Paris Attacked!
How is that harmful?
I heard that the Cyber hacker Group Anonymous, has declared war on ISIS and Al-quada.
Seems ironic that the 72 virgins are now attacking the terrorists.
Seems ironic that the 72 virgins are now attacking the terrorists.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More stuff from tonights War-egraph
David Cameron: I will push ahead with Syrian air strikes - Telegraph
They are telling it loud as they can, possibly shouting down anyone who disagrees.
I find this a little disturbing. Why are these air raids going to be so important to the nation? Most of the UK public would be hard put to agree with any of points for attacking ISIS by air/missile/drone. They (our public) will have noted that:
1. Everyone who has taken on ISIS recently has suffered very quick terrorist attacks in response involving mass casualties and terror. Even Russia.
2. We are probably as a country incapable of defending ourselves on our own turf even as well as the French, if ISIS can penetrate past our pretty brilliant secret services/ code breakers/undercover agents and the like. We have been very fortunate to have these good people looking after to us for now, but will the extra element of luck hold?
WTF is it with the Daily Telegraph these days? I find it almost bloody unrecognisable as a newspaper. Politically I'm miles away from it, and now never more so, but I always used (up to a point) actually trust some of its reporting. Its coverage is biased and shrieking, horrible.
* RAF historians lurking here, out of interest to me alone can anyone point to me when an air attack, an air raid has made a profound input/difference to a war or battle. Real strategic impact. As PM Dave C. seems to be weighing up here?
Am I right in thinking two - the "Dam Buster" raids as one, and the operation on the night of the 17th/18th August 1943 against the research/testing centres for the V weapons program? What else? Amiens Prison?
Will this coming RAF v.ISIS attack be comparable?
If I don't reply in thanks, don't worry, I can still read yours - my replies are regularly blatted out by "company internet rules" dark forces.
They are telling it loud as they can, possibly shouting down anyone who disagrees.
I find this a little disturbing. Why are these air raids going to be so important to the nation? Most of the UK public would be hard put to agree with any of points for attacking ISIS by air/missile/drone. They (our public) will have noted that:
1. Everyone who has taken on ISIS recently has suffered very quick terrorist attacks in response involving mass casualties and terror. Even Russia.
2. We are probably as a country incapable of defending ourselves on our own turf even as well as the French, if ISIS can penetrate past our pretty brilliant secret services/ code breakers/undercover agents and the like. We have been very fortunate to have these good people looking after to us for now, but will the extra element of luck hold?
WTF is it with the Daily Telegraph these days? I find it almost bloody unrecognisable as a newspaper. Politically I'm miles away from it, and now never more so, but I always used (up to a point) actually trust some of its reporting. Its coverage is biased and shrieking, horrible.
* RAF historians lurking here, out of interest to me alone can anyone point to me when an air attack, an air raid has made a profound input/difference to a war or battle. Real strategic impact. As PM Dave C. seems to be weighing up here?
Am I right in thinking two - the "Dam Buster" raids as one, and the operation on the night of the 17th/18th August 1943 against the research/testing centres for the V weapons program? What else? Amiens Prison?
Will this coming RAF v.ISIS attack be comparable?
If I don't reply in thanks, don't worry, I can still read yours - my replies are regularly blatted out by "company internet rules" dark forces.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dropping two atomic weapons on Japan seemed to make them have a head scratch moment and decide to surrender.
Is that a significant moment in aerial bombardment ? Seemed to work for the Americans !
'I find this a little disturbing. Why are these air raids going to be so important to the nation? Most of the UK public would be hard put to agree with any of points for attacking ISIS by air/missile/drone'
Would they ? Have you carried out an idependent poll ? Most people realise that their holidays to Egypt or that nice romantic break to Paris is going to be a bit difficult now -certainly added queues at Dover ! Plus the RAF has large stocks of weapons -all of these bombs have expiry dates -its costs tax payer money to dispose of them . Exploding them reduces environmental issues in this country and onerous paperwork trails for civil servants.
'Everyone who has taken on ISIS recently has suffered very quick terrorist attacks in response involving mass casualties and terror. Even Russia'
Indeed I have come to the conclusion from all you have written that they are really not very nice people -infact the wife was discussing earlier who we should miss off the Christmas card list this year and at the moment they are top (ISIS) followed in close second by that relative who received a card last year and didnt return the guesture!
Is that a significant moment in aerial bombardment ? Seemed to work for the Americans !
'I find this a little disturbing. Why are these air raids going to be so important to the nation? Most of the UK public would be hard put to agree with any of points for attacking ISIS by air/missile/drone'
Would they ? Have you carried out an idependent poll ? Most people realise that their holidays to Egypt or that nice romantic break to Paris is going to be a bit difficult now -certainly added queues at Dover ! Plus the RAF has large stocks of weapons -all of these bombs have expiry dates -its costs tax payer money to dispose of them . Exploding them reduces environmental issues in this country and onerous paperwork trails for civil servants.
