Air Strikes
 

How "safe" are air strikes in WinSPWW2?

In the various versions of SP out there, I find I suffer from "friendly fire" too often. So much so, I don't usually bother with air strikes in WinSPWW2. The only aircraft I generally use are spotters and transports because they don't shoot at my own units. In one battle I did use Stukas, but I made sure their approach to the target didn't pass near any of my units. Basically, I bombed some infantry units running down the bottom of the map into my rear area. I'm not sure what the infantry was up to. There was nothing back there to attack. By doing that, I effectively wasted my Stukas attacking enemy units that weren't a threat, just to keep my planes away from my own units.

How often do "friendly fire" air strikes typically occur?

Re: Air Strikes
 

Do not attack in poor visibilty and that means not only map visibity but also take into account smoke that might obscure the target area.

Also try to bring in the airstrike on an observed hex and if that is not possible try to ensure, if practical, that the aircraft does not make it's approach to the target over or towards your own troops

Also keep in mind that "close air support" in reality doesn't mean bombing enemy troops 100 yards from your own troops so don't push things too close

Don

Re: Air Strikes
 

Best is to call in airstrikes in good visibility, to a target that's far enough from your troops, and by a spotter who has a direct LOS to target.

Just as a side note, since I play Il-2 Sturmovik sim, I really do appreciate how hard is it to hit a land target from a fast mover. Especially with bombs and rockets.

Re: Air Strikes
 

I've had problems with 'blue on blue' airstrikes in the past.

What helped the most for me, was carefully picking the flight path (entry direction) of the plane; so it doesn't fly over friendlys until after the target area.

Secondly, the target should be a good distance from any friendly units (especially vehicles). The worse the visibility, the further to keep your air target from your own forces. This means I usually use air support for targets just behind the main line of resistance.

Use mortars and field artillery for close support.

Using the above approach, it's been a long time since I've had a 'friendly fire' incident.

Re: Air Strikes
 

That's pretty much what I do now, if I use strike aircraft at all. I find the spotters to be much more useful as long as I don't blunder them into AAA.

Re: Air Strikes
 

And while we are on the "blue on blue" airstrike issue, what about the reverse situation ie "blue on blue" antiair fire?
Was it common?
Should it be included in the game (if it was an issue in wwII)?
(Ok stop throwing eggs!:D)

Re: Air Strikes
 

I'm sure it happened, but it's not as I can only think of one well documented instance. That was immediately after Pearl Harbor. I think a few Wildcats were shot down because everyone at Pearl was trigger happy.

Overall, I think the most likely cases would occur when the other side has air superiority or supremacy. Gunners would expect most things flying would belong to the other side and fire with a little less restraint.

Re: Air Strikes
 

Having said I mostly pick targets behind the main line of resistance, I should point out that I still find aircraft a well worth while investment. Finding choice targets aways from friendly units, is not all that difficult.

I often purchase two or more aircraft, and usually find I get my moneys worth, once you factor in the additional intel gained, and the psychological/harassing effect it has on your opponent.

In my most recent battle, a pair of Mossies slightly damaged the only two Tigers on the battlefield, immobolised a Pz III and I think damaged an APC. One of the Mosquitos did get damaged by AAA and had to RTB.

Re: Air Strikes
 

I won't be able to play with it during my current battle. All I could do was take one air unit and it was a spotter.

Re: Air Strikes
 

Depends. Mostly on skill and circumstances - for example on Pacific islands Japanese sometimes used US aircrafts as cover and fired machineguns when masked by noise of a/c engines, thus also starting up paranoia about US fighters strafing own troops, this in turn leading to wild fires against anything int he air...

As for CAS inaccuracy, I believe after bad experience from Normandy, one US inf. division declined any air support but observation planes. Though the worst incidents were I believe in the run-up to Cobra by heavy bombersw, but then there was this French town-that-I-cannot-recall-now where TacAir attacked what they thought to be a retreating German column and caused many US and civillian casaulties.

Re: Air Strikes
 

Now you are back to the reason why I pretty much avoid strike aircraft and use spotters.

