Japanese CAS missions in PTO

[Yaab]

Do you have any examples of Jap CAS missions in PTO? Luzon, Malayas and Burma in 1942 perhaps? Maybe some New Guinea action in 1942? I have found none. Seems the Japs neither develepod the doctrine nor the hardware( lack of radioes etc.).

[Dili]

Well they had the planes for that, Ki-30, Ki 32, Sonia. About control probably signs in the ground.

[spence]

The Ki-30 and Ki-32 were classed as light bombers although both met a specification to be able dive bomb at a 60 degree angle (glide bombing?). They each were only equipped with a single 7.7mm forward firing MG which doesn't sound like much help for CAS. The Ki-51, on the other hand, had some armor and 2 x 7.7mm (later replaced by 2 x 12.5mm) and could dive bomb so it seems it would be more useful in CAS. None of these aircraft were of much use if opposed by enemy fighters though.

Did the IJA have the equivalent of a forward air controller assigned to any of their units?
Did they have any service school for the teaching of controlling bombing from the ground?
Lacking those it would seem that anything that they called close air support was not very close (planned well in advance and not within sight of IJA troops).

[LargeSlowTarget]

The Ki-51 has been designed for "army cooperation missions" i.e. ground attacks.

"The Ki-51 was used in a close support role in China and in every theatre where the Japanese Army fought during the Second World War."
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/we ... ki-51.html

Initially deployed against Chinese ground forces, the Ki-51 light bomber later proved to be too slow for utilization in the Pacific where newer fighter aircraft of the Allied powers could outfly and outgun it. [...] The Ki-51 was still useful in areas of Asia where it was not threatened in the sky by newer fighters and performed a useful ground-attack role in the China Burma India Theater, notably from airfields too rough for many other aircraft.
https://ikazuchisen.wordpress.com/ki-51 ... ult-plane/

In December 1937 the Japanese Army requested that Mitsubishi work on a development of their Ki-30 light bomber, with an emphasis on creating a new light bomber that could operate from advanced airfields very close to the fighting front. The idea was to create an aircraft that could co-operate very closely with ground troops during combat operations. The result was the Ki-51 Type 99 Assault Plane. [...]
Ki-51s were assigned to China-based units during 1940, and the aircraft proved useful in its intended role. It was, however, exceedingly vulnerable to enemy fighters and so was only useful in areas where the Japanese enjoyed complete control of the air. In the initial stages of the Pacific War air supremacy allowed the Ki-51 to operate successfully over Malaya, Java and Burma.
https://pacificeagles.net/mitsubishi-ki ... -99-sonia/

In the game, I find the Ki-51 ineffective against ground units, they rarely score hits and if so, the light 50kg bombs do little harm. It is best used to bomb airfields for supply hits and to keep them damaged in order to prevent fort building.

[Yaab]

Right, I forgot about Java.

Sorry, but the CAS aspect of the air war is totally non-existent in the game. Was this a conscious design decision to let all 2Es and 4Es bombers join hands and participate in air support missions in combat hexes in order to make the game more playable? Was hex size deemed to big to make a distinction between CAS and tactical missions?

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Right, I forgot about Java.

Sorry, but the CAS aspect of the air war is totally non-existent in the game. Was this a conscious design decision to let all 2Es and 4Es bombers join hands and participate in air support missions in combat hexes in order to make the game more playable? Was hex size deemed to big to make a distinction between CAS and tactical missions?

The game does not call it CAS, but LowG at 1000 feet and Strafing at 100 feet both allow fighters or bombers to use guns and bombs. What was it you expect to see?

[Yaab]

Found this 2008 dev discussion.

Post no 11 by Terminus

"As for CAS, what you're suggesting, in WWII terms, is the cab-rank system, which we're not modelling. Remember that there's no hour-by-hour run-down of the turn."

