is aircraft worth it?

[Urban]

Try to use some UAV (High ECM and little size), they have greater chance to avoid this kind of nasty boy. Repeat the reccon flight again and again until you run out of UAV (worst case) or they run out of ammo ().
The manpad are relatively easy to spot (smoke on the shooting area), so use mortar to suppress or kill them between each flight.

Of course you could use the old russian method and crush wide areas under massive artillery barrage but the counter fire could be painfull, specialy against well equiped and trained country like Sweeden .

[Sniper23]

Originally Posted by Urban

Try to use some UAV (High ECM and little size), they have greater chance to avoid this kind of nasty boy. Repeat the reccon flight again and again until you run out of UAV (worst case) or they run out of ammo ().
The manpad are relatively easy to spot (smoke on the shooting area), so use mortar to suppress or kill them between each flight.

Of course you could use the old russian method and crush wide areas under massive artillery barrage but the counter fire could be painfull, specialy against well equiped and trained country like Sweeden .

i never thought of that,thanks for the idea

[Suhiir]

I tend to play the USMC a lot (what can I say, service bias here ) and yes, I find aircraft of questionable value in WinSPMBT.

This is for a combination of reasons.
1) The AI always has hordes of MANPADS. (Usually 2 to 3 times as many as would "realistic" in my opinion)
2) Aircraft are to expensive for the amount of damage they generally do. I won't get into how many times I've had 4-6 aircraft waste their ammo on a lone infantry squad that happens to be in the middle of a tank company. Not that there aren't the occasional (VERY occasional) successes where an aircraft takes out half and infantry company or some such.
3) Even with stand-off weapons I see an amazing number of hits bounce off vehicles ("You hit for 100+ penetration VS 5 armor, shot fails to penetrate").

All that said I still add them to scenarios for "flavor" if not anticipated effectiveness.

For pure "bang for the buck" by on-map MLRS or HIMARS, about the same cost as aircraft and generally 3 to 5 times as effective.

If you can afford the cost, and number of aircraft slots you're allowed in a given battle, using UAV's to draw fire until the AI runs out of ammo is a VERY effective tactic. Just fly them on your side of the map to draw missile fire but stay out of machinegun range.

[Sniper23]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

I tend to play the USMC a lot (what can I say, service bias here ) and yes, I find aircraft of questionable value in WinSPMBT.

This is for a combination of reasons.
1) The AI always has hordes of MANPADS. (Usually 2 to 3 times as many as would "realistic" in my opinion)
2) Aircraft are to expensive for the amount of damage they generally do. I won't get into how many times I've had 4-6 aircraft waste their ammo on a lone infantry squad that happens to be in the middle of a tank company. Not that there aren't the occasional (VERY occasional) successes where an aircraft takes out half and infantry company or some such.
3) Even with stand-off weapons I see an amazing number of hits bounce off vehicles ("You hit for 100+ penetration VS 5 armor, shot fails to penetrate").

All that said I still add them to scenarios for "flavor" if not anticipated effectiveness.

For pure "bang for the buck" by on-map MLRS or HIMARS, about the same cost as aircraft and generally 3 to 5 times as effective.

If you can afford the cost, and number of aircraft slots you're allowed in a given battle, using UAV's to draw fire until the AI runs out of ammo is a VERY effective tactic. Just fly them on your side of the map to draw missile fire but stay out of machinegun range.

i really like the marine core.

1) i find that so anoying,idk how many in real life there would be but i know i never use that much MANPADS

2)that is frusterating how mant times they shoot at infantry,and i know all to well about the non penatreting hits. a plane with regular bombs can be very effective on infantry but with all the SAMs goodluck getting it close enough to use there bombs...

i do buy HIMARS but only a battle here and a battle there,i find using them all the time takes the fun out of the game because ive destroyed the AI with those and it makes the battle easy.

i can afford the cost with my campain since its a batalion sized force so ill have to try using the UAVs

[Mobhack]

Aircraft are not very useful items for close support - they never have been. The WW2 myth of tank-busting Typoons was just that - it was the trucks they destroyed, and so starved the tanks of fuel and ammo. Operations research post-war showed tiny actual percentages of kills by air on armoured targets. Any vehicle with a tin roof was actually rather immune to air attack. The Balkans ops were the same result, as were the Gulf War - even though that was in an open desert. The real tank killing was when the MBT turned up. Planes are better used for interdiction missions against the enemy supply lines than trying to plink tanks on the battlefield. CAS is really only a make-work mission for an Air Force that has surplus planes after that main effort.

SP does not model the operational and strategic levels - so you cannot go for his fuel convoys, arty batteries and ammo dumps in his operational depth.

CAS aircraft are really only worth the bother if you have complete air supremacy, to include having beaten down all AAA assets by a campaign of attrition. That can be modelled in a scenario, by not buying the enemy any air defence or only a few etc.