Re: Air Strikes
 

By Normandy, British arty was firing "pink" missions 10,000 yds deep behind the front line or more. Everything on the far side of the pink smoke line was an air kill zone, anything seen there was considered fair game, no air strikes were allowed on our troops side. "Close" air support was therefore 10 clicks from the troops, and needed the arty batteries smoke marking to endure de-conflicting the fighters from friendly ground forces. The pilots found target discrimination exceedingly difficult to do, so marked kill zones was the way to go.

It was rare for a danger close (ie within 10000 yards of friendlies!) to be called, and if it was, it was under the personal observation of an air-ground "tentacle" team equiped with air frequencies radios with "eyes on" the enemy tiger or whatever, and he would talk each plane in individually, with lots of air recognition sheets, coloured smoke firing, flares etc used to mark friendlies.

Aircraft too close to own forces were dangerous things then, and still are today.

In any case anti-armour etc missions were not what air power was about. Aircraft targets are road convoys (to include AFV as bonus items) - but mainly to smash trucks and trains etc to flaming wrecks. Their anti-armour effect was therefore indirect as the supplies of POL, ammo and food petered out the clockwork mice stopped working. But this game is tactical, and so cannot represent the interdiction capability of air power that is its true strength. You would need an operational game at the division-sized counter level to properly model that IMHO.

One could model air superiority by an abstraction - but imagine the squeals from the German player when he was informed that due to the Allied air superiority (the USA guy bought a squillion P47 and assigned them to pre-game interdiction), half his shiny Tiger 2s will not be allowed to arrive on the battlefield since they are stuck in a traffic jam of pulverised scrap metal that used to be the supply trucks in Falaise and 3 were considered killed on the approach march. Plus everyone else has only half the ammo because of said supply trucks being toast, and D company has -1 on its morale due to the field kitchen failing to deliver a hot breakfast since the bread oven is now a .50 cal colander..

Cheers
Andy

Re: Air Strikes
 

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.

Re: Air Strikes
 

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.

Re: Air Strikes
 

Id second that, cant get enough of that blue on blue. Im pretty sure afer a severe staffing most gunners would be tempted to fire first and ask questions later.
Best Regards Chuck.

Re: Air Strikes
 

Here's another air strike question. Has anyone ever seen the AI target it's own units? I'm sure there might be instances where they inflicted some collateral damage on their own units by targeting enemy units nearby, but I'm wondering if the AI is at the same risk of accidently bombing their own units.

Re: Air Strikes
 

Yeah, often in fact.

Re: Air Strikes
 

Agreed..If their units are close the bombing sector:D

Re: Air Strikes
 

Yes, Colonel your airstrikes were quite unnerving, and gave one an appreciation of why a lot of photos of Panzer Crews showed them searching the skies!!;)

Bob out

Re: Air Strikes
 

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

Re: Air Strikes
 

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

Re: Air Strikes
 

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.

Re: Air Strikes
 

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.




.

Re: Air Strikes
 

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 :D

Re: Air Strikes
 

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

Re: Air Strikes
 

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 :rolleyes:

Re: Air Strikes
 

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:D

Re: Air Strikes
 

Wouldn't have bothered me as much if I didn't have four tubes of 15cm getting ready to come down on the mortar the next turn. At least one of my ME110s hit the tanks and took one out. The targets were Valentine IIIs. Have to get pretty close with PzKw IIIh tanks to take them out and I didn't figure the artillery would hurt them much.

Re: Air Strikes
 

Slow-moving Brit tanks are as ideal target for arty as one can ask for (apart from an infantry bn bbunched up on few hexes ;))

Re: Air Strikes
 

The pilot will target a suitable target he spots while flying in. As stated earlier in this thread, aircraft usually aren't very effective against armor but very much so against artillery so it isn't strange the pilot decides to go for the mortars he spots.

If you want to avoid this try not to have the aircraft coming in to fly over other potential targets, ie make sure the armor is the first of the enemy units it'll spot.


Narwan

Re: Air Strikes
 

I sometimes had some armor blown by air strikes, they're only effective on the first pass, when they have bombs and rockets to drop, on the second pass, it's going to be guns-only, ineffective against armor, unless the plane's got big guns (20mm and bigger are something to fear when it comes from above), so, cheaper air strikes are better against a force with no armor, because they usually have light guns