Unhistorical Air system - WAD but a poor design in my opinion

[KWG]

4. Carpet bombing wasn't any more effective than normal close air support with single engine aircraft so why continue?

Finally, units were not obliterated by aerial bombardments any more than they were obliterated by massive artillery bombardments. Fighting soldiers are surprising resilient in fixed fighting positions.

Bayerlein wrote:



The digging in of the infantry was useless and did not protect against bombing. . . . Dugouts and foxholes were smashed, the men buried, and we were unable to save them. The same happened to guns and tanks . . . . it seems to me, that a number of men who survived the pattern bombing . . . surrendered soon to the attacking infantry or escaped to the rear.
The first line has [sic] been annihilated by the bombing. . . . The three-hour bombardment on 25.7--after the smaller one a day before--had exterminating morale effect on the troops physically and morally weakened by continual hard fighting for 45 days. The long duration of the bombing, without any possibility for opposition, created depressions and a feeling of helplessness, weakness and inferiority. Therefore the morale attitude of a great number of men grew so bad that they, feeling the uselessness of fighting, surrendered, deserted to the enemy or escaped to the rear, as far as they survived the bombing. Only particularly strong nerved and brave men could endure this strain.

The shock effect was nearly as strong as the physical effect (dead and wounded). During the bombardment . . . some of the men got crazy and were unable to carry out anything. I have been personally on 24.7 and 25.7 in the center of the bombardment and could experience the tremendous effect. For me, who during this war was in every theater committed at the points of the main efforts, this was the worst I ever saw.

The well-dug-in infantry was smashed by the heavy bombs in their foxholes and dugouts or killed and buried by blast. The positions of infantry and artillery were blown up. The whole bombed area was transformed into fields covered with craters, in which no human being was alive. Tanks and guns were destroyed and overturned and could not be recovered, because all roads and passages were blocked. . . .

Very soon after the beginning of the bombardment every kind of telephone communication was eliminated. As nearly all C.P.'s [Command Posts] were situated in the bombed area, radio was almost impossible. The communication was limited to [motorcycle] messengers, but this was also rather difficult because many roads were interrupted and driving during the bombardment was very dangerous and required a lot of time.


The Fallschirmjäger attachment simply disappeared, except a few survivors.

[KWG]

1. Continued friendly ground losses. There was just no way to coordinate massive bomber strikes at high altitude with enemy camouflaged targets on the ground. Air attacks does as much damage psychologically as it does physically and repeated friendly casualties as a result of carpet bombing is going to have some major negative morale impacts on your ground troops.

Doolittle:
" We have developed a very efficient type of anti-aircraft marking. Twelve AA guns can mark a straight line something over 2 miles long with about a 400-yard interval between bursts. This will be ideal for marking front line troops."

Others:

"I believe every man in the company will agree that if we have such an attack again they would want the bombing just where it was, right to our lines.We would rather take the ones that fall on us to get the effect on the Germans in front of us. "


"Canadian infantrymen reportedly found the the 'smoke and flame wonderful," and it was said to have "improved their morale 500 percent"
And for the Germans it was totally demoralizing. "




The grounds troops loved it and wanted more of it. Friendly fire was nothing compared to the lives it saved.

[KWG]

2. You're going to have major friction between your air and ground commanders and they aren't going to be nearly as cooperative. As a supreme commander, this is not the kind of relationships that I would want.

3. Air Commanders are going to fight tooth and nail to prevent having to be placed in this role which means probably morale losses for strategic bomber groups being used in a way that they were not trained and the results of which consistently results in friendly casualties.

This is why Iam in command, Doolittle runs the 8th, and for those that disagree and do not want to ADAPT to combat, then I have plenty of empty airbases on desolate Scottish coasts that need commanders

Many of the bombers crews loved these missions compared to the cities. As the B17 crew that bombed the German forest for Tiger Tanks during Market-Garden

[KWG]

4. Carpet bombing wasn't any more effective than normal close air support with single engine aircraft so why continue?

In retrospect von Rundstedt regarded the St-Lo bombing as "the most effective, as well as the most impressive, tactical use of air power in his experience."


