Air Strikes

[Marek_Tucan]

What was I wondering about: How often were the aircrafts used to attack artillery positions?

As for "danger close", I believe those missions were fairly regular during pre-planned massive ops (like Market-Garden, though there they were mostly in potentia due to defects in communications etc) but then the planes were to attack specified targets (IIRC colored smoke shells were the norm). And most of the "spectacular" friendly fire incidents (air-to-ground) happened during highly mobile battles where frontlines were unclear (Guderian was almost killed in a Stuka attack in France 1940, Mac Arthur's car was almost attacked by a Lightning on Luzon in 1945).
The situation you describe (with kill zone >10km from own lines) would be most likely applied to more "static" periods, right?

Just for the record I think that the situation you describe above would be funny as hell and that adding similar randomness to the game would be great, but probably not worth the efforts and inevitable complaints, even if possible (having to tackle C spaghetti here and there, though not on a daily basis, my appreciation for it grows )
As for the effect on tanks, IIRC there was an "online interview" with DAK Tiger veteran major (living in the US, discovered by a model/books store owner which he visited) who described the drill during air raid. Cars: leave road, crew+passengers jump out to cover. Tanks: button up and continue driving.

[Cross]

Although aircraft were more likely to target the more visible and vulnerable convoys, planes were sometimes used to attack armour with surprisingly good results.

The Stuka (Junkers 87) would, even in 1940, dive on and drop bombs on individual tanks with amazing accuracy. Later in 1943/44 when the 87D was first fitted with 37mm cannons, I read that they KO dozens of Russian tanks in a single day.

I guess in our battalion level tactical battles, we are more likely to use aircraft in their less common close support role, even though they belong in a battle of larger scope.

But I wouldn't change a thing. Air attacks - and the realistic chances of 'friendly fire' - bring another dimension to the fun.

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Cross

Although aircraft were more likely to target the more visible and vulnerable convoys, planes were sometimes used to attack armour with surprisingly good results.

The Stuka (Junkers 87) would, even in 1940, dive on and drop bombs on individual tanks with amazing accuracy. Later in 1943/44 when the 87D was first fitted with 37mm cannons, I read that they KO dozens of Russian tanks in a single day.

I guess in our battalion level tactical battles, we are more likely to use aircraft in their less common close support role, even though they belong in a battle of larger scope.

But I wouldn't change a thing. Air attacks - and the realistic chances of 'friendly fire' - bring another dimension to the fun.

I cannot recall the title of the publication I picked up at Duxford a couple of years back, but it was based on the Allied operations research group reports into air effectiveness during and after Normandy. Been a couple of years since I read it, but as I recollect:

Most air strikes did not actually destroy heavy panzers. The German crews would however tend to bail from theoretically "immune" MBT that air weapons really had no great chance on and cower in cover nearby - where they were sometimes killed by the strafing. Panzers were sometimes found unmanned, with the engines running after Allied troops overran an area that had been recently struck by air.

Although the tanks were relatively immune from air strikes (.50 and 20 mm were really ineffective vs heavy armour and bomb or rocket hits were rather unlikely), the few that were directly hit by bombs or rockets tended to be destroyed, esp by 60 pounder rockets. The crews therefore preferred to take their chances in the ditch alongside when being strafed, or would charge off the road into cover and then bail from the vehicle. They would often bail on the aircraft starting their attacks, long before the actual MG fire started. It could take a half an hour or more after the air strike before all crews were re-mounted and the surviving tanks were marshalled back into order and the column proceeded once more.

Troops did not become "blase" after suffering from several air strikes - unlike getting used to regular shelling. Rather they became more "twitchy" in response to air strikes the more that they experienced them in their careers.

The armour that was destroyed was the open-topped and thin skinned half tracks, scout cars and tank destroyers.

The real damage was done on soft transport, which air attacks reduced to bent bits of scrap metal. Abandoned panzers were often found on roads in the bocage (esp Falaise) in the midst of a sea of mangled soft-skin vehicle wreckage that they simply could not extract themselves from.

It seems that troops under air attack have a different experience from those under arty bombardment. Shelling is relatively impersonal. However troops under air attack feel that the plane is directing the fire at them personally, so the shock to morale is much greater. Like the difference between general rifle fire and being personally sniped at with aimed rifle fire.

So - as an anti-armour weapon planes were a "terror" item. Real killing was done on the soft MT carrying the tanks bullets, bombs and beans. The AT effect of air power was therefore an indirect one over time as the "clockwork" of the armoured units wound down due to lack of logistical support from the MT. Just like the USN concentration (esp by the sub force) on tankers stopped the IJN's clockwork too.

Cheers
Andy

[Lt. Ketch]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

So - as an anti-armour weapon planes were a "terror" item.

I remember hearing that Stuka's carried sirens and would activate them when they dove. Enhance the effectiveness of the terror, so to speak.

[RERomine]

Has there ever been any consideration on making aircraft available for air superiority missions? Off board artillery can be used for counter battery fire, so why couldn't planes be used for air superiority missions?

The reason this came up is, as I mentioned when I started the thread, I pretty much stick to spotters and transports. In a recent battle, I had three spotters and the AI had two Hurricanes. The Hurricanes shouldn't had any trouble with three unarmed spotter planes. In reality, it's unlikely the Hurricanes would have ignored the spotters, especially after the Hurricanes dropped their bombs. Pilots live for an easy kill. Even if the Hurricanes couldn't get a kill out of it, they likely would have interfered with the spotting missions and then return back for their own ground attack missions. Just a thought.

