (and naval gunfire) either completely missed or barely scratched the targets forcing canadian infantry to take out the strongpoints themselves with no air or artillery support (which they did, with no muss or fuss, in typically canadian fashion ).

After D-Day and during the drive on Caen and then Falaise, TAC air provided limited support on the battlefield. RAF commanders were reticent to use their fighter-bombers in Close Air Support missions ("CAS"). It was difficult for pilots to spot and hit camouflaged german positions on or immediately behind the front line. In addition, most allied fighter-bombers, including the main RAF/RCAF FB, the Typhoon, had liquid cooled engines which were very vulnerable to ground fire. Since front line targets were usually heavily defended by AA guns, CAS missions lead to heavy losses in aircraft and pilots while yielding questionable results.

RAF commanders much preferred to use their fighter-bombers for interdiction missions in the operational sphere where they could shoot up trains and road bound supply/reinforcement columns which were easier to spot and lighly defended.

CAS missions were also strictly controlled. All requests for air strikes had to be submitted in writing the day before to be reviewed and approved by RAF commanders in consultation with the army, since under the typically informal british command arrangements, air forces worked in collaboration with, but not under the command of land forces. This inevitably led to limited and tightly controlled use of air power on the battlefield.

Heavy/medium bombers also saw very limited use. In the few cases where they were used however, huge safety zones were setup and they dropped their loads on predetermined targets, usually reserve forces well behind the front lines.

Although ground based Forward Air Controllers were used on a limited basis by the British Army in North Africa and Italy, it does not appear that they were used in Normandy on a regular basis in the canadian/British sector during the june-august battles. Airborne FACs were used and ground troops did not have the proper radios to communicate with fighter-bombers overhead. Only after the breakout in august-september 1944 were dedicated ground based FAC teams used on a regular basis. The FAC teams would typically be made up of a RAF or USAF pilot using VHF radios to communicate and control dedicated fighter-bombers overhead, using a jeep to move around the battlefield.

So how does this translate to the CMx2 WW2 Normandy battlefield IMHO:

1. the effectiveness of air power on the battlefield should be severely reduced, although if the proper level of inaccuracy is built into air strikes and air dropped munitions, this should be a natural result.

2. In june-august 1944, the player should be able to give air strikes command only at the beginning of the game (similar to a prep bombardement), indicating to the AI air the principal targets of interest;

3. ground based FACs with the ability to control air strikes during the game should only appear beginning in august 1944. The number of teams available, their reaction time and accuracy would gradually increase until the end of the war in may 1945.

this book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=0Eb_uqFyWBgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=close+air+support&ei=ldgASuTIOoLszAST3ImNAg

answers all the questions you may have about Canadian & allied practice on the western front 43-45.

[JonS]

There must be an echo in here ...

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks gents. That's exactly how I remembered it being. June was a rude surprise, a couple of months bumbling around with improvements, then finally the precursor to what modern day FACs are based on. However, concurrent with that there were roving packs of "Jabos" pouncing on anything that moved within a certain designated areas. Provided the pilots didn't get lost they shouldn't be shooting up friendly forces. In fact, IIRC that was the intention. Give them free reign over spaces where there was no chance of mistaking friendly for enemy since everything was enemy. I suspect there were times when exceptions were made, as for example the Mortain counter offensive.

I've got a couple of very good books covering this stuff somewhere. I'm not quite ready to break them out and take a peak. The good thing about this stuff is that for the most part we're just dumbing down what we already have. We can do that very quickly. Which is one of the predicted benefits of doing the more complex modern simulation first. Much easier to turn things off than to make new stuff

Steve

[Vergeltungswaffe]

I'm a firm believer that there is very little use for air attacks in most CM scenarios, since troops are in, or close to, small arms range of one another. Attacks in those situations just didn't happen all that often. As was described above, most of the worthwhile air attacks were in free zones behind the lines, looking for transport, etc, to shoot up.

So, I really hope that air attacks in CM:N will be as effective as they were in real life, which is to say, ineffectual a very high percentage of the time.

I also hope that aircraft will have a very difficult time spotting much.

[Pvt. Ryan]

And don't forget all the aircraft bogging in the thick, soupy skies over Europe.

[JonS]

Agreed on all points, I think, with one possible caveat. The Allies had so much spare airpower over Normandy ... that there were roving squadrons that could potentially be called on as comms improved. ...

True. But I think - for practical and pragmatic reasons - that capability can reasonably be ignored.

[Battlefront.com]

Yup, totally agree that air attacks within a CM: Normandy scenario isn't exactly likely. However, I do think it would be rather silly to leave it out since about 1% of our customer base would support that decision Plus, as I said, the code is pretty much all there. We have to add some anti-air code (which we need to add for CM:SF 2 anyway), perhaps some sort of visual stuff, dumb down what we already have, and test it... that's pretty much it. Not trivial work, but the effort:reward ratio is very good.