Model is said to have mentioned it in his suicide note.



The Allies almost clicked, new tactics were forming and they almost got it right then it pulled apart when the Germans ran.


As for the effect, the Germans would have the most unbiased view.

[KWG]

el hefe

All you have stated is true in its own context. Yet other events happen that were also true.

Adapting is a major thing in war. Other players have said that they can deal with this tactic no problem.
When someone puts their hand in a fire and complains it burns yet refuses to move it... what can be said.



WHAT ALLIED PLAYER IS USING THIS TACTIC AND GETTING A "I WIN" RESULT?

Adapting is a major thing in war.

[DTomato]

ORIGINAL: KWG

4. Carpet bombing wasn't any more effective than normal close air support with single engine aircraft so why continue?

In retrospect von Rundstedt regarded the St-Lo bombing as "the most effective, as well as the most impressive, tactical use of air power in his experience."


Model is said to have mentioned it in his suicide note.



The Allies almost clicked, new tactics were forming and they almost got it right then it pulled apart when the Germans ran.


As for the effect, the Germans would have the most unbiased view.

KWG, you're doing a Pelton and plucking history out of context. Memoirs are notoriously self-centered and self-serving, and the Nazi generals were notorious for telling their American captors after the war what the Americans wanted to hear (and whitewashing their own war crimes in Russia). Just because General Von Panzer tells us that carpet bombing was like an A-bomb doesn't tell us that much. Who tallied up the losses? How many Germans thought to be killed turned up later? Given the German aptitude for improvisation, doesn't it seem likely they would have found some way to mitigate the effects of carpet bombing if it had been done regularly?

If it's okay for the Allies to carpet bomb every turn, then why isn't it okay to assume that Hitler never ordered the Me-262 to become a bomber, and the Germans deployed jet fighters six months earlier than they did? At some point, an historical game has to stick to history.

[KWG]

ORIGINAL: DicedT

ORIGINAL: KWG

4. Carpet bombing wasn't any more effective than normal close air support with single engine aircraft so why continue?

In retrospect von Rundstedt regarded the St-Lo bombing as "the most effective, as well as the most impressive, tactical use of air power in his experience."


Model is said to have mentioned it in his suicide note.



The Allies almost clicked, new tactics were forming and they almost got it right then it pulled apart when the Germans ran.


As for the effect, the Germans would have the most unbiased view.

KWG, you're doing a Pelton and plucking history out of context. Memoirs are notoriously self-centered and self-serving, and the Nazi generals were notorious for telling their American captors after the war what the Americans wanted to hear (and whitewashing their own war crimes in Russia). Just because General Von Panzer tells us that carpet bombing was like an A-bomb doesn't tell us that much. Who tallied up the losses? How many Germans thought to be killed turned up later? Given the German aptitude for improvisation, doesn't it seem likely they would have found some way to mitigate the effects of carpet bombing if it had been done regularly?

If it's okay for the Allies to carpet bomb every turn, then why isn't it okay to assume that Hitler never ordered the Me-262 to become a bomber, and the Germans deployed jet fighters six months earlier than they did? At some point, an historical game has to stick to history.

Iam merely stating facts to be interpreted as such.
Have I said Iam completely right?
That the game should be changed to suit me?
What should I post?
Please read all my posts in the different threads on this subject before accusing me of being dogmatic.

Ive been playing the game with a interdiction bug that affects me greatly. But I was willing to keep playing.

Given the German aptitude for improvisation, doesn't it seem likely they would have found some way to mitigate the effects of carpet bombing if it had been done regularly?

YES,My point exactly!