'Everyone who has taken on ISIS recently has suffered very quick terrorist attacks in response involving mass casualties and terror. Even Russia'
Indeed I have come to the conclusion from all you have written that they are really not very nice people -infact the wife was discussing earlier who we should miss off the Christmas card list this year and at the moment they are top (ISIS) followed in close second by that relative who received a card last year and didnt return the guesture!
Last edited by RileyDove; 18th Nov 2015 at 20:17.
David Cameron: I will push ahead with Syrian air strikes - Telegraph
* RAF historians lurking here, out of interest to me alone can anyone point to me when an air attack, an air raid has made a profound input/difference to a war or battle. Real strategic impact. As PM Dave C. seems to be weighing up here?
* RAF historians lurking here, out of interest to me alone can anyone point to me when an air attack, an air raid has made a profound input/difference to a war or battle. Real strategic impact. As PM Dave C. seems to be weighing up here?
Air attacks in the six weeks leading up to Desert Storm going live in the ground op set up the battle field pretty well. Not sure if that is what you were looking for.
How many raids are you looking for as a criterion?
The Apache and SEAD/Wild Weasel ops before Desert Storm opened the door for that air campaign.
Taranto: significant impact on the freedom of the seas for Royal Navy in the Med.
Pearl Harbor: significant impact on US strategy in Pacific, which had knock on effect strategically on how much aid/materiel could be sent to Europe in the infamous "Europe First" decision. (You'll want to read up on Admiral King, USN, and his sometimes contentious relationship with the opposite numbers among the Brits on the combined staff ...)
Also, just because ISIS/Daesh will strike back is no reason not to strike. For the UK, are the reasons to date sufficient? Not sure, not my country, and out of my lane.
certainly it is, and they were also very fanatic and going kamikaze
war in Syria has produced hundreds of thousands of dead people, millions of refugees and billions of damage
couple of nukes at the beginning would likely make 1/10th of that damage and the war would be over
war in Syria has produced hundreds of thousands of dead people, millions of refugees and billions of damage
couple of nukes at the beginning would likely make 1/10th of that damage and the war would be over
certainly it is, and they were also very fanatic and going kamikaze
war in Syria has produced hundreds of thousands of dead people, millions of refugees and billions of damage
couple of nukes at the beginning would likely make 1/10th of that damage and the war would be over
war in Syria has produced hundreds of thousands of dead people, millions of refugees and billions of damage
couple of nukes at the beginning would likely make 1/10th of that damage and the war would be over
(Actually, don't answer that, nukes in Syria hardly an appropriate measure).
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'RAF historians lurking here, out of interest to me alone can anyone point to me when an air attack, an air raid has made a profound input/difference to a war or battle. Real strategic impact'
I think the Swordfish attack on the Bismark had a somewhat profound impact on its future!
Still got your doubts Hangarshuffle ?
I think the Swordfish attack on the Bismark had a somewhat profound impact on its future!
Still got your doubts Hangarshuffle ?
Is it me.......but when is camaroon going to grow a pair and start talking like a world leader? I'm sick of his grovelling justification for the limited involvement we have here.
Right or wrong......Hollande has gone right up in my estimation. He said it was an act of war and he responded accordingly......can anyone imagine Camaroon having the back bone to do something like that? Nah.......I certainly can't! Hollande has now said (I'm paraphrasing here) "that the security of France is more important than EU rules".....respect!!!
Camaroon........
Right or wrong......Hollande has gone right up in my estimation. He said it was an act of war and he responded accordingly......can anyone imagine Camaroon having the back bone to do something like that? Nah.......I certainly can't! Hollande has now said (I'm paraphrasing here) "that the security of France is more important than EU rules".....respect!!!
Camaroon........
ok:
Hangarshuffle,
The air campaign in Libya was the decisive factor in the west's achievement of its military objectives. There was one British casualty: in a road accident in Europe. The ability to wield such influence at low political risk is a decisive advantage for air power. The fact that the Libyan state disintegrated two years later is beside the point. That speaks to a poor political strategy; the military strategy was perfect. The presence of western troops wouldn't have stopped the breakdown in relations between the leading factions.
The "accidental" bombing of Berlin in 1940 had a famously strategic effect.
The Black Buck raid is assessed to have forced the Argies to move their Mirages north to defend Buenos Aires, meaning they could not threaten our Harriers.
The Israelis' pre-emptive destruction of the Egyptian air force on the ground in 1967.
Shall we keep going?
The air campaign in Libya was the decisive factor in the west's achievement of its military objectives. There was one British casualty: in a road accident in Europe. The ability to wield such influence at low political risk is a decisive advantage for air power. The fact that the Libyan state disintegrated two years later is beside the point. That speaks to a poor political strategy; the military strategy was perfect. The presence of western troops wouldn't have stopped the breakdown in relations between the leading factions.
The "accidental" bombing of Berlin in 1940 had a famously strategic effect.
The Black Buck raid is assessed to have forced the Argies to move their Mirages north to defend Buenos Aires, meaning they could not threaten our Harriers.
The Israelis' pre-emptive destruction of the Egyptian air force on the ground in 1967.
Shall we keep going?
