Limits of Air Power?
I hate to break it to all the Real Warriors out there, but if the price of victory is dead and wounded rifle-carriers, we are in a poor position against polygamous cultures with resource economies, because they have lots of men to spare; and in a doubly poor position if they also embrace martyrdom.
Therefore a combined arms approach that plays to our strengths, not to doctrinaire rubbish of one arm being essential and the others merely support, in our only option.
Therefore a combined arms approach that plays to our strengths, not to doctrinaire rubbish of one arm being essential and the others merely support, in our only option.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Boots on the ground" (and plenty of 'em, and the willingness to lose some) are the only answer.
Westmoreland proved the fallacy of that notion.
As did the British at the Somme.
It is all about destroying the Enemy forces ability and desire to fight by killing them at the least cost to your own side. Once the Bad Guys understand there is no hope or are killed then perhaps they will see the light and quit the field and go back to the farm.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Col Tibbetts & co pretty much ended the war in Japan singlehandedly with air power, but I doubt (hope that we won't) see that again.
estmoreland proved the fallacy of that notion.
As did the British at the Somme.
It is all about destroying the Enemy forces ability and desire to fight by killing them at the least cost to your own side. Once the Bad Guys understand there is no hope or are killed then perhaps they will see the light and quit the field and go back to the farm.
As did the British at the Somme.
It is all about destroying the Enemy forces ability and desire to fight by killing them at the least cost to your own side. Once the Bad Guys understand there is no hope or are killed then perhaps they will see the light and quit the field and go back to the farm.
How effective it is is dependent on the aim, the opponent, what amount of "air power" you have, and are you prepared to use it and accept the consequences.
At the end of the day the basic calculus of war and human nature hasn't changed. Its all about a cost benefit analysis for the enemy. If there's no hope of achieving their aims, then they won't attack, or fight.
This has been shown on human and animal terms, take away all hope and species tend to curl up and give up. When extrapolated to state systems, that turns into finding another way to achieve your goals.
Gentleman Aviator
It is all about destroying the Enemy forces ability and desire to fight by killing them at the least cost to your own side.
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 53
Posts: 1,236
Received 52 Likes
on
21 Posts
Curtis LeMay put it very well:
If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting.
Of course, how you do it, and whether the politicians who decide how the war is prosecuted are prepared to let the armed forces get on with it without sticking their oars in, are another matter.
If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting.
Of course, how you do it, and whether the politicians who decide how the war is prosecuted are prepared to let the armed forces get on with it without sticking their oars in, are another matter.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some great points but I'm concerned many seem to feel politicians shouldn't have a say; perhaps I should have framed the original question better, which comes down to Air Power's ability to achieve a POLITICAL objective. Killing huge numbers doesn't necessarily do that, and sometimes can confound it. However broad the ROE's, there's never been a conflict where there's a blank cheque in this respect.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Killing huge numbers doesn't necessarily do that
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This argument is dumb. Military action is simply application of force to achieve political objectives. Land/Sea/Air/Space/Cyber/ power doesn't really matter that much. There are advantages and dis-advantages to each, but at the end of the day supporting the desired end state is what matters. They are all just tools.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's only dumb if it's allowed to become an air versus land versus whatever argument. Granted some here have attempted to do that. You summed things up perfectly with your second sentence, but I've listed instances where the political objectives were NOT met. Surely the question of whether or not some have an exaggerated idea of what is achievable is worthy of debate?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the question of whether or not some have an exaggerated idea of what is achievable is worthy of debate?
More or less ten years ago I was in the War School, researching for a paper about Douhet theories, and found that he was proved wrong in every case.
So yes, Air Power coukd help the victory. But thatīs all.
So yes, Air Power coukd help the victory. But thatīs all.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Marcantilan
I was in the War School, researching for a paper about Douhet theories, and found that he was proved wrong in every case.
I'm reminded that, had the Argentinean Air Force and Naval Aviation been better equipped and resourced, The Falkland Islands could so easily have had a blue and white flag flying over them now. Just a thought.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh say like the early years of the German use of "Blitzkrieg" which used the Luftwaffe as Aerial Artillery in direct support of Armored forces?
Memory serves the Germans were very successful using that Strategy.
They wound up in Dunkirk in short order as I recall.
Memory serves the Germans were very successful using that Strategy.
They wound up in Dunkirk in short order as I recall.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe we were discussing strategic air warfare, not tactical air in support of a land strategy. Thankfully, the luftwaffe was never independent and remained predominantly a tactical air component of the Army
