Best Way to knock out an airfield

[maverick3320]

Currently playing the first scenario of Mediterranean Fury. I've hit an airfield (Murted AFB) with 16x Kitchen missiles - 8 on each of the two "runway" icons I can see for the airfield. Both runways show "BDA: heavy damage", with a red damage bar next to each, and the message bar shows the missiles impacting on the runways and penetrating the "armor".

I've done the tutorials on the airfield strike, which I believed mentioned knocking out runway access points as well. However, in most scenarios it seems like airfields have 6-12x access points. Is damaging the runways sufficient to knock out an airfield for a scenario, or do I need to destroy the access points as well?

Also: I believe the tutorials also mentioned that destroying ammo bunkers will actually affect air operations, but destroying fuel tanks will not. Just want to confirm this info as well.

Thanks!

[Gunner98]

maverick3320

The question of 'what is the best we to knock out an airfield' is similar to asking 'how long is a piece of string'. There have been dozens of discussions/threads over the years and I think the conclusion is an emphatic - it depends.

There are several ways of doing it but the only way you know that it is effective is if aircraft stop taking off.

1) Damaging the runways - if you get all of them and the runway capable taxiways - is a good way of doing it. I think a guide was shared a long time ago that compares level of damage to effective length of the runway. I cannot recall how it works but essentially helicopters can always take off, STOVL etc can fly of almost anything but a very heavily damaged strip etc. So damage effectively shortens the effective length of the runway.

2) Damaging or destroying the access points works - but you need to get all of them and as you point out air-base designers understand that point

3) Fuel is not calculated as there are so many redundant systems it would become unworkable. So a designer might give you points but the base will not close. (and the steady stream of 40,000l tanker trucks are not modeled)

4) Ammo facilities - if they contain ammo, and are destroyed will affect the ability of AC to rearm. But on large bases there are often dozens of them as well. Some designers spread the ammo out so a lucky pick won't close down the base.

5)Control towers and C2/3 facilities will not impact operations. Again, too many redundant systems and procedures. Points maybe.

6) Kill the aircraft on the base. If they are parked in the open and your recon can see them - CBUs are great. You cannot see inside a hangar or HAS so it is hit and miss but knocking out all the HAS however could get tedious.

Trying to remember MF1 and if I recall Kitchens do a good job but make sure you get the taxiways as well. I think you're trying to stop Phantoms and Falcons from take-off so they need a decent length of runway.

[KungPao]

Hope this helps

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... s&#4896540

The key extract: (Guess this is talking about a 4000m runway facility)
------------------------------------------------------------
* At between 75% and 100% integrity level (ie. 0-25% damage), the runway can handle very large aircraft.
* Between 50% and 75% integrity it can handle up to large aircraft.
* Between 25% and 50% integrity it can handle up to medium aircraft.
* Between 10% and 25% integrity it can handle up to small aircraft.
* Between 1% and 10% integrity only STOVL aircraft or helicopters can operate




and don't forget to strike taxi-grade runway also.

I think you're trying to stop Phantoms and Falcons from take-off so they need a decent length of runway.

From the DB, F4/F-5 needs 900m runway to take off. F-16 only needs 450m runway.

[1nutworld]

ORIGINAL: maverick3320

Currently playing the first scenario of Mediterranean Fury. I've hit an airfield (Murted AFB) with 16x Kitchen missiles - 8 on each of the two "runway" icons I can see for the airfield. Both runways show "BDA: heavy damage", with a red damage bar next to each, and the message bar shows the missiles impacting on the runways and penetrating the "armor".

I've done the tutorials on the airfield strike, which I believed mentioned knocking out runway access points as well. However, in most scenarios it seems like airfields have 6-12x access points. Is damaging the runways sufficient to knock out an airfield for a scenario, or do I need to destroy the access points as well?

Also: I believe the tutorials also mentioned that destroying ammo bunkers will actually affect air operations, but destroying fuel tanks will not. Just want to confirm this info as well.

Thanks!

Looking for a little help, here. I've seen numerous posts about Mediterranean Fury, but I can't find that particular scenario anywhere.

Is it in Beta testing?

[Gunner98]

1nutworld

She's in the Community Pack, right at the top is a folder with Northern Fury and then sub folders for the other 'Furys'

[1nutworld]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

1nutworld

She's in the Community Pack, right at the top is a folder with Northern Fury and then sub folders for the other 'Furys'

I've not downloaded the community packs, apparently!

Thanks man!

Another thing for my "to do" list.

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: maverick3320
I've done the tutorials on the airfield strike, which I believed mentioned knocking out runway access points as well.

Yes, depending on how long the runway is, it might take fewer hits to destroy the access points than it would to degrade the runways themselves. Each case is unique. Experiment. The thing about the access points is that they MUST die, if even one survives then the airport is still in operation. There isn't a single answer. Attacking air bases is a great scenario. You can build airbase attack scenarios over and over again and they don't get boring. There's just so much juice to be squeezed from that one.