Last edited by Easy Street; 19th Nov 2015 at 00:00.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Hiroshima and Nagasaki might be considered significant at the end of WWII, but Pearl Harbor was a perhaps equally profound input at the other end........
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SWAPS Inner
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stating that the bombing of Libya won the campaign on its own or that the bombing of Iraq helped win the ground war are both mis-understanding the definition of 'win'. Look at the state of both countries now. No bombing campaign in isolation can win anything - it is simply a step on the way to further action be it boots on the ground or diplomatic to force change on a nation.
You can bomb them back to the stone age but unless you come up with long term viable alternative solutions for people on the ground, you will breed festering bitterness and resentment that will manifest itself in years to come.... as we see now. (Not saying the bombing of France is a direct result of bombing Syria, its part of a longer term problem of lack of racial integration that France has - but that provided a convenient outlet and facility for such anti-Western displays- it could have happened anywhere in the West with the right conditions).
So.... how do we solve the political situation in Syria/Irag/Kurdistan because the Sykes-Picot Treaty has clearly run its course.....?
You can bomb them back to the stone age but unless you come up with long term viable alternative solutions for people on the ground, you will breed festering bitterness and resentment that will manifest itself in years to come.... as we see now. (Not saying the bombing of France is a direct result of bombing Syria, its part of a longer term problem of lack of racial integration that France has - but that provided a convenient outlet and facility for such anti-Western displays- it could have happened anywhere in the West with the right conditions).
So.... how do we solve the political situation in Syria/Irag/Kurdistan because the Sykes-Picot Treaty has clearly run its course.....?
* RAF historians lurking here, out of interest to me alone can anyone point to me when an air attack, an air raid has made a profound input/difference to a war or battle. Real strategic impact. As PM Dave C. seems to be weighing up here?
Am I right in thinking two - the "Dam Buster" raids as one, and the operation on the night of the 17th/18th August 1943 against the research/testing centres for the V weapons program? What else? Amiens Prison?
Will this coming RAF v.ISIS attack be comparable?
If I don't reply in thanks, don't worry, I can still read yours - my replies are regularly blatted out by "company internet rules" dark forces.
Am I right in thinking two - the "Dam Buster" raids as one, and the operation on the night of the 17th/18th August 1943 against the research/testing centres for the V weapons program? What else? Amiens Prison?
Will this coming RAF v.ISIS attack be comparable?
If I don't reply in thanks, don't worry, I can still read yours - my replies are regularly blatted out by "company internet rules" dark forces.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hangarshuffle
RAF historians lurking here, out of interest to me alone can anyone point to me when an air attack, an air raid has made a profound input/difference to a war or battle. Real strategic impact.
RAF historians lurking here, out of interest to me alone can anyone point to me when an air attack, an air raid has made a profound input/difference to a war or battle. Real strategic impact.
Originally Posted by thunderbird7
Stating that the bombing of Libya won the campaign on its own or that the bombing of Iraq helped win the ground war are both mis-understanding the definition of 'win'. Look at the state of both countries now. No bombing campaign in isolation can win anything - it is simply a step on the way to further action be it boots on the ground or diplomatic to force change on a nation. You can bomb them back to the stone age but unless you come up with long term viable alternative solutions for people on the ground, you will breed festering bitterness and resentment that will manifest itself in years to come.... as we see now.
"Stating that a ground force won a war on its own is mis-understanding the definition of 'win'. No military campaign in isolation can win anything - it is simply a step on the way to further action to force change on a nation. You can occupy them until the end of time but unless you come up with long term viable alternative solutions for people on the ground, you will breed festering bitterness and resentment that will manifest itself in years to come.... as we saw in pretty much every western land operation in the Middle East or Asia since WW2."
Even the great land campaign that finished WW2 in Europe did not deliver a "long term viable alternative solution" on its own; such matters as the Marshall Plan, the Nuremberg Trials and de-Nazification must be considered as parts of the long-term Allied victory. It's facile to refer to 'people on the ground' as a way of intimating that only action 'on the ground' can have decisive effect. We all live on the ground, so of course that is where the ultimate political effects of military action are felt. But decisive military effects can be delivered from any environment, for example by naval blockade.
Air power achieved the west's military goals in Libya, by tipping the balance decisively in favour of the local ground forces we wanted to win. Do you think that if we had used western land forces instead, the eventual political outcome would have been any different? Remember that initially the political settlement looked good - it was only THREE YEARS later than it broke down after a disputed second election. The only way land forces could have made any difference to that is if they had stayed in Libya for that entire period to disarm the militias and provide internal security until an army acceptable to all the tribes could have been formed. I think that is in the realm of fantasy, both practically and politically. That does bring into question whether we should have intervened at all, but it doesn't change the substance of my point that decisive military effect can be delivered from any of the environments, air included.
Last edited by Easy Street; 19th Nov 2015 at 09:31.
'RAF historians lurking here, out of interest to me alone can anyone point to me when an air attack, an air raid has made a profound input/difference to a war or battle. Real strategic impact
Hit those two targets in the ISIS areas without mercy (kill anything that moves between the towns and cities) and they will be in serious trouble as PN has correctly observed.