If it's okay for the Allies to carpet bomb every turn, then why isn't it okay to assume that Hitler never ordered the Me-262 to become a bomber, and the Germans deployed jet fighters six months earlier than they did? At some point, an historical game has to stick to history.

Every turn?



In the game you can use the Me 262 as you think it should be..... fighter or bomber. And did that really slow production?


Please check out my Early Birds Mod where you get the ME262 and others a YEAR earlier. I think you will find it very fun from either side.


tm.asp?m=3947377



How does a TACTIC compare with PRODUTION?

Its been a year and Iam the only one to do this?
Others have done this, what is the difference?

[Great_Ajax]

I'm not discounting the heavy disruption that was caused by such a bombardment and the same descriptions of this horror are the same ones used to describe the weekly and monthly artillery bombardments in WW1. The fact that the same bombardment injured almost just as many Allied soldiers should be sufficient reason to understand why these bombardments did not continue as a reasonable tactical option. You're not going to get approval from a ground commander to conduct close carpet bombings when you know hundreds of your guys are going to get injured. Bayerlein also counts a large number of German soldiers that were counted as casualties by being "missing". US Army official histories account for these "casualties" as stunned German soldiers that quickly became POWs. The effects of the breakthrough of Cobra are often attributed to the carpet bombing (usually by aviators) when the Lehr was already exhausted and critically short of ammunition.

I honestly don't care how you decide to play the game nor am I interested in straight jacketing players. I'm just interested in having realistic consequences to those actions.

Trey

ORIGINAL: KWG

4. Carpet bombing wasn't any more effective than normal close air support with single engine aircraft so why continue?

Finally, units were not obliterated by aerial bombardments any more than they were obliterated by massive artillery bombardments. Fighting soldiers are surprising resilient in fixed fighting positions.

Bayerlein wrote:



The digging in of the infantry was useless and did not protect against bombing. . . . Dugouts and foxholes were smashed, the men buried, and we were unable to save them. The same happened to guns and tanks . . . . it seems to me, that a number of men who survived the pattern bombing . . . surrendered soon to the attacking infantry or escaped to the rear.
The first line has [sic] been annihilated by the bombing. . . . The three-hour bombardment on 25.7--after the smaller one a day before--had exterminating morale effect on the troops physically and morally weakened by continual hard fighting for 45 days. The long duration of the bombing, without any possibility for opposition, created depressions and a feeling of helplessness, weakness and inferiority. Therefore the morale attitude of a great number of men grew so bad that they, feeling the uselessness of fighting, surrendered, deserted to the enemy or escaped to the rear, as far as they survived the bombing. Only particularly strong nerved and brave men could endure this strain.

The shock effect was nearly as strong as the physical effect (dead and wounded). During the bombardment . . . some of the men got crazy and were unable to carry out anything. I have been personally on 24.7 and 25.7 in the center of the bombardment and could experience the tremendous effect. For me, who during this war was in every theater committed at the points of the main efforts, this was the worst I ever saw.

The well-dug-in infantry was smashed by the heavy bombs in their foxholes and dugouts or killed and buried by blast. The positions of infantry and artillery were blown up. The whole bombed area was transformed into fields covered with craters, in which no human being was alive. Tanks and guns were destroyed and overturned and could not be recovered, because all roads and passages were blocked. . . .

Very soon after the beginning of the bombardment every kind of telephone communication was eliminated. As nearly all C.P.'s [Command Posts] were situated in the bombed area, radio was almost impossible. The communication was limited to [motorcycle] messengers, but this was also rather difficult because many roads were interrupted and driving during the bombardment was very dangerous and required a lot of time.


The Fallschirmjäger attachment simply disappeared, except a few survivors.

[Seminole]

So as a test I setup Cobra using B&P. 8th USAAF flying on one day at 15,000ft and set to a minimum 500 aircraft per mission. As 1288 bombers were assigned two missions flew. FOW set to Off

Recon (detection value) and enemy unit density, and enemy fortification level?

Do I presume correctly that fort level does reduce air effectiveness?

