View Full Version : Air support or not?
British Tommy
10 Sep 05, 21:04
When playing a scenario ( not QB ), do you like having air support or would you rather it wasn't used in the scenario?
Reason I ask is that I'm building a scenario and the French side has air support ( included in the original OOB's ) but I'm not too sure to include them or not.
Looking forward to your thoughts on this :)
The Purist
10 Sep 05, 23:15
When playing a scenario ( not QB ), do you like having air support or would you rather it wasn't used in the scenario?
Reason I ask is that I'm building a scenario and the French side has air support ( included in the original OOB's ) but I'm not too sure to include them or not.
Looking forward to your thoughts on this :)
If it was present and you feel it has a role to play in the battle by all means include it. Personally, I think the designers handled air support perfectly for a game of this scale. You don't know when it will arrive, if it will attack a target of any worth or if it will do any damage to the target it does attack. All very accurate for WWII.
Of course, other may debate this point, but somewhere around here (the archives?) are a couple of actual post-battle reports that clearly showed the effectiveness of 'close air support' was highly exaggerated. :cheeky:
Building air support into a scenario is fine, but their effectivness is questionable.
As far as purchasing any for a QB, I'd opt for anything else that you can control yourself.
jaegertech
11 Sep 05, 01:46
To go a bit OT, I was just playing a QB where my P-47L (I think) dropped a pair of the 1600lb bombs I bought it for right on my tank platoon.
I cried.
British Tommy
11 Sep 05, 07:03
Thank you Gentlemen for the replies :salute:
Yes it can be hit or miss with air support so after your comments I will include the French planes and do several play tests ( the German force has a couple of AA vehicles ) and see how it plays out.
Doctor Sinister
11 Sep 05, 07:26
I was playing the AI in CM:AK once and as part of the scenario it had a Spitfire equipped with a single underslung bomb to hand.
So my AA guns are pounding away at the Spitfire as it comes screeching in, and I think my fire must have put the pilot off, because he goes and drops his bomb right on the lynchpin of his OWN defensive line, totally wiping out an entire Platoon of Troops and a Tank that had been giving me real problems. Up until then it looked like I was going to lose. After that bit of friendly fire, I rolled up the enemy defence and it was all over pretty quickly.
Result!
Dr. S.
I've never liked playing with or against air support. I've always found it to be too much like a 'hand-of-God' thing - it could do catastrophic damage or maybe none at all.
In cmbo I once saw a single straffing run wipe out nearly an entire co of inf with just its MGs. I'm not sure how effective/ineffective it is in cmbb and AK, but there's something about one side potentially having sizeable numbers of its forces wiped out before the ground forces even engage that doesn't sit well with me. It's potentially too unbalancing for my tastes.
So if you're going to include it in a scenario then be aware that it could potentially turn the tide of the battle all by itself.
IMHO
British Tommy
11 Sep 05, 11:01
yes, so many stories about the amount of damage aircraft can and will do in a battle to both sides :(
I will limit the amount of aircraft to just one for the French. The German side ( AI controlled ) will have two to three AA vehicles which should help balance out the advantage of the French air support.
Still thinking about the H2H version of it though :hmmm:
Doctor Sinister
11 Sep 05, 12:17
What's H2H?
Head to Head.
Dr. S.
Patrocles
12 Sep 05, 20:33
I was playing the AI in CM:AK once and as part of the scenario it had a Spitfire equipped with a single underslung bomb to hand.
So my AA guns are pounding away at the Spitfire as it comes screeching in, and I think my fire must have put the pilot off, because he goes and drops his bomb right on the lynchpin of his OWN defensive line, totally wiping out an entire Platoon of Troops and a Tank that had been giving me real problems. Up until then it looked like I was going to lose. After that bit of friendly fire, I rolled up the enemy defence and it was all over pretty quickly.
Result!
Dr. S.
haha! yeah, i'm guesstimating that ~75% of attacks by MY air support has been against own troops!
I'm not sure if I'm taking the right lesson of air support in CMBB... but for me it tends to be highly unpredictable with regards to arrival and on the attack and I don't count on with any certainty.
With AS you just HOPE something comes out good.
You have a 50/50 chance it will hit then enemy anyway...
British Tommy
13 Sep 05, 18:22
Just to keep you updated on this beta scenario, I finished the first play test against the AI using the two French aircraft. They saved my bacon twice in two locations and the final score was a draw..... with one aircraft shot down! :rolleyes:
Now onto the next test but this time with less Panthers ( 2 platoons in the OOB's.... they did SERIOUS damage to my armour! )
KG_AGCent
15 Sep 05, 02:49
Hmmm, Panthers against Frenchmen... there is a special quality to a statement like that. Look me up when you want an Axis opponent.
