Roman Walt | 16 Mar 2015 1:19 p.m. PST |
So – I've been thinking about assembling the 1:100 A10 I have somewhere, and building the forces for 1985 – "99 Luft Ballons" etc soundtrack at the ready! I was thinking, if Battlefront get the rules right, will air power become an irrelevant metagame? 1st game, NATO brings along A10s, Cobras etc, and pulverises the Red Horde. Next game, the wily Soviet commander has made sure to bring along Shilka/Tunguska/SA13 etc, and blows the NATo player out of the sky – who in future decides Brads and Abrams are the way to go. Does this scenario play out that essentially, the Soviet player basically pays a premium (of his points force) to effectively stop the NATO player from taking any aircraft? (A cost that varies by how many games are played?) Would this ultimately lead to neither player bothering with aircraft – the hostile air defence networks rendering them irrelevant? |
Weasel | 16 Mar 2015 1:45 p.m. PST |
I imagine they'll tune it down a LOT so you can use it in the game. Realistically, I imagine that the games you play would be the ones where neither side has air superiority. |
Mako11 | 16 Mar 2015 1:59 p.m. PST |
Modern warfare is a combined arms battle, so you'll probably see aircraft and SPAA on the tabletop, if they get it right. |
Weasel | 16 Mar 2015 2:09 p.m. PST |
It's Battlefront though. You'll see aircraft on hte tabletop even if they don't get it right ;) I mean, after an extended airstrike, the role of the company commander is pretty much "gather up all 3 of the men who survived and find a place in Stuttgart to wait out the war" :) |
UshCha | 16 Mar 2015 3:05 p.m. PST |
Looking at costs an A10 costs $11.8 USDm at 1994$ and an Abrams $6.2 USDm at 1999$. very roughly half. So the A10 has to kill at least 2 Abrams to pay for itself. Proably 3 or 4 Russian tanks to get value. That is not good survival odds in the main engagement area where most wargames are fought. |
Mako11 | 16 Mar 2015 3:47 p.m. PST |
I suspect an A-10 could destroy that many in one pass……. |
Tom Bryant | 16 Mar 2015 6:41 p.m. PST |
I'm with Mako11 on this one. True Soviet AAA and SAM (both man portable and vehicular) did make a lethal environment, the A-10 unlike a lot of fighters of that era was purpose built and designed to fight and survive in that environment. I think it would do a lot better than the numbers you posted. Also remember that Soviet doctrine was still a very much "top down" command structure. Kill the tank with the antennas and you can very effectively disable the whole unit in question. |
Lion in the Stars | 16 Mar 2015 7:44 p.m. PST |
The really interesting question is if the Soviet Tank Hordes will be give something like the "Born in the North to Die in the South" rule from the Vietnam rules. Because the Soviet operational art was to drive forces forward until they couldn't advance any further, then drive the second line (and untouched) forces up through the stopped forces to continue fighting. Though I'm a bit concerned about the presence of the Grid Square Removal Service, aka Soviet artillery. |
mandt2 | 16 Mar 2015 8:33 p.m. PST |
Warsaw Pact Air would have outnumbered NATO air by a lot, 2:1 to 3:1. NATO would be depending on a qualitative advantage and a higher level of reliability to offset the Warsaw Pact numerical edge. It would probably have taken a few days for this to be decided. While it's possible the ground war could be all but decided before the air war was, I think it more likely the air war would have been decided in time for the winner to turn its intention to tactical and strategic strikes, and interdiction. Air superiority would probably be a determining factor in the outcome. |
McKinstry | 16 Mar 2015 9:08 p.m. PST |
I always assumed the main thrust/investment of the NATO airforces was behind the MLR with the majority of assets tasked to deep strike and air superiority? The A-10's and Apaches were simply too few and too vulnerable to be unleashed broadly but would rather be focused on specifc targets such as select armor concentrations. I do recall a line in one of the Ralph Peters books with two Soviet generals drinking coffee in Paris where one asks the other, "Who won the air war?" |
Mako11 | 16 Mar 2015 9:53 p.m. PST |
