Bombardment in 1.17f

[White Elk]

I agree with most of what the "broken bombardment" posters have said. I rarely build Cat's, Cann's and Arty's. I do build and use extensivly Naval Bombardment units and Bombers and have found them to be quite usefull. Especially for cutting off resources.

But the reason for this post is to share this. I think the reason for the lackluster performance of Bombardment, is that the AI cannot effectivly use it, and so in the interest of gameplay balance, it's effectiveness is reduced. I don't happen to agree with this notion, but I feel it may be the reason.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
TWENTY BOMBERS!

The U.S. has over 100 aircraft available for attacks in Afghanistan to fight a third world fighting force that has no supply lines, no international support and no airforce.

 

[Mapache]

Originally posted by Zachriel
The U.S. has over 100 aircraft available for attacks in ...

And what does that prove? The U.S. would attack a hut of aborigines with 100 Bombers and 100 Cruise Missiles. In real history a single bombing run of a single squadron Bombers could destroy a city like Dresden(one run ... one night). The military units were probably not destroyed.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Mapache
And what does that prove? The U.S. would attack a hut of aborigines with 100 Bombers and 100 Cruise Missiles. In real history a single bombing run of a single squadron Bombers could destroy a city like Dresden(one run ... one night). The military units were probably not destroyed.

It's not meant to prove anything, just add perspective to the numbers involved. Generally, bombardment is aimed at military units, civilians are usually considered colateral damage. Dresden and Hiroshima are exceptions as they were terror attacks. Civilians are easy to kill.

Military units can be defined by their unit cohesion. Fatalities don't matter as long as there remains communication between the separate parts. This was demonstrated in Vietnam, for instance, whereby the U.S. killed literally millions of people, but could never destroy the unit cohesion that makes an army what it is. Or Dunkirk, where the British remained still an army under heavy bombardment under the worst of conditions, their "finest hour."

Bombard is not finally decisive, especially against infantry. Even with smart bombs and hundreds of bombers, it takes ground troops to destroy unit cohesion. Hundreds of al Qaeda in Afghanistan are still wreaking havoc and inflicting U.S. casualties as of 3/3/02, nearly six months after the "war on terror" began.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/03/ret.war.facts/index.html

Nevertheless, 20-40 bombers in Civ3 can wreak havoc, too.

 

[simwiz2]

"The U.S. has over 100 aircraft available for attacks in Afghanistan to fight a third world fighting force that has no supply lines, no international support and no airforce."

One hundred aircraft would be about 2-4 bomber units in civ3. A bomber is NOT one little plane flying over a city dropping bombs, it is an entire formation of bombers, and they would inflict heavy damage. And they would also sink a ship.

 

[BillChin]

Originally posted by Mapache
In real history a single bombing run of a single squadron Bombers could destroy a city like Dresden(one run ... one night). The military units were probably not destroyed.

I absolutely hate it when historical facts are twisted so badly. The source below says it was 1200+ heavy bombers.

Edit note: my original post had a different source citing over 2000 bombers, but after going to a couple of more links, I decided that the 2000 number is probably not reliable.

from
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm

>>>
On the 13th February 1945, 773 Avro Lancasters bombed Dresden. During the next two days the USAAF sent over 527 heavy bombers to follow up the RAF attack. Dresden was nearly totally destroyed. As a result of the firestorm it was afterwards impossible to count the number of victims. Recent research suggest that 135,000 were killed but some German sources have argued that it was over 250,000. Whatever the figure, it was probably greater than the 51,509 British civilians killed by the Luftwaffe during the whole of the Second World War and the 70,000 immediate deaths at Hiroshima after the dropping of the first atom bomb on 6th August 1945.
>>>

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by BillChin


I absolutely hate it when historical facts are twisted so badly. The source below says it was 1200+ heavy bombers.

Edit note: my original post had a different source citing over 2000 bombers, but after going to a couple of more links, I decided that the 2000 number is probably not reliable.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm
>>>

I never checked your first source, but it may have included support aircraft.

Spartacus is a great resource.

 

[BillChin]

Originally posted by Zachriel


I never checked your first source, but it may have included support aircraft.

Spartacus is a great resource.

Actually the first source I quoted looked more and more like a Neo-Nazi site upon closer examination. It was the first site with numbers from the list generated by the search engine. I am glad I caught it and edited it away, because I would be twisting history almost as badly as the poster saying it was one squadron that destroyed Dresden.

Few Americans know the details or have even heard of the Dresden firebombing. It is a gruesome chapter of our history. If the Allies had some how lost the war, the commanders that ordered the Dresden strike may have been put on trial for war crimes. It was that bad--primarily a vengeful slaughter of civilians in a city of modest military value. However, as always, the winners get to write the history books. The curious can search and find eyewitness ground accounts, but I would not recommend reading these before bedtime or during a meal.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

BillChin:


still, I can understand Bomber Harris and all the others.....