British Tommy
15 Sep 05, 12:44
Hmmm, Panthers against Frenchmen... there is a special quality to a statement like that. Look me up when you want an Axis opponent.
When I have finished the H2H version I will drop you a line ( AI version almost done ). :salute:
Personally, and Im speaking 1944 onward here, the Allies get far to little air support, Id like to see a 30 turn game where the allies get 10 ac, now that would be more historic and sort out the guys that love playing the Nazis for their cool Uber gear :)
British Tommy
24 Sep 05, 19:03
Personally, and Im speaking 1944 onward here, the Allies get far to little air support, Id like to see a 30 turn game where the allies get 10 ac, now that would be more historic and sort out the guys that love playing the Nazis for their cool Uber gear :)
Might try building a scenario along those lines and see how it plays out...... let me guess, five aircraft attack that platoon of Tigers and as the Allied tankers sing the praises of the RAF..... the other five arrive on the scene and attack the Shermies! :mad:
Still, worth putting it to the test :thumup:
LOL, It would still be worth puting it to a test mate. After all, the CM games in Normandy give Jerry far too much leeway. If not the airpower, then instead of a Panther platoon, imagine they had been attrited by the Air Force and only managed to get 1 tank into battle. I know we all like to fight balanced battles, but, they werent. Still its only a game and the Jerry fans can go on playing and saying, if we were this good on the ground why didnt we win the war! Trouble is, they often were that good on the ground, but above it, ah thats the real story.
Air support is so random its a bit risky taking it.
Its so hit and miss just like the planes bomb loads.
For 150-200 points that could be 2-4 additional support guns instead
Wow if u hold fire till the right sec you are guarenteed a tank or 2 per gun
A real gamblers purchase those planes.
I agree, when I design a scenario & think about adding air-strikes I weight three possibile "normal" acts:
1. The Air-strike will miss everything no matter how many passes or how compacted everyone is.
2. The Air-strike will destroy most of the enemy's armor in one pass.
3. The Air-strike will destroy friendly units in the "critical spot" in several passes.
Which brings me back to - why am I adding airstrikes to this scenario again?
I "lose" no points by adding them in but the complete randomness can really throw the balance. The only way to correct it is to add air-strikes to both sides- but whats the point of that?
One thing to consider is that in RL wwii air support was often a deciding factor. I think this could be particularly the case in smallish CM battles.
Which brings up your point - why bother? At least with arty you have to work for it - get your spotter in good position, try to keep him alive from snipers and area fire, try to time your FO as best you can based on prediction, etc. With air it's totally random.
One thing to consider is that in RL wwii air support was often a deciding factor. I think this could be particularly the case in smallish CM battles.
I dont completly agree with that - i would say WWII air support often interferred and interdicted with supply and strategic movement, but had little to do with actual battles taking place.
I've rarely read accounts of an attack or defense taking place where Jabo's played a deciding role.
Sure enough, they messed up timetables good and proper and made a mess of cities, industries, railyards and the like.
Hmm. I recall Stukas raising hell on the eastern front. I think some of it was in pretty close support was it not?
Hmm. I recall Stukas raising hell on the eastern front. I think some of it was in pretty close support was it not?
If you are referring to where Stuka's were going after Russian tanks when those same tanks were in battle with Axis land forces - think about the amount of battles/skirmishes/offensives that happened on the Eastern front, say, in a one month period - and then think how many Stukas there were operational in the entire breadth of that front, and then think how many of those battles could have actually had Stukas involved.
Stukas, IMO, were mainly used further ahead of the battles, taking out bridges, hitting tanks in form up areas, with a few notible exceptions (like kursk) - they were not often seen in the middle of battle like we see in CM.
Stukas, IMO, were mainly used further ahead of the battles, taking out bridges, hitting tanks in form up areas, with a few notible exceptions (like kursk) - they were not often seen in the middle of battle like we see in CM. This may require some web research to verify actual effects of air support on WWii battles, ...or not. My understanding is that the effect wasn't small when used.
But I could be wrong. :hush:
I'm also too lazy to do this research.
Maybe someone out there has some actual numbers in this regard?
If what you say holds true then the more reason not to use air support in CM, seeing that it would have no real scope at this level.
looking now....
man - you'd think it was easy enough to get operational numbers for something like this...