I seem to recall the aircraft ratio to be a lot worse than that, e.g. more like 4:1, or 5:1, and possibly 6:1, but I guess it depends upon the period, which aircraft you count, which sectors, how many are knocked out in the first strike, how many airbases are crippled, etc. I know for the 'teen fighters, they were counting on having to shoot a lot more of the enemy down than they lost, and that it seemed to be a pretty tall order back in the day, even with the higher quality, since they'd be virtually overwhelmed, especially with lots of opposing AAMs still left, after they'd spent all theirs. Apparently, it's pretty hard to shut down airbases for extended periods of time (more than 4 – 8 hours, or so), unless you use nukes, or take a lot of jets out in their hardened shelters. Many runways can be repaired in just a few hours, assuming the personnel don't have to wear MOP suits, or worry about radiation. |
Lion in the Stars | 17 Mar 2015 11:34 a.m. PST |
Apparently, it's pretty hard to shut down airbases for extended periods of time (more than 4 – 8 hours, or so), unless you use nukes, or take a lot of jets out in their hardened shelters. Many runways can be repaired in just a few hours, assuming the personnel don't have to wear MOP suits, or worry about radiation. That's why the French developed the Durandal anti-runway bombs. A conventional bomb blows up on the surface and makes a big crater. someone drives the bulldozer around and pushes all the dirt back in the hole, then covers that crater with pressed steel planking or whatever emergency-use materials. Durandals (and other modern bombs, for that matter) blow up below the runway and displace concrete slabs, which can't be fixed by driving a bulldozer around. |
Ascent | 17 Mar 2015 11:54 p.m. PST |
That's something that gets me when people talk about how survivable the A10 is. Yes it could take massive damage and remain flying but it may well no longer be able to complete its mission and there is a good chance that if it did get home it wouldn't be going out on another mission anytime soon. |
UshCha | 18 Mar 2015 12:03 a.m. PST |
Even in Gulf war 1 airpower had mixed results. In routs it was outstanding where the disorganisation was rampent and no real AAA. Against the better units countermeasurea that decieved battale damage assesments meant that it certainly did not win the more set piece bits of the war. Everything has its place but nothing is the siver bullet. |
wizbangs | 18 Mar 2015 7:05 a.m. PST |
Battlefront will find a way to incorporate both. AA doesn't have to guarantee a threat-free sky when there are radar jamming & flare counter-measures to give most aircraft a chance of survivability against AA weapons. They won't be writing new rules- they'll be taking what they have and adapting them for modern weapons (realistic or otherwise). So you can be confident air support & air defense will both have viable roles in the new release. |
latto6plus2 | 18 Mar 2015 7:33 a.m. PST |
Hopefully we wont see gepards and shilkas manouevring for flank shots on enemy armour or blasting infantry out of trenches. |
Lion in the Stars | 18 Mar 2015 11:16 a.m. PST |
Gepards (and any other of the 35mm NATO autocannons) do carry APDS rounds in their magazines. Are they better used against aircraft? Absolutely. But it's long been proven that AA guns are infantry-mowers. |
Zoring | 18 Mar 2015 7:46 p.m. PST |
Well knowing BF, Shilkas/Gepards will have high ROF but low "Firepower" so they will shred men in the open but not do much against dug-in infantry. Which makes sense to me. |
Mako11 | 19 Mar 2015 2:42 a.m. PST |
I imagine the damage a Gepard's autocannons could do to the flanks of enemy armor would be truly amazing. Perhaps, on the Durandels. Certainly, they'd be more effective than normal bombs, but I'll bet combat engineers would just blow the slabs into smaller pieces, refill the holes with those, and the displaced dirt, and still have the runway(s) back into service in twelve hours, or less. Combat need is a great motivator for people to get creative in addressing problems very quickly. I seem to recall reading that one aviation writer mentioned an average of about seven hours for that to occur. I think it was Alfred Price, in his book on the air war between NATO and the Soviets/Warsaw Pact. |
latto6plus2 | 19 Mar 2015 4:49 a.m. PST |
From memory airbases were also soviet priorities for spetznaz, chemical, and direct assault. I think second only to enemy nuclear forces but above nato HQs etc |
Mako11 | 20 Mar 2015 6:50 p.m. PST |
