Strategy & Tactics

[Max 'DonXavi' von B.]

Combined arms all the time, every time.

Wehr: Heavy tanks supported by mass infantry.

PE: Infantry HT rush with G43 / Shrecked PGs.

USA: Snipers, riflemen, AT guns, with P47 strafing runs on horn.

Brit: Gayness.

Yauz clearly refered to COH here. 

[pariah]

Perhaps, but this is supposed to be about real life, so i just assumed...

[Otto Halfhand]

I also misunderstood.  My Stategic principals come from SunTzu, Musashi, Machiavelli and Basil Liddell Hart. If I were engaged in warefare I am partial to the policies of Tamerlane, WT Sherman and NB Forrest.

[Chancellor]

Perhaps, but this is supposed to be about real life, so i just assumed...

Hmmm...if its real life war strategy then it'd be simple.  Provided the home populace aren't squeemish about extended war or about things like bombing innocent civilians too, I'd say whoever holds the superior air power holds the war.

[Tico_1990]

Indeed, not taking a potentially difficult home front into account, and considering that the objective is to defeat the enemy (without needing to occupy their territory) then by all means: bomb the living daylight out of them. If you do want to occupy them: bomb the living daylight out of any militairy equipment and then send in a few tank brigades and a few specialised infantry battalions (special being: marines, airborne, commando's etc.)

[pariah]

Why not just use nukes?

[Chancellor]

Why not just use nukes?

Because for some stupid reason you can get away with bombing the shit out of them, but you can't get away with nukes.  It would still look bad internationally if you bomb them back to the stone age, but no one would actually intervene.  Nukes on the other hand...are another story.

[Tico_1990]

Why not just use nukes?

Well, apart from what Yauz said: chances are high that the other side will throw some nukes back.

[pariah]

If you are losing to the point your cities are being bombed, wouldn't you launch the nukes, anyway?

[Tico_1990]

If you are losing to the point your cities are being bombed, wouldn't you launch the nukes, anyway?

No, cities being bombed does not per definition mean that you are losing. Also, if you don't nuke them (which also means they won't nuke you), then you are able to start a resistance/guerilla war, something which is rather impossible when your country is a giant nuclear wasteland.

[Chancellor]

If you are losing to the point your cities are being bombed, wouldn't you launch the nukes, anyway?

Usually the country being bombed back to the stone age doesn't have nuclear weapons.  Its usually the guy who's doing the bombing that has a big stick.  If you have nuclear weapons I doubt anyone would have the balls to try and bomb you in the first place.

[Crinkle]

are we on about ingame or real life?

ingame - mortars
real life - SAS style raids coupled with air superiority

[pariah]

This is the history section, so real life. World war 2 era, too.

[loatty]

and when i ask everyone here to come up with plans for breaking a stalemate or crush enemy defences?

to start with something:
you have 10 divisions (7 infantry, 2 armoured and 1 elite armoured for a grand total of 180.000 men and 900 tanks, 350 of which are slightly aged)
facing you are 22 enemy divisions (a total of 350.000 men and 2000 tanks).

intelligence suggest they consist of 15 infantry, 5 armoured and 2 mechanized infantry divisions, of which 1 armoured and both mechanized infantry divisions are kept in reserve behind the lines.

lets say the front line is quite like a straight line, with one minor bulge (about 50 km deep), both under your control, on either end.

the enemy does not have superiority in the air, but has a powerfull AA defence readied and waiting.

you are given the command over a airfleet of 500 planes, of which 150 bombers, 300 fighters and 50 divebombers.



suprise me with some good tactics, guys, I'm wondering what you could make of this!

[pariah]

Nukes!