Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

Guadalcanal, Betties

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

One other comment for discussion.

Most of the time the discussion about 4EB in ground support goes one of two ways. The first is the comparison to the large carpet bombing raids during Normandy, which were generally area bombing, i.e. you take a large number of bombers and attempt to saturate an area target. The natural follow on argument is that the in-game raids are typically much smaller (number of bombers per raid) and much more effective (no of casualties per raid or sortie) than any of the carpet bombing raids. Most likely true that if hundreds/thousands of planes carpet bombing couldn't generate the in-game casualties rates, than much smaller semi-blind carpet bombing raids wouldn't be able to either.

The second is the idea that 4EBs are being used as close-air-support similar to how the Allies used P-47s and Typhoons (and other planes) in the CAS role. The argument is that these planes are way to large and unmanueverable to perform those kind of duties, particularly relative to 2EBs like the Boston/Havoc/A-20/A-26 or even B-25s. And even though B-17s were used to develop the skip-bombing technique which required some ability to manuever, that argument against CAS-type support is reasonable.

Well, what if the in-game 4EB usage is something different. Could you use 4EB on more of a targeted strike type of operation from mid- to low- altitude with 4EB groups "trained" to do so. Team them up with some kind of ground spotter organization, and it doesn't seem impossible that they would be much more effective than the semi-blind carpet bombing raids. Particularly if they are attacking large numbers of troops in open terrain in view of said spotters and in smaller more-controllable formations, a squadron or two at a time. So was this ever done in real-life, not probably not. Is it still more effective than would have been possible if it was tried, probably.

People also like to mention about the theoretical troop densities of 10K to 20K soldiers in a 40-mile hex, but in reality those troops would concentrated in a much smaller area proximate to the enemy troops in the hex, not to mention concentrated around road/rail networks, etc. In general, in they are in contact with the enemy in open terrain, the Allies are probably going to have a fairly decent idea where the enemy troops and support echelons are located.

Mike

ORIGINAL: Walloc

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

One other comment for discussion.

Most of the time the discussion about 4EB in ground support goes one of two ways. The first is the comparison to the large carpet bombing raids during Normandy, which were generally area bombing, i.e. you take a large number of bombers and attempt to saturate an area target. The natural follow on argument is that the in-game raids are typically much smaller (number of bombers per raid) and much more effective (no of casualties per raid or sortie) than any of the carpet bombing raids. Most likely true that if hundreds/thousands of planes carpet bombing couldn't generate the in-game casualties rates, than much smaller semi-blind carpet bombing raids wouldn't be able to either.

The second is the idea that 4EBs are being used as close-air-support similar to how the Allies used P-47s and Typhoons (and other planes) in the CAS role. The argument is that these planes are way to large and unmanueverable to perform those kind of duties, particularly relative to 2EBs like the Boston/Havoc/A-20/A-26 or even B-25s. And even though B-17s were used to develop the skip-bombing technique which required some ability to manuever, that argument against CAS-type support is reasonable.

Well, what if the in-game 4EB usage is something different. Could you use 4EB on more of a targeted strike type of operation from mid- to low- altitude with 4EB groups "trained" to do so. Team them up with some kind of ground spotter organization, and it doesn't seem impossible that they would be much more effective than the semi-blind carpet bombing raids. Particularly if they are attacking large numbers of troops in open terrain in view of said spotters and in smaller more-controllable formations, a squadron or two at a time. So was this ever done in real-life, not probably not. Is it still more effective than would have been possible if it was tried, probably.

People also like to mention about the theoretical troop densities of 10K to 20K soldiers in a 40-mile hex, but in reality those troops would concentrated in a much smaller area proximate to the enemy troops in the hex, not to mention concentrated around road/rail networks, etc. In general, in they are in contact with the enemy in open terrain, the Allies are probably going to have a fairly decent idea where the enemy troops and support echelons are located.

Mike

I like the idea Mike,

3 comments.

1. The safety ranges during the carpet bombings was of such distance that the training and inherent small size of such "small raid group" would have be significantly lowered. As the common distance between the FLOT(forward of own troops) and the FLET(forward line of enemy troops) is normally less than the carpet bombing safety distances. If your able to do that it has a leg to stand on, if not it doesnt.

2. As the idea counts on having ground spotters. The distance to the enemy, that is having large forces in open terrain cant be longer than view ranges, obviously. The question begs how often did u enemy have large forces in open terrain in clear view of the enemy lines and stayed there long enough to call in a raid.