Yep, that's why I mentioned the MOP gear. That would have been a nightmare to wear, for more than a brief time, to do anything at all. |
Texas Grognard | 25 Mar 2015 9:00 p.m. PST |
I wonder if they'll make the DIVADS Sgt York SPAA available As I recall the York was a truly horrid weapons system that in field tests could not even engage ground targets effectively let alone aircraft or helicopters. Anyhoo salut y'all. |
Lion in the Stars | 26 Mar 2015 11:52 a.m. PST |
Re: the M247 SGT York. My understanding was that the radar system is what killed the project, and they'd gone cheap on it (pulled the radar from an F16, which wasn't anywhere near capable enough to deal with the clutter you get that close to the ground) But otherwise it was a beast, far more capable than the ZSU23-4, ZSU30-6 and nearly on par with the Tunguska. If the original contest hadn't poisoned Congress against the design, I'd be willing to bet that we could have a newer version delivered today, on the M60 or maybe even Abrams chassis. Though I'd want a newer way to kick the empty cases out of the turret than sliding down a greased chute. |
tuscaloosa | 26 Mar 2015 6:44 p.m. PST |
Hard to see exactly what the Sgt York would be employed against. |
Mako11 | 26 Mar 2015 11:00 p.m. PST |
A shame they didn't develop a bit more, or that we didn't buy Gepards, or some of those nice, Russian SPAA vehicles with both missiles and cannons. Fortunately, we haven't had to worry about air superiority over the battlefield. |
Karaz123 | 27 Mar 2015 5:44 a.m. PST |
Well any modern game in my mind can not ignore airpower. The closest real life we can see how that would have played out must be the yom kippur war of 73. The arab air-defence grid effectively nulified Israeli air power at first. The israeli's have been very ticked off of any soviet SAM systems that hinder their airpower ever since. Later soviet sam systems are very very good. That being said. A Coldwar battle would have seen soviets advancing into NATO territory so NATO would have to contend with the mobile components only. (unless deep striking) Also Western Europe is vastly different land than the area around the suez canal and many lessens learned from that war where later incoperated into material and tactics on NATO side. THE major plus of airpower is it's flexability. You can kill targets anywhere within the combat radius of the plane, fast. Also targets themselves can be flexible because you can change ordnance very easy. Today you go kill tanks and a couple houts later you are busting a bridge. Lastly you need specialized units (interceptors, SAM's and AAA guns) to kill them in turn. These mostly have little other use when activaly used in this role besides Anti Air.(Even AAA guns can only shoot up or down right?) This eats up recources wich is always good. No modern war can do without this component and when one side has free reign in the air it's a devastating and truly decisive factor. A Cold War fought in Europe would have been a two way meatgrinder like nothing before. Who would have won I can't say. That would also have to depend on exact period I think. NATO doctrine was mostly valid though and both sides evolved through the years to counter the other side. But a modern sytem without airpower? no way! and in my humble opinion a game within a game, and an important game you don't want to lose. |
Lion in the Stars | 27 Mar 2015 1:26 p.m. PST |
A shame they didn't develop a bit more, or that we didn't buy Gepards, or some of those nice, Russian SPAA vehicles with both missiles and cannons. The Gepard turret was one of the competitors to the Sgt York. Army liked the twin Bofors 40mm L/70s that could fire on the move. |
Lion in the Stars | 28 Mar 2015 12:16 p.m. PST |
Hard to see exactly what the Sgt York would be employed against. Hinds and Su25s, you'd assume. Though I think that Helos would be in trouble if there were fixed-wing fighters around. Or even fixed-wing ground-attack birds. Pretty sure an A10 or Su25 would turn a helo into swiss cheese. |
Mako11 | 28 Mar 2015 4:24 p.m. PST |
