Air to Ground attacks: did we do this right?

[madaxeman]

So, in a BAOR/WARPAC game this week, some RAF Harriers succesfully rolled to appear on table and attacked a group of T72's.

• AA shoots at them, using (we think) the "AT" stat line. WARPAC, as is their wont, have a couple of dedicated AA units and a commander within 20 as well, so have 5+2+2=9 AA attacks, hitting on a 5/6 for an expected 3 hits.
• Harriers save on a 4, so save half of these hits, averaging 1.5 hits getting through
• The Harrier then rolls for a mission abort, which will happen 1 time in 3... so, with an average of 1.5 hits that should ends up as an aborted strike half of the time
• The Harrier however gets through, and decides to concentrate attacks against 1 tank unit.
• It has 5 attacks, less the "1.5" hits taken from AA for an expected average of 3.5 attacks, doubled (for the concentration) to 7
• Its targeting a tank, so only hits on a 6. So, thats on average 1, or maybe 2 hits
• The T72 has a save of 4, reduced to 5 for air attack, so saves 1 in 3 of these hits

So, if we had this right, a Harrier going into a not unreasonably hostile air defence environment to precision-attack a single enemy AFV unit can expect to be forced to abort the mission around half the time, and even if the Harrier gets through it should only really expect to inflict 1 hit - even with a concentrated attack?

 

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Sounds about right.

[madaxeman]

Hmmm..

That's not an especially great return on 105 points for the Harrier, plus 45 for the FAC, is it?*

And thats before adding in the fact you'll need to pass a roll to even get to call in a strike in the first place...

TBH with those probabilities I'd be kinda tempted to treat aircraft and an FAC as "free" addition to any battlegroup or any size. After all, aircraft are cool 

(It's also (once you do the roll for calling in the strike, and the final suppression roll for the "hit") something in the order of 23 dice being rolled to generate an average outcome of 1 hit. Has anyone worked out an easier way of doing this ?)


(*Usual caveats about not really playing points based games apply)

[sultanbev]

The result is about historically correct.
One of the editors at Helion was telling me about a conversation he recently had with someone was the deputy head of NATO air army back in the 1980s (ie really high ranking), and it's a nonsense that small groups of planes would be called in by a FAC to hunt down and attack small groups of tanks.
Pretty much all air missions in the Cold War were primed to air tasking orders. CinC had a list of targets, each early morning they would be informed of the number of units and planes available - they were then allocated to targets by the air force chaps who knew about aircraft (sortie rates, ranges, weapon types, refuelling availability, etc).

US planes would be operated in the "big wing" concept we saw in GW1 - EW planes, Wild Weasels, tankers, lots of fighters and bombers hitting vital targets, bulldozing through enemy air defences.
NATO planes on the other hand, as we had little in the way of tankers or EW, were to be used in small packets of 5-6 terrain hugging and skirting round air defences to hit pre-determined targets - airfields, bridges, railway junctions, vehicle parks, DHQs, whatever. Not random tank companies skulking about in woods and fields.
The primary mission of NATO planes was counter-air. Way more than anything else. So either as fighters, or attacking airfields and their air defences. Everything else came way down the tasking order.


So whilst it looks cool to have the models on the table, arrving on call to a FAC, it's completely unrealistic. Yes, I still do it myself, but I'm gradually ditching the habit, having sold a lot of my modern 6mm planes.
In games terms you can have a pre-bombardment if you like, of known enemy concentrations or terrain features, in a set-piece battle where you are attacking. Just like the Soviets.
In a defensive battle, your HQ may scream for air support, but if it did appear it would be as fighters to shoot down enemy air, or as a pre-packaged delivery on supply columns stacked up to the rear.

Even the helicopters wouldn't be used in small penny packets. West German Bo-105 for example were in wings of 56 helicopters, to be used en masse against armoured breakthroughs. Even the paltry AAC with Lynx/TOW would be used in whole squadrons at a minimum, preferably the whole regiment at once. The only helos you might see on tabletop would be scouts, probably the advance guard bringing a regiment of Hinds, Apaches, Bo-105, Gazelle/HOT with them.

The simple reason for this is that it is really hard to spot pinpoint targets on the ground whilst evading flak, terrain and fighters whilst moving at 400-500mph.

Mark

[Big Insect]

The result is about historically correct.
One of the editors at Helion was telling me about a conversation he recently had with someone was the deputy head of NATO air army back in the 1980s (ie really high ranking), and it's a nonsense that small groups of planes would be called in by a FAC to hunt down and attack small groups of tanks.
Pretty much all air missions in the Cold War were primed to air tasking orders. CinC had a list of targets, each early morning they would be informed of the number of units and planes available - they were then allocated to targets by the air force chaps who knew about aircraft (sortie rates, ranges, weapon types, refuelling availability, etc).