[KWG]

Yes this and all the other facts and the fact is was continued when needed....

Doolittle:
" We have developed a very efficient type of anti-aircraft marking. Twelve AA guns can mark a straight line something over 2 miles long with about a 400-yard interval between bursts. This will be ideal for marking front line troops."

Others:

"I believe every man in the company will agree that if we have such an attack again they would want the bombing just where it was, right to our lines.We would rather take the ones that fall on us to get the effect on the Germans in front of us. "


"Canadian infantrymen reportedly found the the 'smoke and flame wonderful," and it was said to have "improved their morale 500 percent"
And for the Germans it was totally demoralizing. "




The grounds troops loved it and wanted more of it. Friendly fire was nothing compared to the lives it saved.

....Is nothing compared to how we see things from our perceptive.




Its been a year and Iam the only one to do this?
Others have done this, what is the difference?

Most are not even COBRA missions.
B26s, B25s, the others?


And there are quite a few "You're not going to..." that are being done.


I matter to none of the decisions... except to the game and the conditions I agreed to play.

[HMSWarspite]

The repeated assertion that because Cobra carpet bombing was partially inaccurate, hence all carpet bombing must be is completely silly. In early war BC could not get bombs within 5 miles of the target most of the time. Doesn't this mean they never got any better? Fighter command largely flew fighting area tactics at the start of the Battle of Britain. Do they have to do this all war? Close air support in 1940 was a joke. By 1944 there were RAF ground controllers embedded in the army. You don't think that the air forces would have learnt from their mistakes?

The only thing wrong with KWG's tactics is that Pelton has not adapted his defence to them one iota. Oh, and the only way that Pelton is going to lose if if he abandons the game or he stays put and allows the army to be so damaged that KWG just walks in to Gwrmany before the winter.
Using an asset in a manner it was actually used but just more so is not ahistorical. Other than detailed questions of the effectiveness of carpet bombing (for which no one has produced conclusive data that it is wrong) there is absolutely nothing going on here of concern, and if you read my posting record you will see I am a very historically biased player.

But this is just my opinion. Anyone who disagrees can use a house rule.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: DicedT

If it's okay for the Allies to carpet bomb every turn, then why isn't it okay to assume that Hitler never ordered the Me-262 to become a bomber, and the Germans deployed jet fighters six months earlier than they did? At some point, an historical game has to stick to history.

It's a complete myth that the delay to the 262 was caused by the decision to build it as a fast bomber. The Germans had immense problems with developing and building the engine. The chaos with the bomber decision contributed next to nothing to the delay.

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

The data is correct but your use of the data in this argument is not. You cannot compare the game data and historic data unless the circumstances match. In this game they do not as neither side is playing historically.

If you want to use historical data we will need to build a scenario that replicates the bombing conducted for Cobra. I think T1 of Breakout and Pursuit could be modified to do this.

As your know RL I always look at snowballs and exploits during CG's.

We don't need to run a test, we already have a test case/backed up by other tested (in AAR thread) so whats the point of running a test to prove my test is right, because we alrdy have the data.

Unending carpet bombing simply is no different then unending HQBU's or any other exploit.

I know it was done at different times during the war for 1 or 2 weeks at most, but not 10 weeks in a row causing 10-20K lose and 60-70% of the loses done by bombing.

As el hefe pointed out why it was hardly ever done, friend fire.

WitW simply does not model friend fire, there is NO debate about this none. A player sending 10,000's of strategic bombers to bomb a hex with 20+ times and get zero friend deaths for 10 weeks is silliness as per el hefe

Pelton

Of course you say that because having run a test using comparable situations I have adequately shown that the air game replicates historical losses when it is used historically. The issue has nothing to do with the air attack code. I note that you have now shifted your argument to include friendly fire losses. I agree Cobra, Totalise and Tractable caused problems but not so with Goodwood, Bluecoat or Charnwood. That's 50/50 and who is to say that if it became the norm then losses would be reduced. I also note the game doesn't include any blue on blue which is a significant factor in all warfare. Then again your original issue was one about the losses being inflicted on you. The data you provided in your argument though undisputed did not support your claims as it could not be compared. As I said from the start it wouldn't and that I have now demonstrated doesn't.