Found this sp far which is kinda relevant:
Unguided Rockets in WW2 were terribly innacurate. Ie, the 2nd TAF 124th wing consisting of Typhoons of 181, 182, & 247 Squadrons from June 6 - July 6 1944 claimed:
Tanks Destroyed - 12
Tanks Damaged - 4
AFV's destroyed - 1 (armored car).
124 Wing expended no less then 3,700 rockets, which equates to 308 rockets fired per tank destroyed.
Regards, John Waters
jaegertech
29 Sep 05, 21:09
124 Wing expended no less then 3,700 rockets, which equates to 308 rockets fired per tank destroyed.
Did they fire those rockets only against tanks though? Might be a bit off here, but my understanding is that rockets were often, and most effectively, used against trains.
I remember watching something on the history channel about Stukas in that they destroyed thousands of Russian tanks. I'm not sure how many of those were in engaged battles though.
jaegertech
29 Sep 05, 21:41
I remember watching something on the history channel about Stukas in that they destroyed thousands of Russian tanks. I'm not sure how many of those were in engaged battles though.
I think every nation involved claimed a number of aerial tank kills greater than the number of tanks fielded against them. Going from unit reports I have heard of or read in the past, tactical kills of armored vehicles were rare at best. However, that is not a definitive of the utility of tactical air strikes. For instance, how many tanks were abandoned for lack of fuel because their fuel bowsers were strafed or bombed on their way to the front?
For instance, how many tanks were abandoned for lack of fuel because their fuel bowsers were strafed or bombed on their way to the front?
Thats what i was saying before - but thats not represented in CM - CM represents planes straffing in 100-500 meters ahead of your forces taking out AFV's, and that im sure hardly happened.
I think every nation involved claimed a number of aerial tank kills greater than the number of tanks fielded against them. Going from unit reports I have heard of or read in the past, tactical kills of armored vehicles were rare at best. Perhaps, but not definite. It depends on who you're talking to or reading.
Below is an excerpt from a book review on Rudel:
Quote
"This book relates in minute detail Rudel's many accomplishments. He and his squadron single-handedly beat back a Soviet armored assault. He rescued the crew of a downed Stuka from under the noses of the advancing Red Army. He was himself downed behind enemy lines and got back to his base in a masterpiece of evasion and escape. He even lost part of a leg and kept flying, was officially grounded and kept flying clandestinely. He finished the war with upwards of 2,500 combat missions, 500 tank kills, and one sunk battleship to his credit--an amazing feat given that he flew a slow, out-of-date aircraft in a theater where the enemy enjoyed air superiority from about 1944 onwards. Thank God his side lost, but the man deserved all the praise he got."
I suppose everyone could be lying about their accomplishments.
Some of these planes were designed as tank busters after all, and tank busters bust tanks.
Then again, I don't know what's so hard to believe about aircraft in this role.
:confused:
The Purist
29 Sep 05, 22:49
Somewhere in the old posts at least one or more years ago, someone posted a post battle report for the US airforce in Normandy. What it boiled down to was that for all the hundreds of tanks claimed killed by air attack the investigators could only positively indentify about 100 tanks that were actually taken out by rocket, bomb or cannon fire. I'm not sure how many rockets, bombs or cannon shells were thrown at German tanks but the effort far outweighed the effect. Trucks were another story altogether.
I would also take Rudels claims with a very large grain of salt, but that's just me.
What this breaks down to is what each one of us wants to believe. I think tank losses to tactical enemy air was much higher then some of you are making it out to be.
Now all I have to do is prove it. :p
Where to begin.....
jaegertech
29 Sep 05, 23:51
Some of these planes were designed as tank busters after all, and tank busters bust tanks. Then again, I don't know what's so hard to believe about aircraft in this role. :confused:
I think you vastly overestimate the capabilities of tank-busting aircraft armaments.
Edited to add: Circa WWII of course.
What this breaks down to is what each one of us wants to believe. I think tank losses to tactical enemy air was much higher then some of you are making it out to be.
Now all I have to do is prove it. :p
Where to begin.....
There is 2 parts to prove/debate.
1. The amount of actual AFV's taken out by airpower/CAS. (fighter-bomber/tactical aircraft)
2. The amount taken out during battle betwen land forces. (IE, CM styles) And this is where im trying to make my point - a lot of air support was aimed at rear areas and other targets.
its been flogged quite a lot at battlefront, CAS simply did not take out as many AFV's as everyone claimed - Rudel may have done a bit of damage - but 500 tanks by himself? 80 Stuka's of his calibre or 160 Stukas of half his abililty would have eliminated Russian AFV's from the battlefield.