US planes would be operated in the "big wing" concept we saw in GW1 - EW planes, Wild Weasels, tankers, lots of fighters and bombers hitting vital targets, bulldozing through enemy air defences.
NATO planes on the other hand, as we had little in the way of tankers or EW, were to be used in small packets of 5-6 terrain hugging and skirting round air defences to hit pre-determined targets - airfields, bridges, railway junctions, vehicle parks, DHQs, whatever. Not random tank companies skulking about in woods and fields.
The primary mission of NATO planes was counter-air. Way more than anything else. So either as fighters, or attacking airfields and their air defences. Everything else came way down the tasking order.


So whilst it looks cool to have the models on the table, arrving on call to a FAC, it's completely unrealistic. Yes, I still do it myself, but I'm gradually ditching the habit, having sold a lot of my modern 6mm planes.
In games terms you can have a pre-bombardment if you like, of known enemy concentrations or terrain features, in a set-piece battle where you are attacking. Just like the Soviets.
In a defensive battle, your HQ may scream for air support, but if it did appear it would be as fighters to shoot down enemy air, or as a pre-packaged delivery on supply columns stacked up to the rear.

Even the helicopters wouldn't be used in small penny packets. West German Bo-105 for example were in wings of 56 helicopters, to be used en masse against armoured breakthroughs. Even the paltry AAC with Lynx/TOW would be used in whole squadrons at a minimum, preferably the whole regiment at once. The only helos you might see on tabletop would be scouts, probably the advance guard bringing a regiment of Hinds, Apaches, Bo-105, Gazelle/HOT with them.

The simple reason for this is that it is really hard to spot pinpoint targets on the ground whilst evading flak, terrain and fighters whilst moving at 400-500mph.

Mark

what he said ... 

I agree with everything that Mark has said above and in CWC-II the idea was to move away from the over dominance of air that was starting to take effect in CWC-I. Yes, the air models look great but you can still use them in pre-planned strikes and they tend to fair slightly better in that function.

It's a bit like the popular rules device around 'pop-up' helicopter attacks (as discussed elsewhere on the forum) - unless you are using Apache Longbows with target location radar & Hellfire 'fire & forget' missiles (both of which are really out of scope for the core rules period) any chopper 'popping up' to fire an MCLOS type weapon should probably actually be easier to hit, rather than harder.

Sorry if it takes away that 'thrill' of getting your Harrier actually on-table Tim & actually attacking something, but I now tend to focus on key 'soft' targets or even bridges rather than single MTBs. Even if the hits are not doubled, using templates also greatly increases the opportunity of a kill. Provided your targets are under that template of course.

[madaxeman]

OK, that all makes sense from a realism POV then...

But it does sort of suggest the in-game points values may be a little off. 

Maybe the "aircraft are free (because they won't achieve much)" is indeed the way forward! 

[Steve J]

Interesting info Mark and something I will try to remember for my games when I get around to them.

[sultanbev]

Going forward with that info, so that the points system isn't completely wasted -
One way to represent the effect of airstrikes is to reduce the opponents force by a random number of tanks and truck models before the game starts, say 1D6-1 per three model planes purchased, or based on their attack number - to represent the ones knocked out whilst stuck in the assembly area whilst eating breakfast or parked waiting to cross a bridge way off table earlier that morning.

A straight forward mechanism could surely be constructed. And that opponent gets to attempt to shoot down same planes depending on what AA he bought, just to make him feel better (!)
Bit boring but slightly more realistic, and perhaps could be made into an air results phase at the beginning of the first turn. Purchasing a SF team to be behind the lines to guide in airstrikes could give a bonus for example, or contrarily purchasing a radar model could give a bonus to the AA shoot down.

But within the current rules, just make all airstrikes as pre-planned missions, with a pre-written aiming point(s) based on terrain before the opponent deploys any models.

The other point I would add is, from WW2 and GW1 & Afghanistan experience, once you acheive total air dominance, then FACs calling in a few planes to attack individual targets is possible. But in a Cold War gone hot, it wasn't envisaged that would happen before the nukes flew.

Mark

[Big Insect]

Going forward with that info, so that the points system isn't completely wasted -
One way to represent the effect of airstrikes is to reduce the opponents force by a random number of tanks and truck models before the game starts, say 1D6-1 per three model planes purchased, or based on their attack number - to represent the ones knocked out whilst stuck in the assembly area whilst eating breakfast or parked waiting to cross a bridge way off table earlier that morning.

A straight forward mechanism could surely be constructed. And that opponent gets to attempt to shoot down same planes depending on what AA he bought, just to make him feel better (!)
Bit boring but slightly more realistic, and perhaps could be made into an air results phase at the beginning of the first turn. Purchasing a SF team to be behind the lines to guide in airstrikes could give a bonus for example, or contrarily purchasing a radar model could give a bonus to the AA shoot down.

But within the current rules, just make all airstrikes as pre-planned missions, with a pre-written aiming point(s) based on terrain before the opponent deploys any models.

