CAS vs. armored targets

[Zwiback]

Here is an interesting study:

http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Busters/Mythbusters4.html

I think this is mostly true, what the study misses are the secondary effects. If you only take a look at the armored vehicles lost vs. airpower lost, you can come to the conclusion that it was hardly worth the effort. I think this is more about the secondary effects airpower had. First of all the disruption and damage to the units themselves, the restricted movement, the need to camouflage and be on the watch all the time, direct fire support, recon, destruction of soft targets and support elements made CAS worthwhile. I think the allies would have had a hard time advancing in France 1944 without their airpower.

BTW- the side has some other good articles.

 

[FOARP]

Here is an interesting study:



I think this is mostly true, what the study misses are the secondary effects. If you only take a look at the armored vehicles lost vs. airpower lost, you can come to the conclusion that it was hardly worth the effort. I think this is more about the secondary effects airpower had. First of all the disruption and damage to the units themselves, the restricted movement, the need to camouflage and be on the watch all the time, direct fire support, recon, destruction of soft targets and support elements made CAS worthwhile. I think the allies would have had a hard time advancing in France 1944 without their airpower.

BTW- the side has some other good articles.

Yeah, the situation in HOI2, where entire units could be destroyed using airpower whilst moving from one province to another, was completely unrealistic. This is one of the points which HOI3 actually got much better.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Certainly agree on the secondary effects. This also mirrors the result of Stukas during the Blitzkrieg of 39 & 40, for example their massive use at Sedan. The primary effect was suppressing the enemy preventing them from acting allowing the Germans to mostly cross the river unopposed.

Same thing logically should have happened all over the Normandy and Eastern front Campaigns. Allied airpower suppressing the Axis tank units forcing them to hide, make minor annoying repairs, destroying their tracks making them easier targets or disable their ability to attack. All these effects would prevented Axis tanks to be used effectively against the allied forces without actually having to knock them out.


But another feature of airpower that we only partially can appreciate is it's flexibility. The real value of air support is only shown when you have boots on the ground able to radio in CAS to strike any target, anywhere within minutes during the daylight offensives. And again the real value is not annihilating the target, but suppressing it enough to be able to flank or advance on it and have the army deliver the final blow.

 

[Secret Master]

But another feature of airpower that we only partially can appreciate is it's flexibility. The real value of air support is only shown when you have boots on the ground able to radio in CAS to strike any target, anywhere within minutes during the daylight offensives. And again the real value is not annihilating the target, but suppressing it enough to be able to flank or advance on it and have the army deliver the final blow.

Which is why I want HOI4 to have a close air support mechanic that is distinctly different from ground attack and/or interdiction.

Close air support isn't just a type of plane. It's an mission parameter that can be fulfilled well by planes with certain characteristics. (Or, in the case of contemporary air forces, a helicopter in many cases).

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

Ok so taking what Secret Master said and the info above.

We assign a "plane brigade" to an ARMY, or maybe even a division.

If it is a CAS:
Increases Hard Attack slightly, increases Hardness of army slightly
Increased chances of brealthrough, surround mechanics by 10% due to suppression ans scouting of enemy forces.

If it is a TAC:
Increases Soft attack slightly
Increases chances of breakthrough, surround mechanics by 5% due to supression.

If it is a scout plane:
Doesn't increase hard or soft attack
Provides a 20% increase in breakthrough, surround mechanics due to scouting the enemy.

this removes the ability of airplanes to destroy units as they were used in HOI2 and HOI3, and also puts them further into their role as suppression/scouting.
This can also remove A LOT of divisions from moving around on the screen and slowing down the computer, which a lot of people have issues with. We don't have to remove the ability to create distinct AIR divisions, but we can reduce the amount we need to control/create in this fashion.

 

[Secret Master]

I was thinking more along these lines:

Wing X is assigned to CAS duty; CAS duty can only be carried out in a specific province where a land battle is currently taking place. CAS duty is modified by doctrines, and cannot be used if you don't have radio tech.

Wing X, based on doctrines and raw firepower, contributes Y amount of combat efficiency to the ground units involved in a battle. More wings modify the battle more, but you can't stack 30 wings in one province for 100000% extra combat efficiency. You have to spread them out more.