This issue does however has everything to do with should the Allies be able to employ strategic bombers in support of ground troops on a more protracted basis. Personally I think that they should and that the consequence is factored in (and always has been) by Strategic Bombing Points. Whether that tension is sufficient I do not know and note (with a sense of smugness I am not proud of in the least) that the parallel thread on whether VPs are correct has failed to reach any consensus or suggest any improvemnent beyond the levels Gary built into his game. That debate remains open and may do well to consider this as a further factor.

Very many of the tactics you employ both in the game and on the forum are similar in style to those of your opponent. However the big difference is your default setting to meeting your match is shouting from the outset that I'm right and can prove it with data and 2by3 must be wrong because I know better. This is also not always the case and it is actually quite tiresome. If you are not happy to play people who choose to employ your tactic of maximising the possible against you then I suggest that you either house rule it out to ensure you win or go and find another game to play.

[DTomato]

I think a lot of the problem has to do with the scale of WITW.

Carpet bombing is a raid that happens maybe over an hour over a few square miles. WITW is week-long turns and 24-mile hexes. So I wonder if some of what we're calling carpet bombing is really Battlefield Air Interdiction (http://www.ausairpower.net/air-land-battle.html), which supports the ground forces, but does it by striking behind enemy lines. The medium bombers, for example, would be more likely to bomb supply dumps and railheads than the 11th Panzer Division's front-line hexes. I believe Allied heavy bombers were also bombing German railheads during the Battle of the Bulge.

In other words, carpet bombing was a rare event, but I wonder if WITW is already simulating what we're calling the tactical use of heavies, through the game's Interdiction missions? I'm not sure I'm phrasing this right, but I suspect we're mixing things up a bit.

[KWG]

ORIGINAL: DicedT

I think a lot of the problem has to do with the scale of WITW.

Carpet bombing is a raid that happens maybe over an hour over a few square miles. WITW is week-long turns and 24-mile hexes. So I wonder if some of what we're calling carpet bombing is really Battlefield Air Interdiction (http://www.ausairpower.net/air-land-battle.html), which supports the ground forces, but does it by striking behind enemy lines. The medium bombers, for example, would be more likely to bomb supply dumps and railheads than the 11th Panzer Division's front-line hexes. I believe Allied heavy bombers were also bombing German railheads during the Battle of the Bulge.

In other words, carpet bombing was a rare event, but I wonder if WITW is already simulating what we're calling the tactical use of heavies, through the game's Interdiction missions? I'm not sure I'm phrasing this right, but I suspect we're mixing things up a bit.

YES , good insight and explantion. This was what I was showing in my Mission Lab thread, in the war room and it was what certain Allied commanders were pushing for more of. And missions were getting better as they learned and perfected. There are many types of targets in a hex and the Allies did nonCobra bombing.
To call it all Cobra is misleading. And everything Ive tried to explain slides back to Cobra in the discussion. 10 mile hexs I think.

[IslandInland]

Taking into consideration the Allies had the planes and the bombs, I don't see any problem with using these assets in the way KWG is. Either in game or historically.

As others have said, had the Germans been thirty miles deep all around the Allied lines then this is exactly what they would have done, regardless of whether Harris, Arnold, Portal et al agreed with it or not. Conferences at the highest level (i.e. Churchill and FDR) would have taken place and eventually the Allies would have bombed the hell out of the Germans. There may have been resignations among the Allied air forces high commands but the Allies would have done this either way.

They invaded the continent to destroy the German army in the west and this they would have achieved regardless of friendly fire, resignations, or anything else for that matter.