I think you vastly overestimate the capabilities of tank-busting aircraft armaments. I still don't see what you are basing your argument on. Maybe I am, but just saying you think I am helps prove nothing.
its been flogged quite a lot at battlefront, CAS simply did not take out as many AFV's as everyone claimed - Rudel may have done a bit of damage - but 500 tanks by himself? 80 Stuka's of his calibre or 160 Stukas of half his abililty would have eliminated Russian AFV's from the battlefield. I don't doubt that the bulk of such damage was done in rear areas and not directly during battle between land forces. My point was that when it did occur the effects were appreciable.
As to actual overall numbers, and Rudel, well that again is what you want to believe or not. Saying you think it's crap doesn't make it so, and I didn't invent these numbers.
What were the total tank losses for each side during the war? Unfortuantely I haven't been able to dig up any numbers on the net. If you take the numbers reported that each side claims they lost and what the other side claims they inflicted and average those two numbers, then that may be somewhat accurate.
jaegertech
30 Sep 05, 22:42
I still don't see what you are basing your argument on. Maybe I am, but just saying you think I am helps prove nothing.
You asked why so many people had trouble believing that aircraft were so effective in the antitank role. Simply put, planes didn't really have that many ways of harming an armored vehicle. Bombs, rockets, and cannon were the three primary anti-tank loadouts, and each had huge drawbacks. Bombs were difficult to drop closely enough to matter. Rockets were wildly innaccurate and generally required direct hits. Cannon had deal with high deflection angles while firing relatively small rounds. All of these antitank weapons were used from an aircraft that was likely evading fire while moving well over a hundred miles per hour.
Yea, yea, but somebody somewhere should be able to come up with a few verifyable facts & figures for us on this issue.
What damage did the German air do early on in Russia & the Western Allies in Normandy?
The Purist
30 Sep 05, 23:39
Yea, yea, but somebody somewhere should be able to come up with a few verifyable facts & figures for us on this issue.
What damage did the German air do early on in Russia & the Western Allies in Normandy?
Somewhere here (archives in 'weapons of war?) is the USAAF after battle study that brought the effectiveness of 'tank busting' into question in WWII. Perhaps an admin-type could find it and post here.
Early in the war? I can't remember where exactly but I recall reading that the DB were good and knocking out fixed positions (bunkers, artillery, bridges) but could not hit tanks with bombs (except the near misses that damaged some). It was also note in Africa that Stukas, for all intents and purposes, wasted their bombs trying to hit tanks.
The 37 and 20mm cannons on some of these craft could take out a tank thru the thinner top armor. I've watch many a History channel episode of US fighters wasting German tanks, particuarly at the end of the Bulge offensive when the skies finally cleared. The fighters would straffe (not bomb) and the tanks would go up in a ball of flame.
Stukas had 37mm cannons which I believe distressed the Russian armor to some degree.
One of these programs was about the effectiveness of attack fighters on targets such as armor. It mentioned the A10 (do I have that correct? Warthog?) got it's initial concept from the Stuka. Apparently it's effectiveness impressed a few people in the US.
The Purist
01 Oct 05, 07:25
The 37 and 20mm cannons on some of these craft could take out a tank thru the thinner top armor. I've watch many a History channel episode of US fighters wasting German tanks, particuarly at the end of the Bulge offensive when the skies finally cleared. The fighters would straffe (not bomb) and the tanks would go up in a ball of flame.
I (an others, I'd imagine) am not saying it did not happen, only that it was not nearly as common or as effective as we are led to believe. Any documentary maker is going to comb through the archival footage looking for the good shots, I've seen a few myself. However, none of the footage I have seen looks like it was taken in the middle of an engagement but more so along roads in the rear. Even so, if you fly 1,000 sorties to knock out 10 tanks, was that the best use of those air assets? Might not those aircraft have been better used in attacks on the supply chain?
Just posing the questions. I tend to question the orthodox view of things, goes with my job :)
In all probability the same key footage is being shown over and over again. Still I'd be interested in seeing some hard statistics.
It seems Air support has no real place in CM's scope then, as it's more of a strategic tool then tactical.
What would be nice is if a player could designate a target type (in CMX2- HAHA!) for the aircraft to attack- AFV/Pillbox/VF/Inf etc. At least then you might get some "close" hits.
Right
To learn more about CAS taking out AFV's etc
Look here:
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=004176;p=1
Thread has heaps of links and grogs bashing heads together - start from page 2 when CAS gets thrashed about
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.