Strategic Bombing

**Officer of Engineers** · 30 Mar 11,, 09:42

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.

**bigross86** · 30 Mar 11,, 11:31

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 involved

**Wayfarer** · 30 Mar 11,, 11:47

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.

**Doktor** · 30 Mar 11,, 13:23

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.

**Chogy** · 30 Mar 11,, 14:24

Originally Posted by Doktor

Erm, the question is "Is strategic bombing decisive?"

This is why I haven't piped up yet. What does "decisive" mean?

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!

**Officer of Engineers** · 30 Mar 11,, 14:32

Originally Posted by Chogy

^^ Convoluted semantics abound!

And 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.

**zraver** · 30 Mar 11,, 15:44

Originally Posted by bigross86

Ooe, 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/

Dealing with battles your wrong.

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,

Kosovo- 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.

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.

Again, the Japanese themselves admit that the strategic bombing campaing alone would have worked, a finding supported by the post-war US survey.

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

Holding ground isn't always required. For example, the US never invaded Truk, Wake or Rabual and achieved exactly what it wanted with the use of zero boots on the ground.

**Officer of Engineers** · 30 Mar 11,, 15:52

Originally Posted by zraver

Kosovo- 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.

Milosevic's decision to surrender was based upon the ground threat, not the air damage.

**T_igger_cs_30** · 30 Mar 11,, 15:55

If I may people like Milosevic (and Qadaffi) care nothing about "air damage", but once the ground threat is imminent they will show their true colours....................

**zraver** · 30 Mar 11,, 15:56

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

And 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.

Sir, in Russia they belong to the Strategic Missile Troops a co-equal branch of the Russian armed forces not a part of the army. In China everything military is army..... In France the Force de frappe is only air and naval no land based at all.

**Officer of Engineers** · 30 Mar 11,, 16:03

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.

**zraver** · 30 Mar 11,, 17:07

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

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.

Agreed, same goes for V bomber force and the Force de Frappe- mostly air force via bombs and missiles until the advent of SLBM's.

It's really tom"ae"to/to"ma"to. Mushroom clouds don't really care who deliver them.

too true.

**Wayfarer** · 31 Mar 11,, 09:14

Erm, the question is "Is strategic bombing decisive?"

I 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.

**USSWisconsin** · 31 Mar 11,, 16:54

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

I 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.

I agree that Strategic Bombing is decisive, it can break an enemy's ability to fight but probably can't break their ability to oppress their population. IMO, it needs to work in concert with something on the ground to bring any enduring changes - perhaps indigenous forces can support the change on the ground - but someone has to stand up to the dictator's men and their pistols in the basements and bunkers that bombing doesn't reach.