Air Force or Tanks?

[Vampiresoap]

On one hand, the planes don't suffer from attrition like tanks do, and they have great maneuverability. But they require tons of industrial investment. (building tons of airports for instance) And looks like splitting air wings manually is just a micromanagement pain in the butt...

Tanks are great...but they are really useless in bad terrains...and attrition eats up so many of them...So I'm a little conflicted.

Has anyone worked out the math yet?

 

[Secret Master]

the planes don't suffer from attrition like tanks do

Umm, yes they do.

Accident losses are tied to reliability, weather, and night operations. There is even a minister that lowers accident losses, and while I don't keep fighter reliability quite as high as tank reliability, it's still important to watch.

 

[Vampiresoap]

I mean like tanks breaking down while moving through mountainous areas or something like that. The good old 20%...

 

[Secret Master]

I mean like tanks breaking down while moving through mountainous areas or something like that. The good old 20%...

Even if there is no air combat, fighters set to air superiority will still lose planes to accidents.

 

[Vampiresoap]

Oh, I see. But what's the percentage? Is it as high as 20%?

 

[C-Breeze]

Attrition aside, I really can't live with just one or the other. Gotta have my armor for decisive breakthroughs and quick exploitation, and gotta keep enemy aircraft at bay. It may seem like an onerous burden to build up the infrastructure to support a strong air force, but IMO you end up suffering far more if you don't.

 

[Ironside121]

Well.. if I had to choose one it would be air force.

Air Superiority is crucial, tanks aren't really.. they help with pushing, but if you just wanted to dig in and counter their tanks with AT.. well you're fine. If you lose Air Superiority then your defense value of your regiments lowers by a large amount.

Air Superiority is arguably more important unless you're gonna blitz a small nation- but Air helps with that anyway.

 

[Secret Master]

Oh, I see. But what's the percentage? Is it as high as 20%?

Not unless you let reliability get really low. But it is affected by weather and night operations, so running planes in a snowstorm will exacerbate the effects of reliability on planes.

Of course, each plane costs more than each tank, and there are no MAINT or LOG companies to help with aircraft.

 

[noobermenschen]

On one hand, the planes don't suffer from attrition like tanks do, and they have great maneuverability. But they require tons of industrial investment. (building tons of airports for instance) And looks like splitting air wings manually is just a micromanagement pain in the butt...

Tanks are great...but they are really useless in bad terrains...and attrition eats up so many of them...So I'm a little conflicted.

Has anyone worked out the math yet?

Well.. if I had to choose one it would be air force.

Air Superiority is crucial, tanks aren't really.. they help with pushing, but if you just wanted to dig in and counter their tanks with AT.. well you're fine. If you lose Air Superiority then your defense value of your regiments lowers by a large amount.

Air Superiority is arguably more important unless you're gonna blitz a small nation- but Air helps with that anyway.

I agree with @Ironside121 but how small a nation are you playing that you can't have both? Adding a heavy (or even a buffed up medium) TD battalion to a few infantry divisions creates a potent breakthrough force that takes less and inflicts more damage, and if you use proper tanks you get increased breakthrough which can be further buffed through air support - add hospitals, maintenance units, planning bonus and prudent choices of objectives and you can really keep down your losses even in attack.

Combined arms baybee - it's the way to go.

 

[BulgarianFocusTree]

I personally use Fighters (sometimes Heavy Fighters too) and Tanks (I favor heavies in majors, but light tanks aren't to be sneezed at). Fighters are a higher priority than tanks, in my eyes, but the toughness tanks can add to divisions cannot be ignored, especially in a defensive situation and especially if you are a nation that is facing someone stronger.

There's nothing quite like beating a better foe because I'm dug in across a river and have a few tanks spread around.

 

[noobermenschen]

There's nothing quite like beating a better foe because I'm dug in across a river and have a few tanks spread around.

It is quite satisfying to read those battle reports when you're fighting outnumbered:

0 of 4 enemy divisions can pierce this division's armour...



...bitches.

 

[Vampiresoap]

Why would you want to have both when one is better than the other??

 

[Ironside121]

Why would you want to have both when one is better than the other??

Because it's always going to be situational. If you can't push- then you may need to add tanks, or get more air superiority to lower the enemies defence. Both is ideal.

 

[BulgarianFocusTree]

Why would you want to have both when one is better than the other??

Tanks win battles.
Planes keep your territory from being bombed to crap and you from suffering horrendous penalties from enemy CAS runs and air superiority.

 

[Dan1109]

The use of combined arms is always best. Therefore the answer to the OP's post is BOTH.

 

[Fulmen]

Both.