3. Most convincingly to me. If we encountered the conditions as in 2. Why not just use artillery. U alrdy have a trained ground spotter crews that just need to pick up the phone. Call the artillery central and call in a seemigly much more cost effective option in this case. 878 British artillery tubes was directed on to the assembly area of 9.SS as they tried to set up the counter attack at the flanks of Epsom. Welcome to the western front. That was pretty effective use of a force u alrdy had in place for these conditions. Why bother using 4E resources that could be used else where and most likely wasnt any where so cost effective.


Kind regards,
Rasmus

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

The second is the idea that 4EBs are being used as close-air-support similar to how the Allies used P-47s and Typhoons (and other planes) in the CAS role. The argument is that these planes are way to large and unmanueverable to perform those kind of duties, particularly relative to 2EBs like the Boston/Havoc/A-20/A-26 or even B-25s. And even though B-17s were used to develop the skip-bombing technique which required some ability to manuever, that argument against CAS-type support is reasonable.

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

And I will add that there is no greater excitement than the final year of this game playing as Japan, whenever that year occurs. Your back is to wall, limited everything, and a mighty sword hangs over your head on almost every turn by a weakening thread.

What joy!

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

The second is the idea that 4EBs are being used as close-air-support similar to how the Allies used P-47s and Typhoons (and other planes) in the CAS role. The argument is that these planes are way to large and unmanueverable to perform those kind of duties, particularly relative to 2EBs like the Boston/Havoc/A-20/A-26 or even B-25s. And even though B-17s were used to develop the skip-bombing technique which required some ability to manuever, that argument against CAS-type support is reasonable.

At least for me this is not my second argument.

My argument is that the game fails to model tactics and weapons (FBs and the roles/weapons I spoke of up-thread) which constituted most of the Allied land air war effort ex-strat bombing cities. CAS simply isn't really in the game, and it was the root of Allied air superiority for at least 1944-45, and somewhat earlier by theater.

So, the devs (really GG, not Henderson), AS COMPENSATION, made 2E and 4E Ground attacks more effective than history (COBRA, etc.) To compete with the ahistorical Japanese air effort, which over time JFBs have learned to make truly monumental, probably in excess of what the devs envisioned. So, any effort to argue AE ground 4E results against history will fail. They weren't intended to be historical. Any more than the ability to see patrolling submarines at 200 NM ranges in daylight, when they were at periscope depth, is historical. It's abstracted, and you can't pull one thread without the whole blanket coming apart.

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

The second is the idea that 4EBs are being used as close-air-support similar to how the Allies used P-47s and Typhoons (and other planes) in the CAS role. The argument is that these planes are way to large and unmanueverable to perform those kind of duties, particularly relative to 2EBs like the Boston/Havoc/A-20/A-26 or even B-25s. And even though B-17s were used to develop the skip-bombing technique which required some ability to manuever, that argument against CAS-type support is reasonable.

At least for me this is not my second argument.

My argument is that the game fails to model tactics and weapons (FBs and the roles/weapons I spoke of up-thread) which constituted most of the Allied land air war effort ex-strat bombing cities. CAS simply isn't really in the game, and it was the root of Allied air superiority for at least 1944-45, and somewhat earlier by theater.

So, the devs (really GG, not Henderson), AS COMPENSATION, made 2E and 4E Ground attacks more effective than history (COBRA, etc.) To compete with the ahistorical Japanese air effort, which over time JFBs have learned to make truly monumental, probably in excess of what the devs envisioned. So, any effort to argue AE ground 4E results against history will fail. They weren't intended to be historical. Any more than the ability to see patrolling submarines at 200 NM ranges in daylight, when they were at periscope depth, is historical. It's abstracted, and you can't pull one thread without the whole blanket coming apart.

I agree. I almost added a side note about FBs and CAS to my last point, but didn't want to seem like I was piling on.

By 1944, most of US fighters, and some of the British, had FB loadouts available that included 2000-3000 lbs of bombs, plus rockets in many cases and of course thousands of rounds of 50 cal. To put that in perspective, the short-range loadout of a B-17 or B-24 was about 8000 lbs of bombs. So about 3 FBs = 1 4EB, and the FBs can sortie more often from closer airfields (in a land campaign) and be more accurate on smaller targets. In reality, the FBs are way more effective than 4EB could ever be in a ground support role.

Mike