Well, ground forces alone have won wars without air support, and even with hostile air superiority. Vietnam comes to mind. Obviously, had Hanoi got air superiority, her casualties marching to Saigon would not have been so great.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Strategic Bombing - Fact or Fiction
Collapse
X
-
I didn't know that. Thanks.
I still stand by my original claim that strategic bombing on its own can't win a war/battle, there needs to be some sort of ground element involvedMeddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.
Comment
-
You could "starve" a nation with a combination of Strategic Bombing and Naval Blockades. With nations being so reliant on globalization, a concerted cyber/air strike could cripple a nation. I believe Australia has a contingency plan to disable all of Indonesia with the utilization of airstrikes on Strategic targets to render the country all but inoperable.
Thanks to globalization nations are even more dependant than ever on imports, many ranging from food to vital commodities. Strategic bombing in the 21st century could be extremely effective. It wouldn't win a war, certainly, but it may create enough domestic political pressure to force regime change."Who says organization, says oligarchy"
Comment
-
Erm, the question is "Is strategic bombing decisive?"
There are cases of air-only missions with their own objectives and priorities.
I don't recollect in recent history sending ground troops without prior bombardment of defenses and other strategic targets on the ground.No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doktor View PostErm, the question is "Is strategic bombing decisive?"
If it means "bombing is a critical component of an overall effort" i.e. the effort cannot succeed without it, then I'd say yes.
If it means "it can win a war all by itself" then you'd further need to define "winning a war."
If winning a war means "elimination of a nation as a threat" then again, I'd say "yes". And above all, if we go nuclear, I'd say decisive would be an understatement.
^^ Convoluted semantics abound! ;)
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by bigross86 View PostOoe, that's exactly what I'm claiming. Strategic bombing is just part of a package, and neither strategic bombing nor air power alone has ever won a battle/
The destruction of the North Korean supply lines in 1950. The ground forces were pushed into a corner and demoralized, air power alone specifically B-29's and fighter bombers operating deep in North Korea and northern South Korea shattered the Norks ability to supply or even feed thier troops.
The bombing of Japan used zero ground troops.
Battle of Midway, Battle of Leyte Gulf- granted naval air but the attacks were directed against strategic assets.
Battle of the Bay of Biscay (radar and light equipped B-24's vs U-boats)
Battle for French Air Space and the destruction of the Luftwaffe.
The destruction of the Medina division in 2003
The Lybian assault on Benhgazi 2011
Operation Cartwheel
Operation Hailstone
war,
Cold War- USAF and RAF strategic deterrent kept the Soviets out of Western Europe, kept the Berlin air lift safe and forced the Soviets into peripheral actions.
Bombing of Japan.
there is always a ground element involved, even if it's the threat of invasion and not an actual invasion.
I also never claimed that the ground forces could win a war without air power, I just stated that in a vast majority of the cases you need troops on the ground to effect change and to keep people honest. My original claim (in other words) was that try as hard as they like, air power can't hold ground
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostKosovo- say what you want about an imminent invasion, it never happened. If you goign to use things that enver happened, then SAC gets credit for winning the Cold War.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostAnd here we go arguing semantics. Only in the US do the ICBMs belong to the Air Force. In Russia and China, the rockets belong to the Army.
So, there! Their decisive force is the army. The US is the air force.
Comment
-
The history of the Strategic Rocket Forces (I know, not the real name but one that I am used to) came from the army as well as the Chinese 2nd Artillery Force. Historically speaking, the US got its strategic expertise from bombers and hence, naturally, the air force got them. In both the USSR and China, that expertise came from the artillery, and hence they got them. In fact, both China and the USSR initially had rocket armies.
It's really tom"ae"to/to"ma"to. Mushroom clouds don't really care who deliver them.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostThe history of the Strategic Rocket Forces (I know, not the real name but one that I am used to) came from the army as well as the Chinese 2nd Artillery Force. Historically speaking, the US got its strategic expertise from bombers and hence, naturally, the air force got them. In both the USSR and China, that expertise came from the artillery, and hence they got them. In fact, both China and the USSR initially had rocket armies.
It's really tom"ae"to/to"ma"to. Mushroom clouds don't really care who deliver them.
Comment
-
Erm, the question is "Is strategic bombing decisive?"
When the U.S pull out from Afghanistan they can still severely limit the ability of the Taliban to mount large attacks or actually hold territory in the conventional sense through the use of Drones. Also, as shown by Libya, the ability for them (airpower) to be used tactically is an insurmountable advantage
I'd say strategic bombing can be highly effective in the modern world, if not more effective than a land based army for something like a regime change, or installation of a pro-Western Govt. The only problem is really ensuring that you are a) fighting a state and not a decentralized organization."Who says organization, says oligarchy"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wayfarer View PostI certainly think it can be. If your goal is regime change then yes, it is definitely decisive. I'd argue that it would be cheaper than the cost of maintaining a land-based presence in a country for the purpose of regime change. Whereas a land-based outlook requires serious cost, manpower, and personnel, an all-air approach can curtail costs. All one has to worry about is ensuring that the complement of aircraft are kept at a steady number.
When the U.S pull out from Afghanistan they can still severely limit the ability of the Taliban to mount large attacks or actually hold territory in the conventional sense through the use of Drones. Also, as shown by Libya, the ability for them (airpower) to be used tactically is an insurmountable advantage
I'd say strategic bombing can be highly effective in the modern world, if not more effective than a land based army for something like a regime change, or installation of a pro-Western Govt. The only problem is really ensuring that you are a) fighting a state and not a decentralized organization.sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."
Comment
Comment