Note that I don't want ground attack to go away; I just want CAS to be a specific mission that certain kinds of wings are good at performing. This is so you have a reason to build both CAS and TAC. The TACs excel at ground attack and interdiction, while the CAS can boost combat performance in ground combat (which was their role during the actual war).

 

[knul]

Good suggestion, Secret Master. CAS mission should indeed be completely ineffectual without the use of ground troops: the CAS death star was ridiculous.

Perhaps interdiction missions would reduce enemy speed, instead of damaging organisation? I do not know of statistics on how much damage interdiction did, but wasn't its effect more about slowing down or even shutting down enemy troop movement?

 

[Alex_brunius]

I was thinking more along these lines:

Wing X is assigned to CAS duty; CAS duty can only be carried out in a specific province where a land battle is currently taking place. CAS duty is modified by doctrines, and cannot be used if you don't have radio tech.

Wing X, based on doctrines and raw firepower, contributes Y amount of combat efficiency to the ground units involved in a battle. More wings modify the battle more, but you can't stack 30 wings in one province for 100000% extra combat efficiency. You have to spread them out more.

Note that I don't want ground attack to go away; I just want CAS to be a specific mission that certain kinds of wings are good at performing. This is so you have a reason to build both CAS and TAC. The TACs excel at ground attack and interdiction, while the CAS can boost combat performance in ground combat (which was their role during the actual war).

I have earlier suggested very similar things, But I think my suggestions revolved around CAS being a type of mission where you assign the Wing(s) to divisions/corps/armies instead of specific provinces, and have them follow these units around providing air support automatically to reduce micromanagement.

Otherwise the suggestion was basically the same: the CAS mission gives a boost to combat efficiency or combined arms in combat (modified by weather).

I agree that it should be heavily dependent on doctrines.

Perhaps interdiction missions would reduce enemy speed, instead of damaging organisation? I do not know of statistics on how much damage interdiction did, but wasn't its effect more about slowing down or even shutting down enemy troop movement?

I think someone claimed that ground attack already slows down enemy troop movement in HoI3. No matter if this is the case or not it is a good idea, slowing down large scale movement should imho be the effect of attacking actual troops (ground attack).

Interdiction is more about attacking the rear preventing regrouping within the province (org) and attacking HQs and command (org).

 

[Beagá]

I´ll say again but CAS should have as good or even better soft attack than TAC, which would be offset by their vulnerability to AA and fighters. Where people get the notion that CAS should have crap soft attack is beyond me.

And don´t come with the "oh because TAC had more payload" argument because in that case - give STRAT twice the soft attack of TAC.

 

[Alex_brunius]

I´ll say again but CAS should have as good or even better soft attack than TAC, which would be offset by their vulnerability to AA and fighters. Where people get the notion that CAS should have crap soft attack is beyond me.

And don´t come with the "oh because TAC had more payload" argument because in that case - give STRAT twice the soft attack of TAC.

It depends on the TAC model.

Fast twin engine TAC bombers ( and heavy fighter variants ) can in many cases match and overcome the speed of single engine CAS, and thus deliver more payload without being more vulnerable.

STRAT can't do this because they are slower and larger then pretty much everything. Most riflemen will be able to hit a B-17 flying past at low altitude in 200km/h but not a Mosquito or Ju88 TAC bomber going past in 500km/h.


In the terms of larger, slower TAC models I agree that you are right, they should not have as much soft attack ( or have so much worse combat efficiency due to higher altitude reduced accuracy to offset it ).

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

It depends on the TAC model.

Fast twin engine TAC bombers ( and heavy fighter variants ) can in many cases match and overcome the speed of single engine CAS, and thus deliver more payload without being more vulnerable.

STRAT can't do this because they are slower and larger then pretty much everything. Most riflemen will be able to hit a B-17 flying past at low altitude in 200km/h but not a Mosquito or Ju88 TAC bomber going past in 500km/h.


In the terms of larger, slower TAC models I agree that you are right, they should not have as much soft attack ( or have so much worse combat efficiency due to higher altitude reduced accuracy to offset it ).

The whole discussion of soft attack is in my opinion a ridiculous one because it is all about capability of the airframe as a whole not just it's payload.

I have no direct problem with giving a twin engine medium bomber twice as many soft attack value than a single engine dive bomber. As long as the dive bomber gets a +2-300%(or some such) efficiency bonus on CAS missions. While any level bomber should get serious penalties or just not be able to perform them at all.