However, in most scenarios it seems like airfields have 6-12x access points. Is damaging the runways sufficient to knock out an airfield for a scenario, or do I need to destroy the access points as well?

It depends. Different aircraft require more or less runway. It's easier to crater a runway to the point that it's unusable for bombers, tankers or cargo aircraft than it is to crater a runway to the point that it's unusable for fighters (they take less runway). Depending on the weapons you have and the aircraft at the target airport, it might be easier to target the runway or it might be easier to destroy the access points. Because of that, it depends on the desired effect, the target, and the weapons you've got.

In some scenarios you might not want to destroy the runway or the access points at all! In some scenarios, the desired effect is to kill tails. In others you might want to destroy the fuel. In some scenarios you might want to quickly crater the runway in order to trap everything there, and then kill the airplanes on the ground. An airbase can easily be over 100 impact points. That tends to imply a lot of nuance in terms of the weapons effects. If the airbase is a long way away, then it might not be possible to crater the runway or the access points to the point they're unusable. In that case maybe the best thing to do is use standoff weapons to strike shelters, or ballistic missiles with cluster warheads to strike opened parking and tarmac spaces? It's all about what are you trying to do and what are you trying to do it with.

Also: I believe the tutorials also mentioned that destroying ammo bunkers will actually affect air operations, but destroying fuel tanks will not. Just want to confirm this info as well.

It's true. One of the things on the guy's long list of stuff to do is making striking fuel supplies matter. In the mean time, destroying munition supplies will impact aircraft operations by denying them the ability to be reconfigured. If you strike an ammunition bunker that contains all the AMRAAM at the base, for example, then all the aircraft with AMRAAM in their configurations are out of the fight (unless they're optional).

[BeirutDude]

Some designers spread the ammo out so a lucky pick won't close down the base.

personally, I always do, if the base might be a target.

one thing I like to do is build a Single Unit AF with an ammo bunker. Put the target aircraft in it (say F-15E) then load the bunker for a complete series of load outs for six to 12 aircraft. Name if after the aircraft "F-15E 6x load outs" then I Clone the bunker as many times as necessary for the number of load outs I want for the real base. So for a squadron of 24 aircraft with 2 of each load out at the base I would clone it 8 times.

[boogabooga]

Nuclear weapons.

[stww2]

When I was playing "Wargasm", I found the AGM-28 Hound Dog to be extremely effective at taking out airfields (assuming actually detonated...those things have terrible reliability in Command!). Probably doesn't apply to most scenarios though...

(Edit: boogabooga beat me to it LOL)

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: stww2
When I was playing "Wargasm", I found the AGM-28 Hound Dog to be extremely effective at taking out airfields (assuming actually detonated...those things have terrible reliability in Command!).

That's why you shoot more than one! The overkill is necessary because of the reliability issue.

[stww2]

Overkill is kind of a theme in that scenario!

Relevant to this thread, though, I did find when I checked the editor after finishing that quite a few PVO assets had actually survived the nuclear strikes on their bases-except the strikes had taken out their ammo storage, so they couldn't rearm!

(not that it would have made a difference; the B-52s in that scenario can fly below the minimum engagement altitude of the fighters' missiles, and, at least in game, the B-52s tailguns massacre the poor fighters)

[SeaQueen]

Yeah... that sounds like a suspicious result to me. It raises questions in my mind what they thought the limiting factor for missile launch was in that case. Is it that they thought the missile had to fall hundreds of feet before igniting and flying off (I don't believe that) or maybe something like a clutter limitation (which would be subject to some pretty serious "it depends"-es.) Certainly a low, fast target would be a challenging target to shoot, but I have a hard time thinking it'd be an impossible one.

ORIGINAL: stww2
(not that it would have made a difference; the B-52s in that scenario can fly below the minimum engagement altitude of the fighters' missiles, and, at least in game, the B-52s tailguns massacre the poor fighters)

[stww2]

I don't know enough to comment on the missile limitations, but in a macro sense I do find it hard to believe that the results of my playthrough of the scenario (all assigned targets struck, with the loss of a single B-52 and two KC-135s-the latter solely due to my own incompetence) would have been representative of what would have actually happened if WW3 broke out in that time period). Regardless, it was a fun scenario, though!

[Capocarro94]

Someone can explain the Best Way to perform a carpet bombing on Airfield Runways?
I mean, in particular which is the best direction of approach? In many scenarios runways/taxiways have erroneously 000° Orientation...If I guide my bombers from another direction different from 000°/180° there will be a different result?

At the end there aren't differences from other facilities, runways/taxiways in game have a fake length extension, right or not? So a carpet bombing procedure is useless?