I want to play the game and explore possibilities. I only play against the AI but I don't want the scope of the game reduced or to be hamstrung simply because one player (who always plays as the Axis as far as I know) doesn't like it when his army incurs losses from concentrated Allied bombing of units.

They are many ahistorical aspects to any wargame and this one is no exception but I like the game as it is. Personally, I think the Germans are overpowered in this game but that's a debate for another thread.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

So as a test I setup Cobra using B&P. 8th USAAF flying on one day at 15,000ft and set to a minimum 500 aircraft per mission. As 1288 bombers were assigned two missions flew. FOW set to Off

Recon (detection value) and enemy unit density, and enemy fortification level?

Do I presume correctly that fort level does reduce air effectiveness?

This is also another important thing that's appears not to being modeled.

fort levels and terrain do not matter from my and liquadskys tests.

So these factors are not modeled.

1. Polotics- el hefe
2. friendly fire - el hefe Pelton
3. Fort levels/terrain has no effect- liquadsky-AAR
4. unhistorical ratios/unhistorical loses caused by bombing % /workaround the VP system-Pelton
5. Possible ammo explit/bug same as WitE - unproven still need to take the allot of time. Took several months for me to make the case, smarter people like morveal and helpless to find it and then code a fix.

[Peltonx]

The ammo issue works like this.

by 10+ or 20+ or 30+ bombing runs + recon runs (size does not matter could be very small attacks)
all the ammo in hex is used up by AA. Because if 100 planes fly over all 500 guns fire, if ten planes fly over all 500 guns fire.

So if you have a hard hex to crack you fly over 30 small attacks and use up most of the ammo or all the ammo the ground units need.

So then you attack the hex and it falls easly because they have zero ammo.

WitE people would attack with 1 unit vs a large stack 5 to 10 times (using several units 1 at a time) then do the large attack, the hex falls every time.

A fix was used so that not many guns would fire vs soaking attacks (low odd), now its not possible to use this tactic.

Like I said I have not taken the time to figure out for sure if this is happing, but it sure looks like it on the surface.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: XXXCorps

Taking into consideration the Allies had the planes and the bombs, I don't see any problem with using these assets in the way KWG is. Either in game or historically.

As others have said, had the Germans been thirty miles deep all around the Allied lines then this is exactly what they would have done, regardless of whether Harris, Arnold, Portal et al agreed with it or not. Conferences at the highest level (i.e. Churchill and FDR) would have taken place and eventually the Allies would have bombed the hell out of the Germans. There may have been resignations among the Allied air forces high commands but the Allies would have done this either way.

I am not 3 deep 3 high. I am 3 high 1 deep with security and regiments in 2nd or 3rd line refitting or in reserve reaction mode.

For new people there is a reserve reaction mode that players can use, but only works when your not next to an enemy hex, which means by 2by3 design the lines HAVE to be 20 miles deep at a min. So front line, 2nd line reserve mode units and 3rd line units on refit or units under Army HQ's in reserve mode.

The hexes that are getting hit 10-30 times are the front line hexes with Allies on 2 or 3 sides some times.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

1. Polotics- el hefe

Not modeled for the German side either. There's no Hitler making stupid decisions behind your back. You are opening a can of worms if you restrict Allied bombing based on this.

4. unhistorical ratios/unhistorical loses caused by bombing % /workaround the VP system-Pelton

What's so hard for you to understand Pelton? Your comparisons mean NOTHING since KWG isn't bombing according to history. You have proven absolutely nothing with your numbers. The only way to verify whether the engine does its job in this regard is to do what Red Lancer did. Set up the exact conditions and run tests - again and again. That's the scientific method. Your "methods" aren't empiric at all.

And where in the world is the workaround the VP? He is losing VP with this method since he is gaining no strategic bombing VP. If he is to benefit in terms of VPs from this massive bombing KWG needs to collapse your defenses on an enormours scale through this bombing.