The only other reason for using CAS fixed wing air is to support land forces that are outside artillery support range. Other than a scenario situation, SP battles are automatically in artillery range of each other (long range C/B being about the only range issue).

Apart from some armies that historically have no AAA (e.g. Iraqi SAMS are unavailable at certain points, or the AI pick list simply ignores them), any AI-bought force will buy a healthy dose of AAA assets, and is more likely to buy more if it does not have air assets itself.

So - you could decide to play the long game and suppress the AAA assets before trying for the land forces (use of SEAD, artillery to counter any detected launch sites etc). But that is not going to contribute to the land battle, except perhaps to make it easier for any rotary wing air support. Enemy ADA assets generally are not much cop against the normal land forces after all, bar say ADATS.

Therefore unless it is a scenario which allows for the peculiarities of fixed wing CAS (it is a scenario with a lost patrol who only can get air CAS, or the Air Force has been presumed to blat all ADA assets over several weeks campaigning) then I really would not much bother with it past about say the 1973/5 period (Yom Kippur and Vietnam). Up till then and in WW2 the planes have a chance of surviving against air defences, but when radar directed AAA and useful SAMS get commonplace then, scenario use only IMHO.

Apart from that in generated games, I would tend to only use rotary wing assets, RPV etc. Attack helos can be reloaded, after all, and can use the ground contours as cover.

Since the armies are in arty support range, I would use the points on arty instead. Recce by scout helo or RPV used intelligently.

In WW2 and the 45-75 period, when attacking then I will buy strike fixed wing air once I have bought enough tube arty to support the attack. I programme them for reconnaissance strikes on my planned approach. If they survive, then that is gravy but the info about where tanks are placed in the defence is the main thing they are there to determine.

Of course - you can get an opponent in PBEM who forgets to buy ADA assets. That happened to me once, and my Hunters ruled the battlefield especially since once I realised his error, I could plan my passes from the rear of his side of the board to attack the tanks in the bum with 30mm ADEN fires !:

This quote is in the Military Quotations section of the GG and is perfectly true:

"The power of an air force is terrific when there is nothing to oppose it.", Winston Churchill: The Gathering storm, 1948

Cheers
Andy

[Grey_Wolf]

Never buy fixed wing aircraft myself, if I do buy aircraft it is helos only. YMMV.

Cheers,
Wes

[JTullman]

Thanks for the post Mobhack. That info is really usefull to a new guy

[hoplitis]

I tend to CAS planes in the "midgame to endgame" phase. Contact with opponent forces is more or less well established in this phase and you probably are already probing their rear area (or getting you rear probed, excuse my language! ) and getting in close range or engaging ADA assets/units. This is also the stage where many of your arty units run out of ammo. So I use them as a "reserve" artillery force. Many times I don't "commit" them at all.
High cost of modern air units is an issue but not that different from the more general issue of high cost modern "assets" as MBTs, IFVs etc.
As for combat effectiveness (in game terms)... well I don't like "super" units so the fact that planes are not always "spot on" with their cluster bombs or strafe to death a lone crew in the middle of chaos makes the instances where the bombing run goes as planned more "rewarding" as a game experience (or more frustrating if you're on the receiving end).

[Wdll]

I usualy go heavy with helicopters and people who have played against me at least once know that and are always ready with heavy air defences. I still don't see a particular problem with using fixed wing craft. I play modern battles almost exclusively. I just always make sure I use heavy SEAD missions who even if they don't destroy/disable SAMs, they do manage to draw several missiles to them, with some UAVs as an additional force, most of the dangerous air defences are, in one way or the other, neutralised, and the Strike crafts are more or less unopposed to do their work.
Considering I play as Greece which doesn't have some of the planes of major powers, and still manage to use them, it leads me to believe that perhaps you guys are not following the right tactics, or just are very unlucky.

If for example I only sent strike aircraft without any preparation, I don't know how many of them would make it to a second run. I realise that perhaps buying an expensive SEAD element (or of course more than a couple) might be seen as waste of money, but unless you go with 20+ stike crafts in the same turn, I don't see fixed wing craft working that well against a good opponent.

Just work more on it, but don't expect miracles. They can't win a battle on their own.

And if anyone wants to try it, please check this thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=42821 (wink wink)

[Heimdallr]

I think, you could use aircraft for interdiction missions, too. Ideally bombers with tons of heavy bombs could slow down enemy advance when bombing main road along its direction.. crates on the road make the move slower. Of course, this could be done with arty as well, but not in such a nice row

Personally I don't often play against full AI(purchase, deploy) at least I make the purchase.

I agree, aircrafts are good for scenarios and for PBEM when respecting some purchasing rules.