Post no 29 by Terminus

tm.asp?m=1906166&mpage=1&key=close%2Cai ... t&#1906871

"As an addendum to the CAS discussion above, the whole point of Close Air Support in the game is kinda moot, isn't it? I submit that there is no CAS in the literal sense in WitP or AE, since that would have to take place in the land combat phase. What we have is more correctly Battlefield Air Interdiction, or BAI."

So basically they let every bomber airframe to bomb in combat hexes at attitude as low as 100 feet. I guess this is why they had to let all AA in the bombed hex fire at the bombers to somehow balance this out.

And I fought this game was realistic. Meh.

[Dili]

Unfortunately software in general is not improving. I mean look at OS's.

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Found this 2008 dev discussion.

Post no 11 by Terminus

"As for CAS, what you're suggesting, in WWII terms, is the cab-rank system, which we're not modelling. Remember that there's no hour-by-hour run-down of the turn."

Post no 29 by Terminus

tm.asp?m=1906166&mpage=1&key=close%2Cai ... ort�

"As an addendum to the CAS discussion above, the whole point of Close Air Support in the game is kinda moot, isn't it? I submit that there is no CAS in the literal sense in WitP or AE, since that would have to take place in the land combat phase. What we have is more correctly Battlefield Air Interdiction, or BAI."

So basically they let every bomber airframe to bomb in combat hexes at attitude as low as 100 feet. I guess this is why they had to let all AA in the bombed hex fire at the bombers to somehow balance this out.

And I fought this game was realistic. Meh.

And I always say, look and study War in the East, to see how 2by3 thought things should be done but was not able to complete, or refine, the job here.

[Yaab]

Can you point me to a relevant thread perhaps? Much obliged.

[adarbrauner]

No I'm afraid I can't...

but I'm studying that game, and fully recognize the features;

for a WITPAE savior, WITE's main features and concepts are so similar - or rather identical - , but refined to a much more historical and complete level;

what was left half baked or at an embrional state in WITP, such as much of the land and the logistical modules, has been FULLY addressed there;

CAS works, and well, as it should, within the same frame basically of WITP

[crsutton]

Yes, it is a missing feature in that the game just can not reflect the Allied close air support that grew increasingly powerful and refined as the war progress. Combine that with the effect of AA on any aircraft at low level and you just do not get a realistic representation. But if it worked in game as it did in real life- well, just how many Japanese opponents do you think would be around here looking for a game? [;)]

[Aurorus]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget


In the game, I find the Ki-51 ineffective against ground units, they rarely score hits and if so, the light 50kg bombs do little harm. It is best used to bomb airfields for supply hits and to keep them damaged in order to prevent fort building.

The Sonia is effective against soft-target ground units in open terrain and from very low altitude against units in other types of terrain. They are most effective in low attacks, 1K or even 100 feet. I do not advise using them at 100 feet until the armored version is available, because they are too susceptible to ground fire, even from Chinese units.

Here is a combat report from my game with APbarog of a Sonia attack at low altitude against soft targets in jungle terrain and in very poor weather. Above 6K feet the Sonias are very ineffective. Below 6K, however, they can be used effectively. The P-40s were unable to intercept the raid in this case because they were flying LRCAP and pulled above 12K by a previous fighter sweep.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 49th Chinese Corps, at 79,54 , near Hengyang

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 16 NM, estimated altitude 6,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-51 Sonia x 57

Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-51 Sonia: 1 damaged

No Allied losses

Allied ground losses:
65 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
33 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing from 2000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 50 kg GP Bomb
9 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing from 2000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 50 kg GP Bomb
12 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing from 2000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 50 kg GP Bomb
3 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing from 2000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 50 kg GP Bomb

[Dili]

Yes and the most important in not destruction but disruption of enemy land forces.

[Aurorus]

Yes disruption is the primary purpose of most ground attacks against units. Also interdicting movement is important, and the Ki-51 is as good as any bomber at forcing units into combat mode and reducing their movement rate. Because the Ki-51 uses 1/2 the supply of the 2-E bombers, I agree with Lowpe and prefer the Sonia to all other Japanese bombers in China.

