2Es and air support in PTO

[LargeSlowTarget]

Well, I wasn't thinking. In the game you can fly grounds attack missions against enemy units based hundreds of miles away from your nearest unit. That's not "close air support" at all, but I'm not sure how to term this type of attack. Anyway, I'm not criticizing that the Allies get a better ROI from ground attacks than the Japanese - that's to be expected. Just saying that being on the receiving side without being able to give reply in kind is a PITA. You don't need to be a masochist to play Japan, but it helps.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Well, I wasn't thinking. In the game you can fly grounds attack missions against enemy units based hundreds of miles away from your nearest unit. That's not "close air support" at all, but I'm not sure how to term this type of attack. Anyway, I'm not criticizing that the Allies get a better ROI from ground attacks than the Japanese - that's to be expected. Just saying that being on the receiving side without being able to give reply in kind is a PITA. You don't need to be a masochist to play Japan, but it helps.

For the Allied side, having the Japanese aircraft attack the Chinese troops caught in the open at game start is also a PITA, since they have no answer to that kind of attack. Japan does get some (but not plentiful) AA units that can accompany troops that have to move in the open.

[LargeSlowTarget]

They don't stay in the open for long as most players retreat to 2x/3x terrain where bombing with light and medium bombers is almost pointless. Also simply less mouth to feed in a supply-starved theatre, so bombing them is actually doing the Allies a favor [:'(]. Japanese troops often must stay in the open. A NavGuard on an Atoll - two weeks of bombing and it is gone. Heck, the Allies have fighters that carry as much payload as the heaviest Japanese bombers.

[Yaab]

Thanks for all your replies.

Now I am confused. When B-25s or A-20s were called for a close ground support mission, they didn't bomb in formation, right? Their approach was probably more like the one used against ships and airfields - coming down low in groups of two or three? Single runs maybe? Because in the game you just a have this box formation of i.e 12 x B-25 pummeling LCUs as if they were bombing a strategic target.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Well, I wasn't thinking. In the game you can fly grounds attack missions against enemy units based hundreds of miles away from your nearest unit. That's not "close air support" at all, but I'm not sure how to term this type of attack. Anyway, I'm not criticizing that the Allies get a better ROI from ground attacks than the Japanese - that's to be expected. Just saying that being on the receiving side without being able to give reply in kind is a PITA. You don't need to be a masochist to play Japan, but it helps.

I sort of lean to your point. There is a difference between close air support and ground support. I know that there are cases where mediums were used in the ground support role but I suspect they were limited to special events like invasion support.

Quite frankly, it came down to a matter of simple economics. Close air support was dangerous and medium bombers were easier for AA to hit than fighters. They were tough but slower and larger targets. Do the math. Why would you risk the lives of 5-7 crewmen vs. the life of a single fighter or fighter bomber pilot? It just does not make sense considering that by mid-war fighters were able to carry very impressive bomb loads. General Kenny thought the A20 was a wonderful aircraft even though it carried less firepower and fewer bombs than a medium. The reason is simple. In a theater that was always short of qualified crews the A20 only risked two lives per sortie. So, without hard statistics I am going to say that the use of mediums in close air support was probably limited.

[Yaab]

Damn, I never thought about the crew numbers. Makes sense why A-26 Invader was doing CAS missions in late war.

So, if you wanted to role-play the whole thing a bit, then F/FB/DB/A-20/A-26 should be flying Ground Attack missions with 2Es bombing ports/airfields and 4Es bombing ports/airfields/industry.

EDIT: A-20 bombing run with radio chatter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrGIEwYxa6w

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Thanks for all your replies.

Now I am confused. When B-25s or A-20s were called for a close ground support mission, they didn't bomb in formation, right? Their approach was probably more like the one used against ships and airfields - coming down low in groups of two or three? Single runs maybe? Because in the game you just a have this box formation of i.e 12 x B-25 pummeling LCUs as if they were bombing a strategic target.

This was actually a tactic used in RL when the numbers were available. Also combined with medium-altitude bombing.
One tactic that was developed was this: Bombers might go in at low/medium level - 2-3000 feet, drawing the attention
of the AAA while strafer-modified B-25s and A-20 went in on the deck using machine guns and low-level light para-retarded
bombs, often set with delayed fuzes. Worked beautifully. B-25's could have up to a dozen nose and side-mounted .50-calibre
Brownings. Even a 75 mm cannon.

Fred

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I sort of lean to your point. There is a difference between close air support and ground support. I know that there are cases where mediums were used in the ground support role but I suspect they were limited to special events like invasion support.

Quite frankly, it came down to a matter of simple economics. Close air support was dangerous and medium bombers were easier for AA to hit than fighters. They were tough but slower and larger targets. Do the math. Why would you risk the lives of 5-7 crewmen vs. the life of a single fighter or fighter bomber pilot? It just does not make sense considering that by mid-war fighters were able to carry very impressive bomb loads. General Kenny thought the A20 was a wonderful aircraft even though it carried less firepower and fewer bombs than a medium. The reason is simple. In a theater that was always short of qualified crews the A20 only risked two lives per sortie. So, without hard statistics I am going to say that the use of mediums in close air support was probably limited.

