2Es and air support in PTO

[Buckrock]

If you want further examples, I'd suggest you study the Borneo and the Central Philippine Campaigns of 1945 where B-24s were frequently tasked
with directly supporting the Allied offensives there due to the initial absence of operational forward airfields for the shorter-ranged Allied
aircraft to use. And these bombing missions were close, at times less than a mile from Allied troops who were waiting to advance once the aerial
bombardment ended. "The Story of the Fifth Bombardment Group (Heavy)" and Vol 5 of "The Army Air Forces in World War II" should give you a lot of
detail on these operations.

I'm not sure though how examples of B-24's bombing enemy units that are in contact with friendly units (effectively in the same AE hex) helps
support the House Rule you described earlier.

[Yaab]

If I can pinpoint the altitude of 4Es on CAS, then I can create a house-rule for such attacks . That's all.

[MakeeLearn]

I was at a loss when I heard him say "Chinatown". Later in the film, the narrator says that Chinatown was the main supply depot in Lae for the Japanese. Make sense for the Japs to put gun batteries there, especially the heavy ones.

Ive discovered that there was a "Chinatown" at both Lae and Salamaua

[MakeeLearn]

"Case studies in the development of close air support"


downloadable pdf

https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/24/2 ... 24-035.pdf

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

If I can pinpoint the altitude of 4Es on CAS, then I can create a house-rule for such attacks . That's all.

From what I'd seen in "Case studies" and other sources, it would vary from tactical bombardments at around 10,000 ft down to direct
support strikes from 4000ft (or at times even lower). All these were bombing runs made on enemy targets within sight of friendly ground
units, the attacks from medium altitude normally being in greater strength (squadron up to group) than those from low altitude (often only
1-4 aircraft). The lower the altitude, the closer the bombing target could be to friendly troops (in theory). Potential enemy AA clearly
would also influence the choice of altitude.

Low-altitude ground attacks by 4E's like the B-24 did not appear to be often used until late '44 onwards. A typical example of the (relatively)
more frequent medium-altitude ground support mission was on Dec 29 1943 when 54 B-24's made a bombing run from 10,000ft against Japanese
defensive positions around Razorback Hill (near Cape Gloucester) while lead units of the 1st Marine Division were only 2500yds away awaiting
the orders to advance. There were no friendly casualties from this bombing (or the low altitude B-25 strikes that went in immediately after
the B-24's) and the Marine attack that began two hours later had succeeded in driving the enemy out by the next day.

It may also be worth looking at what the Allies were doing with their 4E's in terms of ground support in the CBI since that region is also
relevent to AE.

[Barb]

Each mission was tailored to fit the requirements and capabilities of the airplanes that were on hand for such a mission. So you would hardly find something like "SOP" for the ground support.
Altitudes varied depending on the target area, nature of the target, accuracy required, bomb load carried/fuses, expected outcome, etc.

You need different type of planes/formations/bombs on a dump/camp area, completely different when trying to silence enemy artillery battery, completely different when trying to suppress a pesky gun on the hillside, infantry in the caves, enemy entrenched on top of the hill, or even if you want to clear area of foliage!

Scheduled CAS:
Ground troops usually send a request a day before, with target data - and air force experts then looked at the planes at disposal, bomb load (size, cluster, daisy-cutters/fragmentations, napalm, depth charges, fuse settings), protection, communication, target marking, approaches, and all other stuff and informed the ground troops about what they came up with.

On call (or CAB-RANK system):
Air force sent planes in groups on scheduled times to relieve another flight with some secondary targets. Say 3xB-25D1 over the beachhead between 0900-1100, another flight following. When called on by radio they would target whatever ground troops requested - but usually carried a GP bombs, and added strafing. Or 4xP-40s every half an hour or so. When not called upon in their assigned time, they would target something more distant from the frontline.

Try to read detailed account on Operation Brewer (Admiralty Islands campaign) - it had everything - heavy bombers, mediums, fighter bombers and most of the missions would fall into CAS classification:
Chapter 11 - The Admiralties

[Yaab]

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

ORIGINAL: Yaab

If I can pinpoint the altitude of 4Es on CAS, then I can create a house-rule for such attacks . That's all.

