art and air support allies - this cheat!

[RomanP]

Found such a thing: fast battles (with the purchase of arms) Allied artillery and air is very cheap. At the same restrictions on the purchase of no. In his first move the opponent (who plays for allies) can fire at the zone placement of troops, even if it is not in the line of sight - causing catastrophic losses to the Germans (especially if the zone placement in open areas).

In this way, any game is very easy to co-offensive to win by playing the Allies.

Why the Germans do not even anti-aircraft guns? They had no protection against low-cost (60 points) Allied aircraft.

How to deal with it I do not know.

[Lets_All_Fight]

Well, when I play a PBEM, we usually use a house rule that bans us from firing onto an opponents set up zone with a pre-planned barrage. I'm sure I'm not the only one that does this.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Allied aircraft are only 60 points? I don't have the game in front of me but I don't recall them being that cheap.

One thing that is ridiculously cheap is US rocket artillery. I think most players ban it's use in QBs.

[ParaBellum]

In my PBEMs we always have a gentlemen's agreement not to fire into the enemy deployment zones. Have played that way since the days of CMBO.

The allied strafing planes are IMO indeed too cheap IMO. In June '44 they cost 66 pts, IIRC. They won't kill a tank but other than that they are a danger to basically everything that moves. I've seen one kill two full squads of infantry and the platoon HQ while they were cowering in a tree line within three minutes. Ouch!

You can't run from them like you can do when shelled by artillery, and hiding from them seems quite difficult, too.

And the biggest problem: the Germans can do nothing against them. No MG will open fire, and there are no light Flak guns in the game.

[Speedy]

The allied strafing planes are IMO indeed too cheap IMO. In June '44 they cost 66 pts, IIRC.

Welcome to Normandy in the summer of '44.

[Michael Emrys]

One thing that is ridiculously cheap is US rocket artillery.

I'm not sure that 'ridiculously' is quite the fair word. I purchased some for my current QB just to see what all the fuss is about, and what I found is that they tend to scatter their strikes over a considerable area. Unless one lucky rocket happens to find a target, about all they do is make the enemy duck for a turn. In addition, because their pattern is so large and random, it is dangerous to use them within 500 meters of your own troops, so they are just about useless for on call support. That said, having them lay down a preplanned prep fire on an area where German troops are suspected but not positively identified, and using their entire stock of rockets in one go is just ducky.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

I did some tests on the killing efficiency of US rocket artillery a couple of months ago. I put a company of German infantry in a 200m diameter circle of heavy forest terrain type without trees, spreading them out semi-evenly within that area. I then dropped 81mm and T27E2 rockets on their heads 10 times for each.

The number of 81mm mortar rounds that fell in each test varied from 74-114 using a short/heavy mission with 200m diameter area fire, but averaged 98.6, which was very close to the rockets' 96 (the rockets always fired exactly 96 rockets per test).

960 rockets inflicted 257 casualties. 986 81mm mortar rounds inflicted 351 casualties. That comes out to .268 casualties per rockets fired and .356 casualties per mortar round fired. The advantage the mortars enjoy is presumably due to the wide dispersion of the rockets, far more of which fell outside the 200m fire zone.

But consider what you are paying. A battery of 2 off-board 81mm mortars costs 156 points. For that you get 100 HE rounds, 10 HE-heavy rounds and 8 smoke. That comes out to 1.32 purchase points per mortar round. A battery of T27E2 rockets costs 85 points, for which you get 384 HE rockets. That comes out to .221 purchase points per rocket.

.221 x 960=212.5 pts worth of rockets expended. Divided the 257 casualties by that and we have 1.21 casualties inflicted per purchase point spent for rockets.

1.32 x 986=1303.5 pts worth of mortars expended. Divide the 351 casualties by that and we get .27 casualties inflicted per purchase point spent on 81mm mortars.

So, rockets are indeed not particularly dangerous individually, but when you consider how cheap they are and how many of them you get they are extremely efficient with regard to cost. In fact, they are 4.5 times more efficient at killing that 81mm mortars.

Of course there are other factors to consider. Rockets have a significantly longer response time, 8 minutes vs. 4-5 minutes for 81mm mortars. They also require an FO while the mortars do not. So there is that. But how much is that worth? Consider the German Nebelwerfer 41. It's has a bigger and presumably more powerful rocket at 159mm vs. the US rocket 114mm. But you only get 180 of them per battery, less than half as many as the T27E2. The Nebelwerfer 41 also requires an FO and has a delay time of 13 minutes. The Nebelwerfer 41 appears to be inferior to the T27E2 in all aspects except explosive power per round. And yet one batter costs 351 points, over 4 times that of the US T27E2.

