What would be an army's strategic target in modern warfare?
-
If you want to attack a certain country, what would be your strategy for efficient and effective military campaign???
For me it's communications. -
Communications.
-
I realize that there's a duplicate?
-
take out their military first, then communications and power plants.
by then, they are most defenceless -
The Israeli's choice would be communications, heard it on tv interview with an ex-Israeli general. It's because if you can't coordinate your army, you cannot efficiently defend and attack.
-
I know, think abit sensitive because it mentioned Singapore, later might give other's ideas.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:I realize that there's a duplicate? -
It all comes down to the layout of their map
-
Wah piang eh!!!Originally posted by thehappybunny:take out their military first, then communications and power plants.
by then, they are most defenceless
Military so big how to take out all.
If you managed to take out the whole military, then don't need fight war liao.
The US took out Iraq's communications first before they launch an offensive. -
I don't think so, I think in modern warfare, communication is the most important target.Originally posted by Deino:It all comes down to the layout of their map
If you can't coordinate your defence, it's difficult to effectively repel and attack.
If enemy has tanks advancing on a front and you only have troopers there, you need to call for air and artillery support. Else will kenna over-run by enemy.
Like what that Israeli general said, take out the communications and leave them blind. -
What about their nuclear facilities? That's what the US might do, should they invade Iran if it doesn't stop its controversial nuke programme. However, I don't think they will do so as they are already having an overstretched armed forces, with troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Hawaii and goodness knows where else!
-
alright then...severely cripple their more integral military installations first.Originally posted by maurizio13:Wah piang eh!!!
Military so big how to take out all.
If you managed to take out the whole military, then don't need fight war liao.
The US took out Iraq's communications first before they launch an offensive.
just like what Israel did in the 6 Day War(?)
took out the Egyptian airforce even before they had a chance to attack -
Air forces... Fighter jet and airfield!!Originally posted by maurizio13:I don't think so, I think in modern warfare, communication is the most important target.
If you can't coordinate your defence, it's difficult to effectively repel and attack.
If enemy has tanks advancing on a front and you only have troopers there, you need to call for air and artillery support. Else will kenna over-run by enemy.
Like what that Israeli general said, take out the communications and leave them blind. -
if it is sg, i stick to my previous answer because my plan was to make pple gabra first. Then take out communications after that.
However, if it is other countries, for example blueland, communications would be good. And if heck care about citizens, power plants and lines would be the next in line to cause more disruption. -
Hawker centers.Originally posted by maurizio13:If you want to attack a certain country, what would be your strategy for efficient and effective military campaign???
For me it's communications.
-
If their target is only ONE the nuclear facilities, then maybe lor.Originally posted by Truman1991:What about their nuclear facilities? That's what the US might do, should they invade Iran if it doesn't stop its controversial nuke programme. However, I don't think they will do so as they are already having an overstretched armed forces, with troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Hawaii and goodness knows where else!
If their target is multiple nuclear facilities, it would be wise to knock out their communications first. Else, if any breach on the nuclear facilities is compromised, the compromised breached facility will report to the top and numerous nuclear missiles will be launch from other sites.
If you take out communications first, the top won't know of the nuclear facility which has been attacked. -
Unfortunately some people are born blind........its yes it is important......imagine if you're facing an enemy whose army is massively and strategically place all around the globe........it would be an impossible mission even if you could destroy communications.........i bet that armies have their own codes on when to act if no commands are passed.......Originally posted by maurizio13:I don't think so, I think in modern warfare, communication is the most important target.
If you can't coordinate your defence, it's difficult to effectively repel and attack.
If enemy has tanks advancing on a front and you only have troopers there, you need to call for air and artillery support. Else will kenna over-run by enemy.
Like what that Israeli general said, take out the communications and leave them blind.
Geography would also be of utmost important -
If the air force, fighten jet and airfield is destroyed, the enemy might not have air superiority as yet. As there are surface to air missiles to take out the enemy fighter jets.Originally posted by zenden9:Air forces... Fighter jet and airfield!! -
Infiltrate the defence ... then attack the communications
-
Unless you are referring to the USA. I am not aware if other countries has military bases all over the world. Military base used here would imply foot soldiers, because you need an army to occupy lands. You can't simply send bombers to bomb without objective.Originally posted by Deino:Unfortunately some people are born blind........its yes it is important......imagine if you're facing an enemy whose army is massively and strategically place all around the globe........it would be an impossible mission even if you could destroy communications.........i bet that armies have their own codes on when to act if no commands are passed.......
Iraq and Afghanistan certainly didn't, but they have taken the fighting underground by using guerilla warfare. -
start with cutting off supplies mah...
-
walau....after discussing at this post i have the urge to play those war games like age of empires or civilisation......sadly my com spoil so i cannot play.......anyone wan buy civilisation 4? original one
-
I like all the Command & Conquer series, but playing with the computer is not challenging because they can't think strategically.Originally posted by Deino:walau....after discussing at this post i have the urge to play those war games like age of empires or civilisation......sadly my com spoil so i cannot play.......anyone wan buy civilisation 4? original one -
C&COriginally posted by maurizio13:I like all the Command & Conquer series, but playing with the computer is not challenging because they can't think strategically.
mini tank rush to ore trucks early game -
I like air superiority lor, because easier to maneuver. I hate tanks because they have to make big detours to reach objective.Originally posted by eagle:C&C
mini tank rush to ore trucks early game -
quite hard for air superiorityOriginally posted by maurizio13:I like air superiority lor, because easier to maneuver. I hate tanks because they have to make big detours to reach objective.
rocket soldiers for tanks and air defence.
Late game also will have AA gun + destroyers + a few screens of AT minefields (I play allies)
If play late game against soviet, I will normally lure the player to attack first to fall into the minefield trap. Then I will counter attack. I also use a mass of destroyers to control the sea.