At which altitude (AGL) and speed is good enought to performe carpet bombing for a couple of B52? (As many historical documentaries on Operation Vietnam show)

[stww2]

The general rule for the best altitude to use dumb bombs in Command is "as low as possible" (within weapon limitations); in the game they are very accurate when dropped at low altitudes (<2000 feet). The main complicating factor with B-52s is that their size and limited speed at low altitude is going to make them more vulnerable to AAA and MANPADS, so you will want to have them drop from higher altitudes. How high that will be will depend on the AA threat around the target.

Not sure about the runway length/orientation issues.

[Gunner98]

In many scenarios runways/taxiways have erroneously 000° Orientation...

This is unfortunately very true, that is the default orientation when adding the runway and it is not immediately obvious that you should change it. Same goes for piers and ports which then gives some weird entry paths for ships.

Carpet bombing is tricky. If you look at the BLACKBUCK mission, the Brits deliberately attacked the runway at an angle so that they were certain that at least one of the 21 bombs the Vulcan dropped would hit the runway. The other alternative was to bomb in line with the runway and risk the entire stick being dropped parralel and 100-200M off. And it worked - just

Personally I like to carpet bomb parking areas and hangars. As long as the AC are not in HAS this will have good effect and has more room for error.

As for altitude, stww2 said it. As low as possible but you had better do a good assessment of the AAA/MANPADS/SAM risk

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: Capocarro94
Someone can explain the Best Way to perform a carpet bombing on Airfield Runways?
I mean, in particular which is the best direction of approach? In many scenarios runways/taxiways have erroneously 000° Orientation...If I guide my bombers from another direction different from 000°/180° there will be a different result?

The best direction is the direction that avoids the most defenses. You should always try to preserve the aircraft. You don't need to have your bombs land in a neat little row along the center line of the runway for the strike to be effective. In fact, there's a lot of reasons why that might not be the best way to go. First off, it makes you more vulnerable because your flight path is predictable. Secondly, if the desired weapon effect is to cut the runway, then you only need to cut it into sections smaller than the minimum takeoff distance for the aircraft at that airbase. You could accomplish that by having multiple aircraft approaching from different directions and cutting at several points.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fake length extension."

At which altitude (AGL) and speed is good enought to performe carpet bombing for a couple of B52? (As many historical documentaries on Operation Vietnam show)

Lower makes the bombs more accurate, but if you go too low you make yourself an easy target. The most important thing is to preserve the aircraft, so I would choose the lowest altitude that kept me out of range of AAA and MANPADS, plus at least a few hundred feet to give myself a buffer. On the other hand, if the range of the enemy's weapons are short enough, you can go even lower, and rely on the fact that they won't be able to react in time to shoot you because of their OODA loop. This approach relies on avoiding detection. It'd be higher risk in some ways, but in some cases the terrain favors it. If that's they way you want to go, then the best thing to do is to move as fast as possible. You want to be in and out of the target area and away from their guns and MANPADs before they can react.

Generally speaking, though, I try to avoid that tactic if I can. There's a lot of advantages to flying higher.

[Capocarro94]

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

I'm not sure what you mean by "fake length extension."

I mean that in CMO, and previously in CMANO, Runways and Taxiways don't have a horizontal extension as the real counterpart (is reported their length in the DB, I know) but in reality have a "point shape". Essentially are square icons on the map (a single Latitude/Longitude coordinate point) as other facilities. So in this way, a carpet bombing is totally useless. Bombing a narrow strip such as a runway with 20/30/40 free fall bombs might make sense, but if the runway is a "point shape" and launching all 20/30/40 free fall bombs, and such as throwing darts at the darts board, and a single bomb falling in the center is not enough to accumulate enough damage to render it unusable. I'm asking if my reasoning is correct or not. This a my doubt that I carry on for a long time.

Also for others facilities, an like Industrial Complex, that in the game don't have a real vertical/horizontal extension (Square Meters/Km) but a single "point shape".

Think for a moment, If you take a flight of B52 (2 B52) and perform a carpet bombing over a "Group of Facilities" that a scenario designer regroup (Many facilities/Building reasonably close each others) creating a vertical/horizontal extension (Square Meters/Km) such as Nuclear Powerplant, Industrial Complex, Harbours, Ground Unit settlement, have a great opportunity to hit/destroy and "disarticulate" a high valuable target. this is true for an airbase also.

[Gunner98]

So in this way, a carpet bombing is totally useless. Bombing a narrow strip like a runway with 20/30/40 free-fall bombs might have a sense, but if the runway have "point-like shape"

Am not 100% certain but I don't think it works that way. In the DB entry you have a length, width & area, and as you noted earlier the orientation can be set but the scenario designer.

So I believe that the full shape of the target area is being considered when damage is calculated, not a single point.