From what I'd seen in "Case studies" and other sources, it would vary from tactical bombardments at around 10,000 ft down to direct
support strikes from 4000ft (or at times even lower). All these were bombing runs made on enemy targets within sight of friendly ground
units, the attacks from medium altitude normally being in greater strength (squadron up to group) than those from low altitude (often only
1-4 aircraft). The lower the altitude, the closer the bombing target could be to friendly troops (in theory). Potential enemy AA clearly
would also influence the choice of altitude.

Low-altitude ground attacks by 4E's like the B-24 did not appear to be often used until late '44 onwards. A typical example of the (relatively)
more frequent medium-altitude ground support mission was on Dec 29 1943 when 54 B-24's made a bombing run from 10,000ft against Japanese
defensive positions around Razorback Hill (near Cape Gloucester) while lead units of the 1st Marine Division were only 2500yds away awaiting
the orders to advance. There were no friendly casualties from this bombing (or the low altitude B-25 strikes that went in immediately after
the B-24's) and the Marine attack that began two hours later had succeeded in driving the enemy out by the next day.

It may also be worth looking at what the Allies were doing with their 4E's in terms of ground support in the CBI since that region is also
relevent to AE.

Great info, but you just made my life HARDER. Basically, there is no way to simulate tactical bombing in combat hexes. If a 10,000 feet 2E or 4E attack targeted only field arty emplacements, support squads and units in Reserve mode, I would have no quarrel with en masse bombing of LCUs by 2Es and 4Es. Right now, all such 2E and 4E attacks behave like CAS, even though bombers fly in formation in great numbers (20-150 aircraft),and attack all kinds of devices in the hex.

My house-rule would be to fly 2Es (unglazed noses) and 4Es CAS in combat hexes only between 2,000 and 4,000 feet by 2E/4E squadrons broken into A/B/C to simulate smaller CAS attack formations. Still, the game code may make them arrive at the tagret as one box formation, but I cannot influence that. What do you think?

[Buckrock]

Honestly I think the historical data is too variable to hard set your rules by. You'll just tie yourself in knots. I have no answer other than
perhaps instead trying to keep it real simple, such as player restricting the level bomber class missions so that only those with strafer noses
are allowed to make Ground Attacks, the non-strafer types of level bombers have to make do with just bombing bases, industry or ships. It's
not historical but it will at least limit the numbers available for pulverising enemy LCU's in Ground Attacks.

Good Luck.[:)]

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

Honestly I think the historical data is too variable to hard set your rules by. You'll just tie yourself in knots. I have no answer other than
perhaps instead trying to keep it real simple, such as player restricting the level bomber class missions so that only those with strafer noses
are allowed to make Ground Attacks, the non-strafer types of level bombers have to make do with just bombing bases, industry or ships. It's
not historical but it will at least limit the numbers available for pulverising enemy LCU's in Ground Attacks.

Good Luck.[:)]

I agree with you but it has been a useful exercise - thank you, Yaab! That said, I think the game takes good care of the
problem of CAS and low-level bombing. It can be quite costly, particularly if you have seen to arrange for some AAA. Each
and every player should be allowed to weigh the pros and cons for each occasion. My experience, or impression, is that the
results of low-level CAS is often uneconomical. Better to waste planes on anti-ship operations.

Fred

[Yaab]

The plot thickens.

Seems only A-20 Havoc was a genuine 2E CAS aircraft used by the US Army in the PTO. Unglazed B-25s flew tons of missions against airfields and ships, but were not performing CAS missions on masse. A-26 Invader was, per Wikipedia, a turd CAS-wise and arrived late in the war. 4 ES flying CAS missions in 2,000 - 4,000 feet range in the game use Gnd skill, the same skill they use in bombing from 30,000 feet, thus CAS missions cannot be easily simulated used WITP:AE engine without overpowering 4Es.

To keep it simple, as advised by Buckrock, 4Es and 2ES are excluded from Ground Attack missions from combat hexes. The only exception is A-20 Havoc in all its variants.

Gentlemen, it was great to read your comments and feedback in this thread. Many thanks!

[Yaab]

Well, Eric Hammel nails it. Direct air support vs close air support.

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/artic ... ilippines/

[stuman]

I am impressed that you remembered this question from 7 years ago.