The other point I would add is, from WW2 and GW1 & Afghanistan experience, once you acheive total air dominance, then FACs calling in a few planes to attack individual targets is possible. But in a Cold War gone hot, it wasn't envisaged that would happen before the nukes flew.

Mark

An interesting idea Mark - I'll have a think.

Also, we tend to see aircraft on-table attacking armour - but against Infantry and soft vehicles in the open, especially they are just as devastating as previously.

Or you can always buy some Cluster bombs Tim 

[hammurabi70]

For our home brew rules:
[1] At an operational level we have a pre-battle strike die roll on the LoC if an army has aircraft available with appropriate capacity, this will reduce the support assets available on the battlefield (taking out whole units would unbalance a game).
[2] On battlefield airstrikes work on the sort of principle: a hit on target with 4 to 6 when rolling a D6, minus one on the dice if defending fighters active and minus one on the dice if target has AAA protection (actually more complex than this but you get the idea).  No real interest for the fate of the aircraft for once ordnance is released on the initial pass the aircraft will return to base and the next sortie would be done by another aircraft from the squadron/wing; if fate of aircraft important you could build that in.

[madaxeman]

OK. so for an infantry target, and going for the full 30x10 area you are looking at:

• AA shoots at them, using (we think) the "AT" stat line. WARPAC, as is their wont, have a couple of dedicated AA units and a commander within 20 as well, so have 5+2+2=9 AA attacks, hitting on a 5/6 for an expected 3 hits.
• Harriers save on a 4, so save half of these hits, averaging 1.5 hits getting through
• The Harrier then rolls for a mission abort, which will happen 1 time in 3... so, with an average of 1.5 hits that should ends up as an aborted strike half of the time
• The Harrier however gets through, and bombs all infantry in the zone
• It has 5 attacks, less the "1.5" hits taken from AA for an expected average of 3.5 attacks.
• Against infantry in the open that about 2 hits each, with a 50% chance of suppresion
• Against infantry in any sort of cover thats more like 1 hit each, with 1 in 3 being suppressed

So, again, you need to first pass a FAC call-in, then survive a 50/50 chance of being hit by AA and aborting, and against the best possible target of infantry in the open its 1-2 hits... but with a lot more die rolling than against a single tank unit


I think I quite like that simplified version of resolving attacks TBH - otherwise the die rolling involved to deliver 1-2 hits on ay sort of target is quite significant. With all hits coming off all troops on table at the end of every player turn, getting to 1-2 hits for 20+ die rolls using 6 different mechanics, each with their own set of modifiers does seem a bit of unnecessary game overhead. 

Maybe add in that if you do roll a 6 you get to roll again with a 6 for a subsequent hit too, just to give a bit more swinginess to it?   

[Big Insect]

OK. so for an infantry target, and going for the full 30x10 area you are looking at:

• AA shoots at them, using (we think) the "AT" stat line.
  

What is with the "(we think)" bit Tim?
Technically, most aircraft are 'unarmoured' but they can be shot at with either the AP or AT stats, whichever is the one in range, whilst in the air. They also mostly all have a Save throw. So you use either stat, as appropriate, but dice for Saves against Hits as per the army list stats.

So if an AA unit (INF:SAM) is AP 1/30 | AT 4/100 you use the AT stats regardless of whether the Aircraft/helicopter is classified as armoured or not.
Any armour is usually built into the higher number of hits &/or the lower saving throw.
NB: with an AP value of 1/30 that usually reflect the ground weapons for the vehicle/crew - maybe a Browning or a bunch of rifles etc. for local self defence.
Where the AP/AT stats really matter is against ground units.
So you must use AP stats against soft ground targets and AT stats against armoured ground target.
However, most SAMs cannot, would not, have been fired against ground vehicles (& before anybody quotes me the example of Blowpipes against Trucks in the Balkan War, it was against tactical doctrine).

Hope that helps clarify things?
[/list]

[madaxeman]

Got it!

I think I've also just realised something... under prior editions we had an informal club view that using smart munitions was unsporting, on the basis that artillery was pretty pokey anyway and smart munitions were just too effective to play with.

I suspect that balance has now changed and smart munitions are no longer game breaking, but instead are just a useful upgrade on normal artillery

[Big Insect]

Got it!

I think I've also just realised something... under prior editions we had an informal club view that using smart munitions was unsporting, on the basis that artillery was pretty pokey anyway and smart munitions were just too effective to play with.

I suspect that balance has now changed and smart munitions are no longer game breaking, but instead are just a useful upgrade on normal artillery

Exactly Tim. They have also increased in cost to reflect their effectiveness.

[Phobos]

Got it!

I think I've also just realised something... under prior editions we had an informal club view that using smart munitions was unsporting, on the basis that artillery was pretty pokey anyway and smart munitions were just too effective to play with.

I suspect that balance has now changed and smart munitions are no longer game breaking, but instead are just a useful upgrade on normal artillery

Special munitions also need 6 to hit on AFV, so the difference is negligible.