Air attacks.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

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!
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

[Wdll]

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.

[Imp]

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.

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Imp

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.

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

[Roman]

If I had known before ....

[gila]

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

[Miketee10022]

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.

[DRG]

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

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

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