Twin engined level bombers were very inefficient in a ground support role, their accuracy was just too poor and posed as much a risk to friendly troops as too the enemy. I just hope HoI4 give us a true use for dive bombers and fighter-bombers and make them as important as they were in the war. They are after all the inspiration of the multi-role jet fighter that we still use today.

Medium bombers was primarily used for strategic and rear area bombardment. Attacking troops on the move but not in the combat zone or on interdiction patrol to hit supply and communication lines.

Fighter-bombers and dive bombers should be reasonably efficient at ground-attack missions, historical evidence points at that. They were quite instrumental in disrupting enemy formations once air dominance was established.

The main issue with almost all CAS mission types was that they mostly depended on air superiority. The main reason was that planes on CAS missions had to sometimes loiter in the combat zone for quite some time before dropping their load and thus air superiority was paramount. Most medium bomber missions such as interdiction were preplanned and thus safer in areas where you didn't have complete air-superiority.

 

[Secret Master]

I have no direct problem with giving a twin engine medium bomber twice as many soft attack value than a single engine dive bomber. As long as the dive bomber gets a +2-300%(or some such) efficiency bonus on CAS missions.

This is why I think Alex and I are on the right track. In HOI3, the reason TACs are so awesome is that their soft attack rating makes them very good at hurting units, regardless of mission.

In HOI4, if close air support is a specific mission type that certain kinds of planes do much better than others, then we can have tactical bombers with bigger payloads with higher raw attack ratings, but give great bonuses (based on doctrine) to Stukas when running the correct mission.

Then there is no need to complain about raw attack values on air frames because obviously the TACs have higher raw values due to payload, but the smaller planes can more efficiently do the close air support stuff.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

This is why I think Alex and I are on the right track. In HOI3, the reason TACs are so awesome is that their soft attack rating makes them very good at hurting units, regardless of mission.

In HOI4, if close air support is a specific mission type that certain kinds of planes do much better than others, then we can have tactical bombers with bigger payloads with higher raw attack ratings, but give great bonuses (based on doctrine) to Stukas when running the correct mission.

Then there is no need to complain about raw attack values on air frames because obviously the TACs have higher raw values due to payload, but the smaller planes can more efficiently do the close air support stuff.

Yes that would solve a lot of problems in my opinion as well.

Since "medium bombers" in HoI probably mainly represent twin engine bombers limited to level bombing I would not mind if they actually were omitted from doing any CAS missions at all. They should mainly be focusing on ground attack missions, focusing on hitting the back of enemy formation and mainly cause organizational damage.
Dive bombers and fighter-bombers should perhaps be the only planes able to perform CAS missions. A CAS mission would mainly be an efficiency enhancement effect to the ground troops in some way and they are only possible during actual battles.

 

[Beagá]

That is a sensible option as long as Paradox implement what you ask. If it´s going to remain the ye olde Grounde Attacke system then the values should be changed.

The point still remains that TACs and the missions they excelled at (runway cratering logistical strike etc) should be made more interesting and important.

Also what exactly the CAS mission would be? The planes would fly over the enemy province and any combats there get a modifier?

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Also what exactly the CAS mission would be? The planes would fly over the enemy province and any combats there get a modifier?

As long as the modifier is weighted to the size of the battle and the number of wings committed that would be a good solution.

 

[Secret Master]

Alex recommended attaching them to HQs to represent local commanders having the ability to call them in.

I was thinking more along the lines of attaching them to battles. As in, you can only run a CAS mission in a province with an extra battle.

Either way, as long as you can only close air support actual ground battles, I'd be fine with it.

And yes, making some of the other missions more interesting would be nice, too. I've never been really happy with runway cratering.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

With the new battle planning tools I see no problem attaching fighters and dive bombers directly to them as part of that organization. That would probably be quite realistic given that both fighters and dive bombers had more restrictive effective combat range than tactical bombers.

 

[jrimdzius]

I think the best response to the CAS vs hard target debate is to just have aircraft do more organization than strength damage to armored targets, to simulate the disruptive effects of air attack. Regardless of how many vehicles were actually killed by air attack, it's hard to conduct massed tank operations with ground-attack aircraft making runs on the tanks.

This way, you could still have a high hard attack rating for some types of aircraft, without having entire tank units wiped out by WW2-era ground attack aircraft.