So I'm going to stick with my contention that US rockets are ridiculously under-priced. It is either that or German rockets are ridiculously over-priced. Or both.

[Michael Emrys]

Interesting analysis, Vanir. Thanks for giving us the lowdown. I do think that some of my objections as stated above do stand however, but I wouldn't state my case so strongly.

Michael

[Wego McPbem]

Rockets might not cause that many casualties but the morale damaging\suppression effect needs to be considered as well. I've had entire platoons end up broken by rockets even though they didn't actually lose many men. They can also cover a huge area for many turns so you can't even get out of the way or go around it.

[Mad Mike]

I did some tests on the killing efficiency of US rocket artillery a couple of months ago. I put a company of German infantry in a 200m diameter circle of heavy forest terrain type without trees, spreading them out semi-evenly within that area. I then dropped 81mm and T27E2 rockets on their heads 10 times for each.

... Some calculations ...

So I'm going to stick with my contention that US rockets are ridiculously under-priced. It is either that or German rockets are ridiculously over-priced. Or both.

Well done, good analysis.

I have tried the Nebelwerfer twice in PBEM QBs, one time they didn't really pay off, the other time I think it was quite successful. The Nebelwerfer is quite good at disorganising a defence (especially a larger area), you just have to time it with your assault, so that you take maximum advantage from the confusion.

I think the low point cost for rockets and planes was probably done to reflect their virtual omnipresence (at least in the planes case). Don't know about the rockets, how common were they, does anybody know?

[ParaBellum]

Welcome to Normandy in the summer of '44.

My problem is that ATM the player can do nothing against Jabos, which is a bit detriment to fun IMO.

Give the Germans (and the Allies) access to light Flak and AA MGs and all's well.

ATM fighter-bombers are invisible, invulnerable things that randomly kill stuff.

[Sublime]

The cheap price I can live with as the Allies had air supremacy at this point in the war and during the early summer especially the airforces were tasked with a lot of interdiction etc.

My beef is how can the pilots spot the infantry so easily? I can see large numbers of troops in the open but I routinely get groups of 8-10 men as targets of strafing runs, oftentimes these men are against a hedgerow too. That doesnt 'feel' right to me.

Also I think the strafing runs are pretty damned accurate, very little dispersal, and I also would think that the line strafed - e.g. where the bullets hit - would be longer, though more spread.

[c3k]

A strafing run will usually keep the impacts in a fairly tight zone with dispersion at either end, mostly on the trailing edge.

The aircraft cannot move along the ground with machineguns firing along beneath it. The guns impact where the aircraft is pointing. (Mostly... any divergence can be debated, but will not affect the overall point of this description.) So, where the plane points is where the bullets hit.

To hit a ground target, the plane points at the ground. It'll hold that "point" and dump a lot of rounds right there. As the pilot pulls the nose up (required to avoid creating unintended cratering, also known as a "crash"), the rounds will walk forward. The amount of "walk forward" is obviously dependent upon the rate of angular change, the range, the rate of fire, and how quickly firing is stopped.

Planes cannot fly parallel to ground with their nose (and wing-mounted machineguns) pionted at the ground.

The initial dive angle, range, altitude, etc., all have a role.

Regardless, the hollywood image of a 300 yard long zone of bullet impacts, each inches away, is unrealistic. The choices are a long impact zone with widely dispersed impacts (ineffective mostly), or a much shorter impact zone with a fairly tight impact spacing.

[luckyhendrix]

There is definitely a problem with the pilot ability to spot infantry. WWII pilot's had nothing but their eyes ( and maybe a pair of binoculars) to spot soldiers hiding in bushes , laying in tall grass while they were cruising at at least 800m (2400ft) of altitude, any lower than that would expose them to all kinds of artillery and MG fire. I think that the strafing of infantry should be limited to big concentration of men running in the open , or to targets that the FO as in direct sight. On the other hand fortification and all kinds of vehicle should be easily seen by the pilot.

[Fredrock1957]

I think that all Air Support Elements also require the purchase of an FO, this FO inconjunction with the Air Element determine the accurarcy and timely matter of ordinance delivery... and goes back to all the dicussions on FO and Arty with Leadership, Motivation, and Experience...