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by RERomine

Has there ever been any consideration on making aircraft available for air superiority missions? Off board artillery can be used for counter battery fire, so why couldn't planes be used for air superiority missions?

The reason this came up is, as I mentioned when I started the thread, I pretty much stick to spotters and transports. In a recent battle, I had three spotters and the AI had two Hurricanes. The Hurricanes shouldn't had any trouble with three unarmed spotter planes. In reality, it's unlikely the Hurricanes would have ignored the spotters, especially after the Hurricanes dropped their bombs. Pilots live for an easy kill. Even if the Hurricanes couldn't get a kill out of it, they likely would have interfered with the spotting missions and then return back for their own ground attack missions. Just a thought.

No.

All air superiority is decided by the air force ratios, which determine the number of flights of attack etc planes that have got through any fighter furballs. The attack planes are soley interested in the attack mission, not hunting spotters that are currently off map (helos can be on map).

The original SP games only allow the one side to have air power, so if you had air you knew you had no need to buy any flak. We allow a few to the one who has less air superiority sometimes, so both sides need some AAA or at least to consider buying it.

This is an army tactical game - what your Air Farce is up to is not under your influence. It's nowhere near your pay grade.

Cheers
Andy

[RERomine]

I did try some air strikes in my current battle and my pilots need to work on their target identification skills still. They didn't hit any of my units, but when I call them in on "tanks in the open", I don't want them to attack a mortar! The artillery strike on the mortar was already on the clock. Guess I can cancel the artillery now

[PanzerBob]

Originally Posted by RERomine

I did try some air strikes in my current battle and my pilots need to work on their target identification skills still. They didn't hit any of my units, but when I call them in on "tanks in the open", I don't want them to attack a mortar! The artillery strike on the mortar was already on the clock. Guess I can cancel the artillery now

Hey, an airstrike on arty assets is good, I will target arty on board with airstrikes, if I figure out where they are. With the AI it may move its assets as a result. Human Commanders almost always will shift his arty park if he figures you know where it is. A gun moving is not firing, and maybe you'll luck in and hit an ammo depot, even better yet a depot loading ammo!!!

SPA's and Towed Pieces are easier to affect than tanks.

IMHO, Bob out

[Cross]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

I cannot recall the title of the publication I picked up at Duxford a couple of years back, but it was based on the Allied operations research group reports into air effectiveness during and after Normandy. Been a couple of years since I read it, but as I recollect:

Most air strikes did not actually destroy heavy panzers. The German crews would however tend to bail from theoretically "immune" MBT that air weapons really had no great chance on and cower in cover nearby - where they were sometimes killed by the strafing. Panzers were sometimes found unmanned, with the engines running after Allied troops overran an area that had been recently struck by air.

Although the tanks were relatively immune from air strikes (.50 and 20 mm were really ineffective vs heavy armour and bomb or rocket hits were rather unlikely), the few that were directly hit by bombs or rockets tended to be destroyed, esp by 60 pounder rockets. The crews therefore preferred to take their chances in the ditch alongside when being strafed, or would charge off the road into cover and then bail from the vehicle. They would often bail on the aircraft starting their attacks, long before the actual MG fire started. It could take a half an hour or more after the air strike before all crews were re-mounted and the surviving tanks were marshalled back into order and the column proceeded once more.

Troops did not become "blase" after suffering from several air strikes - unlike getting used to regular shelling. Rather they became more "twitchy" in response to air strikes the more that they experienced them in their careers.

The armour that was destroyed was the open-topped and thin skinned half tracks, scout cars and tank destroyers.

The real damage was done on soft transport, which air attacks reduced to bent bits of scrap metal. Abandoned panzers were often found on roads in the bocage (esp Falaise) in the midst of a sea of mangled soft-skin vehicle wreckage that they simply could not extract themselves from.

It seems that troops under air attack have a different experience from those under arty bombardment. Shelling is relatively impersonal. However troops under air attack feel that the plane is directing the fire at them personally, so the shock to morale is much greater. Like the difference between general rifle fire and being personally sniped at with aimed rifle fire.

So - as an anti-armour weapon planes were a "terror" item. Real killing was done on the soft MT carrying the tanks bullets, bombs and beans. The AT effect of air power was therefore an indirect one over time as the "clockwork" of the armoured units wound down due to lack of logistical support from the MT. Just like the USN concentration (esp by the sub force) on tankers stopped the IJN's clockwork too.

Cheers
Andy

Hi Andy,

Thanks for this additional info. I must say that I don't disagree.

My post must be seen in light of the statement: "planes were sometimes used to attack armour with surprisingly good results"

I chose the Stuka as an example, because I believe it would be a contender for the best WW2 all around anti-tank plane.

Almost vertical dive-bombing sometimes gave its bombs enough accuracy to ko individually targeted tanks. The tanks of 1940 were vulnerable to bombs that were a near miss.

Later in the war, German and Russian pilots claimed hundreds and hundreds of tank 'kills'. These were no doubt over-claimed, but there is likely some truth to it.

Currently I think SPWW2 ground strikes are well modelled. My experience is mostly harrassment, with some damage and the occasional kill.


If you were to introduce AAA fratricide. Then I'd guess you'd tie it to the units experience, and perhaps their level of supression. A crew that is supressed will be less likely to follow procedure and take the time and caution to firmly ID an air target; they'd be more jumpy and trigger happy.




.

[PanzerBob]

Nice and succinct Andy!!! Pretty much boils down much of what I've seen over the years with references to Tactical Air and CAS during WWII.

I’m also of the belief the game does a nice job of simulating airstrikes.

Random terrible Chaos!!!

Bob out