Steve

[flamingknives]

"Start the Purple!"

[dieseltaylor]

I have seen mention for a unit being requested to put out clothing on the ground to differentiate their position from the Germans - they were very close. I have also seen a report of FB's being active until 9 pm. Presumably planes could be launched at dawn so by 6 am the Germans could be getting their wake-up call.

There is a joke! about Germans ducked when British FB's were about, everyone ducked when US FB's were about. Whether soundly based I know not. : )

I may well find the references whilst pursuing my other research. : )

[Jaws]

http://www.amazon.com/Stuka-Pilot-Hans-Ulrich-Rudel-Schiffer/dp/0887402526

Germans had FAC at the start of Barbarossa 22 june 1941

[Sgt Joch]

On the whole, I would think airpower in CM:normandy should be more or less as in CMx1 in that the player will have no or little control over it.

The bigger issue is the effectiveness of air power. In CMx1, Air Power was way too deadly. I can remember one CMBB game where stukas took out 12-13 of my 16 t-34s in the first 20 minutes.

In actuality, CAS had a very limited impact on the battlefield. Again, if you look at the experience of the Canadian Army in Normandy, artillery was an integral and essential part of every offensive and defensive plan. CAS however was infrequently used. It was rare enough that it would be mentioned as a special event whenever it was available. When it was used, the results were often disappointing since the RAF generally attacked pre-planned targets and units on the ground generally had no way of communicating with the aircrafts.

The other issue was finding targets, although it was easier to spot vehicles on roads, it was very difficult for a pilot to spot enemy vehicles or troops hidden on a battlefield. The RAF did a test in, I believe, 1943, when they setup a mock German unit and used it for target practice. Even though the pilots knew where the target area was, most FBs were unable to spot any of the targets and of those that did, most again were unable to hit any of the targets. The "Unit" survived the experience with pretty light damage. And this was a test, you would expect that the results against a live target with fully functioning AA would be even worse.

So although we can't leave out CAS from CM:Normandy, its effectiveness should be pretty low.

[Battlefront.com]

IIRC the joke went something like this:

When the Luftwaffe came out the Allies ducked. When the RAF came out the Germans ducked. When the USAF came out everybody ducked.

Sgt Joch,

Agreed. Tactical air power was fantastic for interdiction, but too unsophisticated for effective close in support on a regular basis. Interdiction was easier to do because enemy units were largely on roads (or railroads) and therefore were visually easy to spot and less likely to get under effective cover quickly. At the front the opposite was true, in large part because of Tac air. The Germans, as we all know, had to conduct significant movements of anything until after nightfall.

But it wasn't necessary for the pilots to see the actual enemy unit they were attacking. What they needed was accurate direction to target the area the enemy was in. At the very least it caused disruption and suppression. The problem was that without a FAC such direction was nearly impossible in a close in tactical environment. In other words, you couldn't have some folks back in England giving a pilot direction to bomb an 8x8m spot somewhere in France and expect him to hit it. Heck, they were pleased when they bombed the right town

Steve

[ParaBellum]

But... will 0.50 cals take out Tigers?

[Uedel]

Sorry, Commonwealth too

Yeah, that's my recollection on the Germans as well. Like many things, they started the innovation and then lost it due to distractions, such as losing the war

Steve

Germany didn't loose the War, it was a long hauled plan Launched in the early 20´s

Goals:

Start a War Look Great and get US to get drawn in

Be completely destructed

Get the Marshall Plan

With the Aid of the Marshall plan Rule the World on a Commercial Basis

Result:

Plan worked out as intended, Except for France that Failed so much and surrendered Big Time which made some things get screwed up, like the Invasion of Russia which was never indented to happen ....

So how can u say we Lost?

[Flanker15]

But... will 0.50 cals take out Tigers?

Don't know but in real life there is gun cam footage of P-47s (probably) setting a tiger's engine on fire by bouncing the shots off the ground and into the underside of the engine (I'm skeptical of this claim though, it's probably just hitting the fuel tanks).

Given the high detail of the damage and armor system in the CMx2 engine (individual parts have their own armor instead of just armor "areas") and detailed ballistics it could be possible to do that or atleast have various weak points where bullets can get in. For instance the engine of the tiger is in a bullet proof casing too thick for .5 bullets to go through but there are fuel tanks next to it that have less protection, this should be able to be modeled in the engine if I understand what BFC has said about it right.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Flanker,

I'm sorry, but after having been around the forums since 06 and allowing yourself to be hooked by such an obvious bait post, you will have to be banned.