[Tarquelne]

Well, when I play a PBEM, we usually use a house rule that bans us from firing onto an opponents set up zone with a pre-planned barrage. I'm sure I'm not the only one that does this.

Yeah. I like a similar rule. I need to remember to mention it each time I play a new opponent. ATM I'm waiting on the first return-turn in a game and wondering if I'll see a big setup-area barrage.

My rule of thumb is:

Arty should be limited on Small or Tiny maps (Say, only 1 mortar section on a Tiny and 1 mortar + 1 other on a Small), and no pre-prep for defender or in MEs.

[c3k]

There is definitely a problem with the pilot ability to spot infantry. WWII pilot's had nothing but their eyes ( and maybe a pair of binoculars) to spot soldiers hiding in bushes , laying in tall grass while they were cruising at at least 800m (2400ft) of altitude, any lower than that would expose them to all kinds of artillery and MG fire. I think that the strafing of infantry should be limited to big concentration of men running in the open , or to targets that the FO as in direct sight. On the other hand fortification and all kinds of vehicle should be easily seen by the pilot.

A bit of apples to oranges, but I wanted to post this anecdote to show that certain assumptions can be wrong, vis a vis the 2400ft mentioned above.

Outside an airbase, at a crowded sandwich shop, an old guy asked to join me at my table. Ends up he was a B25 pilot in WWII in ETO. He told me he once lost an engine while exiting the bombing zone. (They'd bomb, then drop low and empty their .50's at anything they could. The lower you go, the more difficult it is for an enemy fighter to get a gun shot on you. They've got to dive down - the ground can be unforgiving about diving down on a target.) Anyway, they lost an engine. I asked if it was due to flak or a fighter. His response was, "No, nothing like that. We hit a cow."

That's low flying.

Certainly not conducive to air to ground spotting, but the idea of a calm orbit at 2,400 ft (or so) may not correlate to actuality.

[Michael Emrys]

That's low flying.

Nap of the earth with a vengeance.

Certainly not conducive to air to ground spotting, but the idea of a calm orbit at 2,400 ft (or so) may not correlate to actuality.

Seems like they'd be higher (5,000' ?) in order to be out of range of light flak. They'd need altitude if they are going to make a diving attack, say 15,000' or so.

Michael

[DavidFields]

The cheap price I can live with as the Allies had air supremacy at this point in the war and during the early summer especially the airforces were tasked with a lot of interdiction etc.

My beef is how can the pilots spot the infantry so easily? I can see large numbers of troops in the open but I routinely get groups of 8-10 men as targets of strafing runs, oftentimes these men are against a hedgerow too. That doesnt 'feel' right to me.

Also I think the strafing runs are pretty damned accurate, very little dispersal, and I also would think that the line strafed - e.g. where the bullets hit - would be longer, though more spread.

CMSF accuracy misplaced into a WW2 simulation? [Then Rankorian dives into a ditch to avoid the angry strafing run from the designers]

On the other hand, if the strafing runs were not accurate, these Boards would be full of complaints about that. Nevertheless, I tend to lean on the side of CMBN seeming to have accuracy that feels too high, rather than those who complain like "How could my tank miss the enemy tank at 300 meters 3 times in a row?!" The clunky WW2 stuff--way before Toyota-like quality control--likely broke, misfired, or otherwise did not operate as designed, a lot more than we model. (Even before being hit and damaged)

On the other hand, CMBN is already very hard. And even having, say, your one AFV bog in a small scenario can kill the fun. (War being, generally, not fun, the realism of the simulation properly minimizes some aspects.)

And I will make one more (possibly ill-informed) comment about strafing infantry: I would think the troops would likely hear the plane coming, and scatter. [i know, someone is going to mention how fast the planes can be, and how quickly they can come over tree-tops. But in that case, the plane will also have fractions of a second to spot the squad, and turn toward it. And then dip then nose when you are flying that low?]

The effect, then, would be more disruption of units than death. This is actually harder to portray, I think, in the 1:1, track every projectile system of CMBN than in a more abstract representation. A squad suddenly broken up as 12 individual soldiers on 12 action points, all "cowering"? Very messy, even if realistic.

But here is a Grog question: In WW2, what percentage, in 1944, West Front, of strafing missions were FO controlled, and what percentage were "target of opportunity" strafing, usually targeting roads and convoys (hence affecting tactical movement, generally one level above CMBN scale)?