Well, it was done, as the examples posted here should show. As for crew numbers on the B-25, the modifications made
by the 5th Air Force also did away with a lot of crew members. Why? Because the rear, ventral and front turret/machine
gun positions were often removed. Attacking on the deck the dorsal turret could defend the rear, too, and forward
there were a number of fixed machine guns. Increased the range, too.

Fred

[BillBrown]

whatever

[LargeSlowTarget]

The "strafers" with multiple machine guns pointing forward were initially invented for low-level skip-bombing of naval targets, the machine guns being useful for flak suppression. Later "strafers" were also used to attack airfields and were equipped with "parafrag" bombs which were designed to destroy aircraft protected from ordinary bombing attacks by revetments. In both cases it is not "close air support" for ground troops. Not saying that "strafers" have not been used for CAS at all, but that was not their principal role and use.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Well, I wasn't thinking. In the game you can fly grounds attack missions against enemy units based hundreds of miles away from your nearest unit. That's not "close air support" at all, but I'm not sure how to term this type of attack. Anyway, I'm not criticizing that the Allies get a better ROI from ground attacks than the Japanese - that's to be expected. Just saying that being on the receiving side without being able to give reply in kind is a PITA. You don't need to be a masochist to play Japan, but it helps.

Distance to the target is immaterial:

In military tactics, close air support (CAS) is defined as air action such as air strikes by fixed or rotary-winged aircraft against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces and which requires detailed integration of each air mission with fire and movement of these forces.[1]

"Distance to target is immaterial" vs "against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces" - sound contradictory, no? [&:]

The "close proximity" definition of CAS you offer is exactly how I have defined it, and thus "ground attacks" against LCUs hundreds of miles away from your own troops - as can be ordered in the game - is not CAS but something else.

[MakeeLearn]

close air support (CAS)

direct and indirect support of ground forces

The development of close air support and air interdiction

"From the earliest origins, attack theory and doctrine evolved primarily along two paths -direct and indirect support of ground and air force objectives. The direct support approach was based on fundamental beliefs by the Army that attack aviation was an auxiliary combat arm to be used directly on the battlefield against ground forces and to further the ground campaign plan. The indirect support approach, or air interdiction, was derived from the fundamental beliefs by the Air Corps that attack aviation was best used beyond the battle line and artillery range, against targets more vulnerable and less heavily defended, to further both the Air Force mission and the ground support mission"

Cox, Beyond the Battle Line,

BEYOND THE BATTLE LINE:
US AIR ATTACK THEORY AND DOCTRINE, 1919–1941

www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/saas/coxgc.pdf

[btd64]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Well, I wasn't thinking. In the game you can fly grounds attack missions against enemy units based hundreds of miles away from your nearest unit. That's not "close air support" at all, but I'm not sure how to term this type of attack. Anyway, I'm not criticizing that the Allies get a better ROI from ground attacks than the Japanese - that's to be expected. Just saying that being on the receiving side without being able to give reply in kind is a PITA. You don't need to be a masochist to play Japan, but it helps.

Distance to the target is immaterial:

In military tactics, close air support (CAS) is defined as air action such as air strikes by fixed or rotary-winged aircraft against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces and which requires detailed integration of each air mission with fire and movement of these forces.[1]

"Distance to target is immaterial" vs "against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces" - sound contradictory, no? [&:]

The "close proximity" definition of CAS you offer is exactly how I have defined it, and thus "ground attacks" against LCUs hundreds of miles away from your own troops - as can be ordered in the game - is not CAS but something else.

Interdiction Perhaps....GP

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Leandros

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I sort of lean to your point. There is a difference between close air support and ground support. I know that there are cases where mediums were used in the ground support role but I suspect they were limited to special events like invasion support.

Quite frankly, it came down to a matter of simple economics. Close air support was dangerous and medium bombers were easier for AA to hit than fighters. They were tough but slower and larger targets. Do the math. Why would you risk the lives of 5-7 crewmen vs. the life of a single fighter or fighter bomber pilot? It just does not make sense considering that by mid-war fighters were able to carry very impressive bomb loads. General Kenny thought the A20 was a wonderful aircraft even though it carried less firepower and fewer bombs than a medium. The reason is simple. In a theater that was always short of qualified crews the A20 only risked two lives per sortie. So, without hard statistics I am going to say that the use of mediums in close air support was probably limited.

Well, it was done, as the examples posted here should show. As for crew numbers on the B-25, the modifications made
by the 5th Air Force also did away with a lot of crew members. Why? Because the rear, ventral and front turret/machine
gun positions were often removed. Attacking on the deck the dorsal turret could defend the rear, too, and forward
there were a number of fixed machine guns. Increased the range, too.

