Air attacks.
 

Hello. I have many doubts about the role of aircraft in this game.
Someone might tell me that air units are the best and what types of weapons are ideal for these attacks?
1) attack against infantry
2) Armored Attack
3) Attacks on artillery and antiaircraft units
The question is also for winspww2

Thanks

Re: Air attacks.
 

Wow big ask Roman & depends what you want or can afford stand of weapons or standard etc. For WWII generaly cannon vs armour MGs vs soft then look at secondary weapons.
Do same as for any other unit look at weapon stats kill for infantry AP or HEAT for armour.
Important planes only ever have HE ammo so do not use HEAT rating use AP one. Helicopters do use HEAT rating if have ammo for listed under AP.
At least thats the principle I work on.

Re: Air attacks.
 

To be honest given the cost of aircraft; the fact that the AI (and some human players) tend to purchase 3 to 5 times more AA (particularly MPADS) then a battalion to brigade size force would have in reality; the "issues" with air delivered weapons (i.e a single Maverick may "bounce off" an unarmored truck OR kill a platoon of MBTs); and the high probability of blue on blue by aircraft; the role of aircraft in the game is more cosmetic then practical.

They're fun to play with but very, very rarely worth the cost.

I find that usually HE bombs work best.

AP Cluster Bombs.

If towed HE bombs, if SP AP Clusters.

SEAD type aircraft specifically target AA weapons.

Re: Air attacks.
 

My perspective is really for WW2, because I probably don't have enough experience to give a credible opinion about MBT aircraft.

I agree with Suhirr in that I mostly choose aircraft for fun. But I do think they can provide valuable intel by spotting rear units (probably more than they should) and for this ability alone it's worth buying an aircraft or two, but not spotting aircraft.

I choose fast small aircraft, which seem to survive better, and only look at weapons last. My main objective is to gather some intel and harass the enemy. Which is most successful when the enemy fails to buy sufficient AAA. And I think aircraft can be psychologically effective against your opponent.

It can also be worth looking for aircraft that have armour.

cheers,
Cross

Re: Air attacks.
 

Thanks for your responses. I think planes are important if one knows how to use.
In two battles of ww2 that I remember were important. In a battle the enemy destroy me 1 Tiger, and damage another.
After another battle where I had air superiority, destroyed and began retreating many enemy infantry.
MBT know well in the arms of the helicopter but I do not know the utility of weapons of aircraft. I know the Maverick and Hellfire are very good against tanks.
I will investigate the weapons according to their characteristics.
regards

Re: Air attacks.
 

In modern times they can easily win a battle for you. If done correctly, enough to make the opponent rethink if he can continue fighting the campaign against you.
What you need though are a few things.
a)Numbers. You need at least 10 planes.
b)Numbers. You need several missiles/bombs per plane. None of that 2 per plane crap, unless they are SEAD.
c)If the opponent has good AD, you need more than enough SEAD to go in first to either kill off or force the AD to waste their ammo on them instead of your strike aircraft.
d)Long term plan, at least in a PBEM campaign. You can never know when the game will give you the air sorties you will need, and the support points to go with. You need to save points from the repair points you get. Which means you need to sacrifice other things.
e)If the enemy AD is very good and easily outclass your SEAD planes, especially in EW, forget it.

Is it worth it to use planes? Hell yeah! But only if you are serious about them. If in a 45K (initial) army you get 2-4 planes and expect to win the battle with them...that's a waste of credits. You're far better off buying anything else.

Re: Air attacks.
 

Quoted in the Game Play Notes section of the Game Guide:
"The power of an air force is terrific when there is nothing to oppose it.", Winston Churchill: The Gathering storm, 1948.

Churchill's quote is so true. I once had a PBEM game with the original SPII, way back in the MS-DOS days, where I was UK and he was USSR, in a "what if the Cuban missile crisis went critical" war in 1968/9.

I got allocated 2 flights and bought 4 Hawker Hunters with rockets - and they come with 4x30mm Aden cannon and a fair bit of ammo too. That last bit was crucial.

I noted the lack of enemy AAA fairly quickly and after the game my opponent admitted that he had quite simply forgotten to buy any AAA cover at all. Plus his main vehicles just happened to be the relatively few Soviet ones without an AAMG (early T-62, BTR-60PB etc).

I was happily plinking his T-62 all game long with these, and getting no reply whatsoever. They probably each had 2-3 kills by game end each(including BTRS as well).

In that situation even a few planes could rove the battlefield entirely at will. I could even plot runs starting from his edge of the map with total impunity and thus have a high expectation of "up the kilt" shots on his heavies.

So always have at least a "fig leaf" of AAA cover, even if it is just some pintle mounted 12.7mm AAMG on Jeeps etc.

And a few planes can turn the tide - if your opponent cooperates :)!.

Andy

Re: Air attacks.
 

In a campaign of ww2 I have air superiority. 9 units. In the last battle bought many bombers of carpet and I do not think it was a good choice.
I'll see what happens. Before medium bombers and fighter-bombers used and I think it was better. They are vulnerable to antiaircraft but are more effective.
As I said I'll see what happens at the end of the current battle and I will draw better conclusions.

Re: Air attacks.
 

The map size and size of forces in general is to be taken into consideration.
Also, the WWII air force has to be larger than for a similar size modern battle. They are not nearly as accurate, effective or deadly as modern planes.

Re: Air attacks.
 

