Sequence of attacks

[Col. Kurtz]

I have a newbie question concerning the sequence of attacks by combined ground-air arms. Assuming no great disparities in strength, supply and readiness, is it better to begin an attack against a unit with armor or infantry and finish it with airpower? Or the other way around, first air and then ground units?

[Comrade Trapp]

I usually attack with infantry, followed by armor, and then once the target gets down to 3 or 2 strength, finish it off with airpower.

Of course this would be in a ideal situation, sometimes you take heavy losses regardless of what you do.

[Liam]

Kurtz, depending as Comrade said, best to dig the entrenchment up before you start wasting airpower or more expensive armor then finally army units on something.<why the Corp is the staple diet of any good offensive that and boy that unit is like a Land Cruiser... think there have been games against very very rookie players where I could win with only Air/HQ and Corps> Great if you can use Ships to weaken a unit too before you do anything.

Carriers rock as hey, without air interception or being exposed to any enemy ships take no damage.

[Terif]

There are always exceptions but in general:

1. Attack with your strongest unit with the best attack value against an unentrenched target -> attack with the unit that makes the most damage (army/tank)- which also depends on the terrain where the defender is placed (this weakens the enemy, decreases its defensive abilities and increases the amount of damage weaker attackers/air can do in the following attacks).

2. Airfleets should be the last units to attack. They are the most flexible and can choose which target to attack. So after the ground combat you can see where (which enemy unit) it makes sense to attack with air. Goal is always to destroy an enemy unit. If you can expect it to survive (you see the expected results before the attack), then it is often better to reposition or reinforce the airfleet instead of attacking. Airfleet vs ground unit is costly and not always useful - when a ground unit can do the job instead, then its better to let them do it.

3. If the enemy is highly entrenched, attacking units often make no damage (no matter how strong the attacker is). Here your weakest ground units (+ships/carriers) should attack first to reduce entrenchment before the strong units move forward.

[Cheesehead]

I like to strike with a bomber, first, in order to reduce entrenchment by two.

[Comrade Trapp]

Originally posted by Cheesehead:

I like to strike with a bomber, first, in order to reduce entrenchment by two.

Why attack with a bomber when you can attack with a corps or an army? Not only are bombers more costly to repair, but you also run the risk of being intercepted and to make matters worse, a nearby airfleet that you could be using on the target would be instead commited to escort duty.

[JerseyJohn]

In the rare instances when I've used a bomber it was always as a last resort, after even the airfleets had taken their shot and the target was barely holding on to it's life. If the bomber wasn't intercepted it wouldn't be too bad, though often it would fail to accomplish the task. If the bomber was intercepted, now without any escort, as Comrade says, it was an expensive proposition.

I've never used bombers against a production target and only have two uses for them: sighting the enemy and anti-naval attacks. In the real world heavy bombers didn't do well against warships unless the dropped way down and let themselves be filled with holes, but in SC they're very good against enemy warships.

There's only one WWII instance where I think that was the case; the Battle of the Bismarck Sea when U. S. B-25s (two engines) and or B-24s (four engines) attacked low against the Japanese, but I think that was mainly against troop transports and a few destroyers; the Japanese had no air cover.

They used all their machine guns, including the ones side mounted, to kill Japanese soldiers and sailors floating toward shore. The aircraft made several sorties, sheer butchery, one airman said patches of the water looked chummed.

The crews landed and nearly all of them had to go off and vommit.

The twin engin B-25 was a medium bomber and the larger B-24 was used in a similar capacity with the much larger B-17 doing the heavier tasks. At Midway the Japanese fleet was hit by B-17s and not a single hit was notched up.

[ April 01, 2004, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[xwormwood]

Nice pictures, JJ!

[Wehrmacht]

Yes, very nice pictures indeed. You are great with the pictures JJ

[JerseyJohn]

Thank you xwormwood and Wehrmacht, some discussions really invite them.

[SeaMonkey]

Awesome JJ, still haven't lost your touch.

[JerseyJohn]

Thank you SeaMonkey, even I was surprised by this one, it just sort of happened!