Fred

Yes, I know it was done. I have read about B17s skip bombing as well. Does that mean it was standard? The question is not about strafing ground units or bases in a tactical role but close air support. Two different things in my mind.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Leandros

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I sort of lean to your point. There is a difference between close air support and ground support. I know that there are cases where mediums were used in the ground support role but I suspect they were limited to special events like invasion support.

Quite frankly, it came down to a matter of simple economics. Close air support was dangerous and medium bombers were easier for AA to hit than fighters. They were tough but slower and larger targets. Do the math. Why would you risk the lives of 5-7 crewmen vs. the life of a single fighter or fighter bomber pilot? It just does not make sense considering that by mid-war fighters were able to carry very impressive bomb loads. General Kenny thought the A20 was a wonderful aircraft even though it carried less firepower and fewer bombs than a medium. The reason is simple. In a theater that was always short of qualified crews the A20 only risked two lives per sortie. So, without hard statistics I am going to say that the use of mediums in close air support was probably limited.

Well, it was done, as the examples posted here should show. As for crew numbers on the B-25, the modifications made
by the 5th Air Force also did away with a lot of crew members. Why? Because the rear, ventral and front turret/machine
gun positions were often removed. Attacking on the deck the dorsal turret could defend the rear, too, and forward
there were a number of fixed machine guns. Increased the range, too.

Fred

Most of the 5th AF B-25s had a crew of 5 - two pilots, flight engineer/top gunner (H and J), radio operator/waist gunner, and tail gunner. The Cs and Ds usually had waist guns and tail guns added.

My father said new pilots always had to fly so many missions as a co-pilot before they could fly their own missions. The B-25 and 4E bombers were the only USAAF planes in theater with more than one pilot though. I don't know what the policy was for other aircraft.

B-25s were popular in the ground attack role because they did have so many 0.50s pointing forward. That package of guns would do a lot of damage on their own.

Bill

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: crsutton


Yes, I know it was done. I have read about B17s skip bombing as well. Does that mean it was standard? The question is not about strafing ground units or bases in a tactical role but close air support. Two different things in my mind.

I have never read about B-17s skip bombing operationally. They had the maneuverability, but by the time they started skip bombing B-17s were too valuable for the recon and long range bombing role.

Bill

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: crsutton
Does that mean it was standard? The question is not about strafing ground units or bases in a tactical role but close air support. Two different things in my mind.

Whatever the frequency of B-25 use in ground support for the Solomons and Papua/New Guinea, it had definitely become common by the time
of the Allied invasion of the Philippines.

Try Cooling's "Case studies in the development of close air support". The full edition is available online. There is a 50 page chapter
on the SW Pacific showing the stop-start use of CAS through 42-44 until it became fully established during the Luzon campaign of 44-45.
It highlights the widespread use in that latter campaign of B-25's in direct battlefield support roles, including CAS missions.

If anything, AE is just allowing the Allied player to throw his mediums into those roles from the get-go rather than wait for combat experience
to show the bombers' potential use. AE's good like that.[:)]

[wdolson]

My father said when they were flying out of Tacloban, they would barely get their landing gear up by the time they were dropping their bombs.

Bill

[Yaab]

The plot thickens.

Here is some info on B-25J
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/we ... chell.html

"B-25J

This was the version produced in the largest number – over 4000 were completed before the end of the war. It was built in two main versions. The majority had the glass bombardier’s restored, marking a return to the bomber role. A smaller number had a solid nose containing eight .50 calibre machine guns, for use in the ground attack".

and wikipedia

B-25J-NC
Follow-on production at Kansas city, the B-25J, could be called a cross between the B-25D and the B-25H. It had a transparent nose, but many of the delivered aircraft were modified to have a strafer nose (J2). Most of its 14–18 machine guns were forward-facing for strafing missions, including the two guns of the forward-located dorsal turret. The RAF received 316 aircraft, which were known as the Mitchell III. The J series was the last factory series production of the B-25. (Number made: 4,318.)

warthunder wiki

"When used as a bomber, the aircraft had a crew of six people: two pilots, a navigator/bombardier/gunner, a turret gunner/engineer, a radio operator/waist gunner, and a tail gunner. When used as a ground-attack aircraft, the crew consisted of five people, excluding the navigator/bombardier."

-----
So, let's say a B-25J is called for a CAS mission. Glazed nose variant has crew of six, unglazed one - crew of five. Obviously, crew numbers do not play a role here. When you look for reference about B-25 attacks against IJA infantry, sources say "B-25s attacked infantry". Which B-25s? The glazed ones or the unglazed ones?

[wdolson]

My father rode in the nose with a 35mm motion picture camera, but it was common for them to fly the glass nose planes with the nose empty. Along with the seat for the bombardier, there was also 4X 0.50 machine guns in the nose. My father said almost every B-25 he saw in the Pacific had the glass nose with the 4X 0.50s as well as the package guns on the side. This was true when flying with both the 5th and 11th AFs.

Bill