Not that I think Band of Brothers was totally realistic, but I can't think of a single WW2 movie or historical show were an FO was calling in strafing runs. Artillery, yes. Planes, no. Can anyone else?

Modern Warfare feature applied back into WW2 simulation? [Rankorian crawls from the ditch and hide behind an impenetrable tree as the Designers plane swings to make another strafing run]

[Chek]

Desmond Scott was a Group Captain at 25 and Commanded a Typhoon Wing in Normandy.He's written a couple of books "Typhoon Pilot" which I've read and would recommend and "One more hour" which I've yet to read.

There was mention of shooting up tree lines at the request of the Infantry and lots of disturbingly low flying.

The casualty rate was high.He was trying to get a reduction in tour length as they were on a fighter pilots 200 hour tour.They were very close to the front lines and nearly every minute in the air was in combat flying fast and low with AA being quite intensive.Operations rarely lasted more than 20 minutes and they would do so many in a day that they would literally loose count.He does stipulate that fatigue was there greatest enemy.

[DLaurier]

Anyone using a cheat will find himself alone in the CM universe with nobody to play with except himself.

Do you realy want to spend your life playing with yourself?

[Erwin]

Good heavens. Such a person may find themselves driven to do productive work, find a girlfriend or even have wife and kids... <shudder>

[Michael Emrys]

But here is a Grog question: In WW2, what percentage, in 1944, West Front, of strafing missions were FO controlled, and what percentage were "target of opportunity" strafing, usually targeting roads and convoys (hence affecting tactical movement, generally one level above CMBN scale)?

During the first couple of months of the Normandy Campaign tactical air was mostly of two varieties. Either it was sent out on a preplanned strike on a previously spotted target, or was a free-roving armed reconnaissance along roads and other places where they might reasonably expect to find the enemy. During those months, cooperation with ground troops was not all that great. But by the time of the Cobra breakout, techniques had improved and ground controllers who were themselves fighter pilots were placed with the leading ground units and equipped with radios that allowed them to speak directly to the planes in the air. This greatly reduced the response time and increased the accuracy of the strikes.

Michael

[DavidFields]

During the first couple of months of the Normandy Campaign tactical air was mostly of two varieties. Either it was sent out on a preplanned strike on a previously spotted target, or was a free-roving armed reconnaissance along roads and other places where they might reasonably expect to find the enemy. During those months, cooperation with ground troops was not all that great. But by the time of the Cobra breakout, techniques had improved and ground controllers who were themselves fighter pilots were placed with the leading ground units and equipped with radios that allowed them to speak directly to the planes in the air. This greatly reduced the response time and increased the accuracy of the strikes.

Michael

Ok, so you seem to know your stuff, so I will push further:

Pre-Cobra, that was my understanding of operations.

From Cobra, were the strikes fighter/bomber or strafing missions mostly? Was there direct ground to airplane contact (I...would doubt that, but I am no expert), or through an intermediary?

I just don't see strikes being called in by FOs, IRL, on squad level targets, particularly not unless it was easy stuff in the road.

I can see calling in company level targets--farm houses, or big fields. But the concept of calling in a strafing mission in 1944 at a 10 meter target sounds unlikely--again, too Modern Warfare. Cell phones and GPS ain't there.

[Michael Emrys]

Was there direct ground to airplane contact (I...would doubt that, but I am no expert), or through an intermediary?

Both. High priority spearheads had ground talkers who could communicate directly with the planes, but there weren't an awful lot of them to go around. Figure one per combat command of an armored division and perhaps one per infantry division.

I just don't see strikes being called in by FOs, IRL, on squad level targets, particularly not unless it was easy stuff in the road.

Yeah, close coordination should not be over used.

I can see calling in company level targets--farm houses, or big fields. But the concept of calling in a strafing mission in 1944 at a 10 meter target sounds unlikely--again, too Modern Warfare. Cell phones and GPS ain't there.

The physical size of the target was not the deciding factor, its importance to the overall operation was. A platoon-sized roadblock on a route that a major advance was scheduled to use would get attention, but a company in some out of the way mopping up probably wouldn't.

And keep in mind that availability, both of the fighter-bombers and the ground talkers, was critical. Also very important was whether there were other assets available. The reason that the armored formations got a higher percentage of the talkers was that they tended to be moving fast and were often out of range of divisional and other artillery, whereas that might not be such a problem for slower moving infantry formations.

Michael