Fun fact: In WWII, only 0.05% of all infantry-fired bullets hit their mark. Infantry are inaccurate, trained or not.
On the other hand, fly overhead with a fast-moving plane, flying under the radar, launch a few missiles, drop a few bombs, or strafe a trench with gunfire, you have 20+ infantry dead in under a second. Want to get from point A to point B in a hurry? Get in a plane. Land vehicles are slow, and are subject to land mines and ground fire. Most AA weapons can't really get far into the atmosphere, and are easily, easily dodged. Planes are fast and agile. Even missiles are pointlessly easy - all you have to do is
slow down and let it pass you. Yes, even guided missiles. You wouldn't believe how easy it is, unlike what Hollywood claims. Shooting down planes with missiles generally requires a radar lock of some sort, and this can be detected by the plane, which can take measures to evade even before the missile is launched.
(While it's true that an even smaller percentage of shots fired from the air actually hit other planes than infantry vs infantry on the ground, even in WWII, a plane can easily take around 50 - 200 bullets before it starts having serious problems.
(I used to be a combat history buff.))
VTOLs, which I'm surprised nobody has mentioned, can serve
many purposes. As they can move slowly, hover, and take off straight up, it's reasonable to expect that in a futuristic setting they'd be ideal for use as mobile cranes, in addition to combat, dropping bombs, surveillance, bomber escort (if it's WWII), strafing, transport, etc. It's the jack-of-all-trades,
and it can be refitted easily to serve any specific purpose you'd like,
as can most combat aircraft.
If you want to get deep into enemy territory and blow up their base, there's no way you'd manage it with ground troops. You have to do it from the sky.
The main disadvantage with air power - the fact that they can't see through trees (which was the main issue in the Vietnam war), is already dealt with in the form of thermal imaging. You can see enemy troops even through a dense cloud of smoke. The blood plains, by the way, have hardly any trees at all. It's actually a swamp, making things even more difficult for ground troops.
A secondary disadvantage is that they can't be in the sky 24/7. Oh well. That's why they have more than one plane.
See, now that's understandable. ... sky fighting and land fighting are two seperate wars that intercept on key points, such as sabatoging the enemy's supply convoy, or attempting to take out the command and control center. The fight for air superiority is so that you can do bad things to the enemy on the ground, not because the sky is such an important peice of territory. An air force (and a navy too) is support for the real combat, the ground troops. But normal people never seem to understand this. It's an old soviet joke from when they used to wargame, and the home team beat the invaders. "so comrade, who won the air war today?"
This is partially true, but really, the wars interlock quite a bit more closely than that. It's true that the sky isn't an important piece of territory, though. While air force is primarily
support for ground troops, if one side has air power and the other doesn't, the side with air power wins (unless it's 1965 and you're in Vietnam). This is indisputable, I think.
A single bomber can (and has) changed the course of history on multiple occasions. The idea that Parasol and Ballpoint (Ballpoint especially) would be stupid enough to completely overlook air power is laughable at best.
repuposed frieghter type deals
This is by far the easiest type of craft to shoot down.
They're clumsy and sluggish.
Artillary is sufficently advanced to make up for the lack of fire power.
You can only see, and therefore fire, to the horizon. If you're low between hills (and the blood plains are actually somewhat hilly ingame, it turns out), you're safe from ground fire, too.
Another big issue with ground troops is that
they're ridiculously easy to take out. Drop a bomb, shoot a missile, fire the artillery - all your targets are on the same X-Y axis, and generally not spaced out. Come into an entrenched area with a few bombs (especially antipersonnel), and WHAM - your entire army has been massacred. With planes, you can only take them out one at a time. Large masses of infantry became outdated by WWII. Massed tanks were already outdated by desert storm. If all your troops are in one place, they're even easier to take out. Even these days tanks don't see too much action, as they're slow (relatively, they're still quite a bit faster than infantry) and it doesn't take much to destroy them - not if you're in a war zone. RPG, landmine, bomb, it's gone. Mechsuits would be even more vulnerable.
Bombers are actually outdated, too, by the way. These days fighters are designed to switch easily between fuel tanks, missiles, bombs, etc. The F-25, a craft currently in use by US military, can carry:
- 220 rounds for a four-barrel 25mm cannon (2.5 centimeters, that'll punch a hole through just about anything, especially with the plane's velocity added to it)
- 6 1k bombs/missiles/fuel tanks (can be left empty for stealth purposes)
- 2 2,000 pound bombs + 2 air-to-air missiles/up to six missiles, internally
And it's currently being designed for the implementation of an optional solid-state laser, which I find a little ridiculous, but hey.
Ground troops can't match that at all.
edit: sorry if I came off as a little aggressive. I take an odd enjoyment in debates, so long as they don't escalate.
Poll
55 (71.4%)
Author
Topic: [34.11] Spearbreakers - It shudders and begins to move (Read 2211241 times)