In the early versions of this game, I seem to recall the Ki-51 being classified as a DB, which is probably the more accurate designation and would make the plane far more useful in the game, being capable of both low-level bombing and dive bombing. Here is some footage of the Ki-51 in action from a very good series of videos on the IJA and IJN. The video shows the Sonia dive bombing and performing a few low-level bombing missions, some of which appear to be close support. The video also shows the Sonia dive bombing and scoring a hit on a docked allied ship, something which is nigh impossible with its current designation as a "level bomber."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Exl6yk-rM6c

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

Yes disruption is the primary purpose of most ground attacks against units. Also interdicting movement is important, and the Ki-51 is as good as any bomber at forcing units into combat mode and reducing their movement rate. Because the Ki-51 uses 1/2 the supply of the 2-E bombers, I agree with Lowpe and prefer the Sonia to all other Japanese bombers in China.

In the early versions of this game, I seem to recall the Ki-51 being classified as a DB, which is probably the more accurate designation and would make the plane far more useful in the game, being capable of both low-level bombing and dive bombing. Here is some footage of the Ki-51 in action from a very good series of videos on the IJA and IJN. The video shows the Sonia dive bombing and performing a few low-level bombing missions, some of which appear to be close support. The video also shows the Sonia dive bombing and scoring a hit on a docked allied ship, something which is nigh impossible with its current designation as a "level bomber."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Exl6yk-rM6c

Wonderfuul video.

The Ida is shown as well, and in its primary role, recon.

The typical bombload of the Sonia, the pathetic 4 small bombs under the wings is shown very clearly too.

Notice though, that the dives shown in the video are not properly the diving bombing typical of the Ju 87, or of the Dauntless or the Vals, which are ways steepers, but only the normal regular universal minimal dive that every striking airplane and pilot can and must do.


Notice please also that you had to use 57 airplanes to hit 65 men, this is extremely ineffective and counter producing.

In War in the East 2by3 have adjusted this too.

[Aurorus]

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

Notice please also that you had to use 57 airplanes to hit 65 men, this is extremely ineffective and counter producing.

28 Lillies or Sallies would not have accomplished more for the same supply use. They would accomplish less because 28 Lillies or Sallies would drop half the number of bombs that the 57 Ki-51s drop. In fact, I have attacked this same stack with size 27 groups of both Lillies and Sallies, and neither produces better results. 4 x 50Kg bombs against soft targets without fortifications seem to be as effective as 4 x 100Kg bombs or 4 x 250kg bombs. This does not apply to units that are fortified, however, where the heavier bombs of the Lillies and Sallies seem to produce better results. Keep in mind that this is jungle terrain, not open terrain, and that the weather is very poor for this attack. 10 squads disabled in poor weather in jungle is a very good result.

Here is a combat report from an air attack, from 4 days after the Sonia attack, against that very same Chinese unit, from the same altitude in the same weather conditions with the same detection level as the 57 Sonias. This strike includes both Sallies and Lillies. The 36 Lillies and Sallies and the 9 Ki-51s in this attack are carrying fewer bombs, overall, than the 57 Ki-51s of 4 days earlier. This strike also uses more supply than the previous strike, because the 36 Lillies and Sallies use supply equal to that of 72 Sonias. This strike uses more supply and accomplishes less than the Sonia strike. The Sonia is the best availabe Japanese aircraft for attacking soft targets in unfortified hexes. Gnells and Betties are second best in my experience (because of their 4 x 60 Kg bombs in addition to their 250 KG bombs). Lillies and Sallies are the worst, and are most effective attacking ground units in fortifications or airfields.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 49th Chinese Corps, at 79,54 , near Hengyang

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 16 NM, estimated altitude 4,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-Ic Sally x 27
Ki-48-Ib Lily x 9
Ki-51 Sonia x 6

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
36 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
27 x Ki-21-Ic Sally bombing from 2000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
9 x Ki-48-Ib Lily bombing from 2000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 100 kg GP Bomb
6 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing from 2000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 50 kg GP Bomb

[Yaab]

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

Yes disruption is the primary purpose of most ground attacks against units. Also interdicting movement is important, and the Ki-51 is as good as any bomber at forcing units into combat mode and reducing their movement rate. Because the Ki-51 uses 1/2 the supply of the 2-E bombers, I agree with Lowpe and prefer the Sonia to all other Japanese bombers in China.