And level bombers are pretty much useless to players, in a new tactic i wanted to try, i once used them against a friend, i set a few bombers to carpet bomb a small area then dropped a company of paras the same turn in there to kill the routed enemy and block the path of any enemies coming from the rear using the shell holes from the bombing as cover, yeah they got overrun by a tank platoon later, but still an unusual tactic that could have worked.

Re: Air attacks.
 

I advise against air dropping the same turn of a single bombardment. Always bomb for two consecutive turns the same target, especially if routing is one of the main goals.

Re: Air attacks.
 

Most of the level bombers do pack a good wallop if they actually hit where you intended they do often jump a hex row or 2 which can be alarming. As someone said before cost wise they are not the best choice but if your using for atmosphere as in say an airmobile force so no arty available till landed or at best a bit of support by the big guns with a long reach they can do the job.
The biggest diffrence between air & arty really is arty is far more predictable air is always the bigger gamble it can pay huge dividends or be a total disaster. As said cost wise arty nearly always comes out on top as has more shots & the ability to keep firing at a targeted location.
Level bombers are probably the worst of the lot as really just one shot arty that has a good chance of missing its target, they should always be used pre plotted as think this does improve the accuracy & they do have very high call times.

Re: Air attacks.
 

The level bomber class was only ever invented for WW2 scenario designer use, for the Normandy breakout sort of affair. A large quantity of the things to plaster the enemy lines (and perhaps drop short on your general as well - scenario designer could always plot a few off-target ones for sheer nastiness.. :)).

In MBT it provides a useful scenario designer tool for say a Vietnam Arclight mission. Or the single Libyan one in a Chad or Tanzanian/Ugandan scenario for flavour.

Other than that, they are pretty much useless items, even if some OOB designers provided squillions of variants. Especially useless for stand-alone battles IMHO unless perhaps you use them in squadron strength. (Level bombers have next to no spotting ability for example, unlike strike air. Level bombers do fly above some AAA guns and short range MANPADS, but arty avoids AAA fires too).

They only have a 12 turn delay if called, just like para-drop aircraft, to stop those who forgot to pre-plot them complaining. (In reality if not pre-plotted then those missions should not arrive, ever).

So - scenario designer "flavour" item only. Not particularly useful for anything else.

Andy

Re: Air attacks.
 

If I had known before ....:(:doh:

Re: Air attacks.
 

If you have any bombs left,use them on more static targets like arty parks,then sell some or all them next time:)

Re: Air attacks.
 

If I can gently and slightly disagree with at least some of the comments. Yes, when used singly or with just a few planes, level bombers don't do much. But if used in massed formations - say B-52's dropping HE cluster munitions on infantry - even dug-in infantry - they can be devastating. I played a West vs. Iran scenario set in 2007 where massed US B-52's unloaded HE cluster ordinance on Iranian Rev. Guards dug in around a river-line, and the results were startling. Probably 30-40% Iranian casualties. Again, this was a tightly packed mass of planes (about 8) saturating a swath of the map. I also destroyed an Iranian tank column on a road using B-1's unloading AP Cluster bombs. This was, I should add, after all Iranian local AD units had been plastered by UAV's and SEAD's.

Re: Air attacks.
 

The point here is if used correctly, and what is described in post 16 would be correct usage. AND the player has done proper scouting and knows what he's up against AND you are attacking densely packed units AND you get a bit of luck ........ you can pretty much end the game right then an there. REALLY nasty in PBEM...... :)


Don

Re: Air attacks.
 

I agree with the last two posts, ask the Iraqis what they thought about the B-52 and B-1. I have to be honest and say I'm dreading the whole process with the Jet inputs outside of plane types as this topic keeps coming all the time in slightly different variations over the years. I feel more then ever the game is at a tipping point dealing with fighter bombers and bombers. Air support is as important to ground operations in the modern battlefield (Again as history cycles through these things.) as toilet paper is to wiping your...whatever. We worked with a Nuclear Triad as our doctrine (ICBM, Bombers and Subs.), you can say on a conventional battlefield it would be Ground Attack Forces, Arty and Air Support with all parts interchangeable depending on whether your in the preparatory phase, sustained operations or mopping up. If we are willing to improve all our ground units which this game is all about, then realistically why is there a sense that we wouldn't be willing to do the same for air units? What of SNIPER, LITENING and other similar integrated FCS on planes? Or the B-1 that now carries triple the old standard conventional bomb load? The game can handle it with improved air vision and weapons, I wonder can the players evolve as as these systems have in the real world? Just something to think about.
So I feel compelled to say this is the best all around tactical and to a lesser extent strategic (Think campaign and the price you pay for losing, draws and minor V's etc.) game I've played since SSI's Red Star White Star and Avalon Hills Panzer General and Allied General except I play on a computer and not a board now. If I just wanted a tank game first I can ensure you I wouldn't put forth the effort and second like As.h well you know how many .'s are needed, everyone has one on the net and in the stores, not much of this out there and that's good because this is a "thinking mans" game if you want it to be. And now you see what happens when I get a little game time in!! ;)
Thank you for the rant, I just had to get this off my mind. I now feel better about the work ahead in the 2012/2013 campaign come what may.

Regards,
Pat

Re: Air attacks.
 

Just going through my sources and came across this from the "DID" site. It ties together the battlefield relationship I discussed in the last post. This might help better your (my) understanding of who, how and why ground, sea air ops are mutually supported. It even has pictures, diagrams and charts! :re:
It's worth the effort if you want a better understanding of the article topic.
http://www.alsa.mil/library/alsb/ALSB%202012-2.pdf

Regards,
Pat