Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jopax]

Air superiority alone doesn't win wars. But wars also can't be won without it.

With precision munitions and UAV's of today you can easily take out ground targets from a safe distance if the enemy doesn't have anything in the air to ward your own fliers off. And generally, fixed wing aircraft are usually best at striking exposed logistics to cripple the enemy fighting capabilities without actually hitting the troops themselves.

For more direct destruction CAS is used, usually in form of attack helicopters which are quick and nimble enough to get in, murderate an area and get the hell out before a response can be made. Of course they can't do that if the enemy has air cover or extensively prepared AA. But each can be dealt with, either with ground forces or specialised aircraft.

[miljan]

Aircraft is way too costly to actually kill the opposing army. You lose more in fuel, repair and downed aircraft than the recieving sides loses in infantry and tanks, unless you're fighting against a severely technologically/doctrinally inferior opponent.

Just look at Serbia. They've managed to continue fighting, even using combat helicopters while the NATO forces were enjoying full air superiority. Only the ground invasion has managed to stop it.

I can talk a lot of what tactics where implemented in serbia war, some are.. very funny. Like peeing in bottles to use on blankets as lack of water and putting them  on artillery after firing so nato could not detect heat signature. Or making air plane decoys that cost around 100 euros that where hit with several missiles that cost each who known how much. Hiding in underground bunker, mountains tunnels and similar.

Also there was no massive use of helicopter or air planes except on beginning when two where shoot down (few that worked anyway). You could not get anything in air, as it would be shoot down very fast.

Its also funny that f-117a got hit from serbian PVO with rockets that are from old soviet era (from 1960s) and very old radar tech. But generally after two months of bombardment and most of infrastructure/industry destroyed, the actual military did not lost much (from equipment to men loses are very small) because of smart use of camouflage and terrain.

[mainiac]

Just look at Serbia. They've managed to continue fighting, even using combat helicopters while the NATO forces were enjoying full air superiority. Only the ground invasion has managed to stop it.

It's odd that you would cite a war won entirely with airpower and no troops on the ground as an example of the limitations of airpower.

[miljan]

Just look at Serbia. They've managed to continue fighting, even using combat helicopters while the NATO forces were enjoying full air superiority. Only the ground invasion has managed to stop it.

It's odd that you would cite a war won entirely with airpower and no troops on the ground as an example of the limitations of airpower.

Umm, no, there where troops on the ground. UCK was fighting serb forces on kosovo with support form nato. And the war was won not because the country lost its military (as what was said from Sheb that air superiority can do) , but economic, infrastructure and nato was starting to bomb a lot of civilian targets also.

[gigaraptor487]

Scenario for you if you are interested.

The Nazi Soviet pact fails and there is no guarrantee that the USSR won't declare war If Nazi germany invades poland.

Thoughts on what would happen?

[mainiac]

Umm, no, there where troops on the ground. UCK was fighting serb forces on kosovo with support form nato.

NATO had no boots on the ground and NATO didn't rely on UCK troops to secure objectives.

[Morrigi]

Umm, no, there where troops on the ground. UCK was fighting serb forces on kosovo with support form nato.

NATO had no boots on the ground and NATO didn't rely on UCK troops to secure objectives.

The point remains that there were, in fact, forces allied with NATO with boots on the ground.

[mainiac]

But that doesn't contradict the upshot of my point which was that the conflict illustrated that airpower alone could win a war.  At best it's nitpicking.

[Morrigi]

But that doesn't contradict the upshot of my point which was that the conflict illustrated that airpower alone could win a war.  At best it's nitpicking.

It wasn't only NATO's war.

[Sheb]

According to wikipedia, NATO claims 5,000 to 10,000 dead Serb soldiers, with other sources citing only a thousand. Still, if you want a better example, you could look at the first Gulf War: by the time the American tanks rolled in, there barely was an Iraqi army left. Granted, terrain was more open, but still.

The point is that if you have air supremacy, you're free to bomb the shit out of everything that move. It's clearly enough to destroy an army, or at least that army's infrastructure (although of course, you'd still need ground force to actually occupy the place).

[Strife26]

Not really. The massive air campaign against the Iraqi Army in the Gulf War is both an outlier and commonly overstated. Air supremacy does not have the capability to destroy an Army, as shown very specifically by the attempts of the Luftwaffe in WWII and especially the Gulf War, where despite being harried to hell and back, it was utter superiority in the technology, training, and strategy of treads in sand that buried the Republican Guard.

[miljan]

Umm, no, there where troops on the ground. UCK was fighting serb forces on kosovo with support form nato.

NATO had no boots on the ground and NATO didn't rely on UCK troops to secure objectives.

Doesnt matter where they nato troops or other troops. Your post that there where no ground troops is not correct. Albanian fighters with coordination and support of air had a objective of capturing few key points in kosovo so they could push back the serb military in which they failed.

But that doesn't contradict the upshot of my point which was that the conflict illustrated that airpower alone could win a war.  At best it's nitpicking.

You did not make any point just quoted a quote that answer Sheb  that made totally different point. The point that was made by Sheb is that air superiority means defeat and destruction of most military forces on ground. And that is exactly what didnt happened as the military was not destroyed or had any bigger casualties. Your point that air superiority can win wars is correct, but it highly depends what are objective of the war,  because serbia did not capitulate as a whole, and the terms that where made with resolution 1244 and forming of kfor with russian troops where thing that west and nato didnt want, but where willing to accept as the war was going for to long and did not bring military to crumble. Be sure if they intended to occupy whole territory that would not happen until military is destroyed or had been weakened a lot, and that can not be done from air.

According to wikipedia, NATO claims 5,000 to 10,000 dead Serb soldiers, with other sources citing only a thousand. Still, if you want a better example, you could look at the first Gulf War: by the time the American tanks rolled in, there barely was an Iraqi army left. Granted, terrain was more open, but still.

There where around 2.500  casulties  in nato bombing including cicvilian casulties and 12.500 wonded.  There is no better exmaple that air superiority can do very little than in kosovo war and that your assumption is just not correct. You can even look at vietnam war.

The point is that if you have air supremacy, you're free to bomb the shit out of everything that move. It's clearly enough to destroy an army, or at least that army's infrastructure (although of course, you'd still need ground force to actually occupy the place).

Air superiority is very important, as it will make a lot of ground operations easier, but it can not destroy army potential and its effectiveness depend extremely from terrain (and normally other factors). Saying you can bomb everything that moves is very naive and not knowing how generally military operation are done and what can be done with what and where.

[Sheb]

Out of curiosity, where do you get your casualties numbers?

[miljan]

Out of curiosity, where do you get your casualties numbers?

Mostly local official sources
This are the ones i found on news that are in english:
http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/number-of-victims-of-nato-bombing-still-unknown
http://www.b92.net/eng/news/society.php?yyyy=2013&mm=03&dd=24&nav_id=85330

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Want to know how majority of Ukrainian armorer vehicles looks like?

Spoiler:  like that: (click to show/hide)

Don't trust Wikipedia numbers