Depending upon the scenario(s), I suspect you could conduct a pre-game die roll to determine availability of airpower, if you don't want to actually conduct airstrikes. Use a mid-range norm of contested airpower, or little to no intervention. Then, at the more extreme ends of the spectrum for each side, give them superiority/inferiority in airpower, as appropriate. Tie the above to points allocated to airpower by each side, with those committing more points getting a better chance of gaining the upper hand. Of course, balance that a bit with the chance that the airpower purchased won't show up at all, or won't show up on time, just for grins. Back in the day, Tractics had a system to do just that. Can't recall if they used a points system, or not, but there were various degrees of air support available for scenarios. I think that should work reasonably well. That also forces the players to purchase AA assets too, just in case, for a more historical, and balanced combat force. |
badger22 | 29 Mar 2015 9:16 p.m. PST |
Always one of my favorite fire missions, suppresion against air defense (SAAD). rounds are supposed to land a few seconds before the fast movers get in range, and then again when they are exiting. of course it only works if you can aquire all the AD assets before you shoot. On the other hand if they have them well hidden, it limits thier horizon so they sort of self supress and you dont even have to shoot at them. it is never static. move counter move, counter-counter and so on. But I have to say i would not like to do it again without A-10s along. those other zoomie types drop and go, the Hogs hang around with you. |
Karaz123 | 30 Mar 2015 3:44 a.m. PST |
A game within a game indeed. I can see you want to abstract it somewhat to focus on the juicy bits. Although in my book A-10's awsomeness and stuff like it are just as juicy! O and don't forget his Su-25 and other counterparts. Not pushing all those fine models around seems a damn waste to me. |
latto6plus2 | 30 Mar 2015 4:01 a.m. PST |
Mako – the old Challenger rules had a similar system based on, from memory, aircrafte ecm and dogfight ratings. Depending on the difference between opposing planes and a dice roll you could end up with parity or adjust the likelihood of either sides support arriving. Wee bit time consuming, like everything in Challenger but it had a realistic effect,and encouraged players to invest in top cover and ecm etc |
Mako11 | 30 Mar 2015 11:30 a.m. PST |
Thanks for that info, latto6plus2. I wasn't aware of that, and have the rules tucked away somewhere, so will have to dig them out, and give them a look too. |
deleted222222222 | 30 Mar 2015 11:58 a.m. PST |
Actually from what I have heard Battlefront intends to come out with new rules to go along with the release of the line. So it makes speculation kinda moot. |
Lion in the Stars | 30 Mar 2015 7:41 p.m. PST |
@LaSalle: The core Flames of War rules work pretty well for moderns, but the AT ratings of a Rhinemetall 120mm or the 125mm are going to be obscene. As I understand the FoW armor and AT ratings, it's basically armor thickness, rounded to nearest cm. The German DM33 tungsten sabot round is claimed to penetrate 560mm of RHA at 2000m. That is, AT 56 or so for the Leo2! The Soviet 3BM29/30 depleted uranium sabot round from 1982 is claimed to penetrate 430mm at 2000m. ouch. 1980s cold war gone hot is still early enough in the development of explosive reactive armor to get away with one armor rating for both sabot and HEAT. By the late 1990s, though I think you're going to have to have separate HEAT and KE armor ratings. |
UshCha | 30 Mar 2015 11:16 p.m. PST |
Lion in the stars- you have to seperate KE from Heat (we call it CE (Chemical Energy) much earlier. As soon as spaced plate comes in in WWII! |
Visceral Impact Studios | 31 Mar 2015 10:02 a.m. PST |
I think they'll also massage their numbers a bit to squish them into something reasonable. The important thing is relative performance rather than absolute values. We do the same thing with our rules. At FOW's level of abstraction (and ours for that matter) it's not really a good idea to only use the thickest part of a vehicles armor for its armor value. This is especially true for flank armor values since the flanks include not only actual armor but other bits (eg wheels and tracks and vents) which can result in mobility or other forms of "kills". In fact, in more abstract systems, one might argue that an armor "cap" is appropriate since certain areas remain vulnerable to enemy fire no matter the thickness of armor slabs in limited areas. In our system sci-fi mechs face severe limits on flank armor since joints and other complicated parts of limbs are tough to armor while also remaining useful. |