In the early versions of this game, I seem to recall the Ki-51 being classified as a DB, which is probably the more accurate designation and would make the plane far more useful in the game, being capable of both low-level bombing and dive bombing. Here is some footage of the Ki-51 in action from a very good series of videos on the IJA and IJN. The video shows the Sonia dive bombing and performing a few low-level bombing missions, some of which appear to be close support. The video also shows the Sonia dive bombing and scoring a hit on a docked allied ship, something which is nigh impossible with its current designation as a "level bomber."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Exl6yk-rM6c

Wait, was there a separate category of WWII bombers called simply "glide bombers"?

[adarbrauner]

Look Aurorus, the point here is that either a striking package finds and hits some land units or individuals, or it doesn't.

I'd be fine to receive a "4 or 7 Ki 51 didn't find or engage targets" message for any reason,and go back home.

But, if you find and hit something, it cannot be that 50 airplanes hit 60 or less men at all. At their best, please notice this as well.

I understand the difficulty in simulating airplanes spreading over a 1200 squared miles (35 X 35 miles) of terrain looking for targets, but either they look for, and find something which is moving, or firing because engaged in combat you are called to support, or they had coordinates through "DL" which should simulate many things from land patrols to land sigint, observation, air recon and more but it really does not seem to do.

The DL looks like taken from its original environment, the sea where it serves very well the purpose, and applied as it is to the land environment, in which sincerely does not seem to fulfill its intended task satisfactorily.


We rovel and argue ALWAYS around the same issues again and again.


Even if we want , or need, to keep a gigantic 40 X 40 miles hex, working well and just fine for sea combat and interaction, also for the land module where we operate, and LOVE to operate, units down to brigade size and often even less (!!!), the relative simulation, or abstraction call it as you prefer, could be better refined, actually much better.

And the guru-guys at 2by3 know it very well, no need to look for fig leaves cover, and addressed ALL or close to, issues, in their following reiterations of their massive war games.

[LargeSlowTarget]

The Sonia is effective against soft-target ground units in open terrain and from very low altitude against units in other types of terrain. They are most effective in low attacks, 1K or even 100 feet. I do not advise using them at 100 feet until the armored version is available, because they are too susceptible to ground fire, even from Chinese units.
[...]

In the early versions of this game, I seem to recall the Ki-51 being classified as a DB, which is probably the more accurate designation and would make the plane far more useful in the game, being capable of both low-level bombing and dive bombing. Here is some footage of the Ki-51 in action from a very good series of videos on the IJA and IJN. The video shows the Sonia dive bombing and performing a few low-level bombing missions, some of which appear to be close support. The video also shows the Sonia dive bombing and scoring a hit on a docked allied ship, something which is nigh impossible with its current designation as a "level bomber."

Well, unfortunately my esteemed opponent does not keep the Chinese hordes in the open, but in the cities and behind level-6 forts, and the armored version comes a tad late.

I have found conflicting info about the A and B model, some say A was unarmored and B gained cockpit and engine armor, others say A was the recon version and B the strike version, but both were armored from the beginning, some say A was the recon version but the strike version was simply "Ki-51" without B letter designator, some say there was no distinction between recon and strike aircraft, but that the role could be switched easily on the same airframe, that only the prototype airframes lacked armor and that the A version was a pure recon prototype that never entered production, and so on. At least all agree that later models were up-gunned to 12,7mm firing forward. For my Bottlenecks mod, I elected to go with an armored dual role recon/dive bomber configuration, the difference between A and B designation being the 7.7mm guns in the A version and the 12,7mm guns in the B version. Won't make the plane a war winner, but maybe a bit more useful.