Importance of Air Power a myth?

[PaddyPilot]

So the other day I was talking to this guy, he's one of those guys who reads wikipedia in his basement all day, and he said that the importance of air power is a myth. I completely disagreed with him, but due to my lacking knowledge of war in terms of air power, I couldn't really give him any concrete evidence against his view.

This is the link to the thread where he's arguing with some people about it.

I was just wondering if anyone has anything to throw into the discussion.

*Edit* His name on that forum is uebernerd.

Edited February 28, 2008 by PaddyPilot

[Guest Matt Damon]

So the other day I was talking to this guy, he's one of those guys who reads wikipedia in his basement all day,

That is your first flag. The second would be that his screen name is Ubernerd.

I love people that have nothing intelligent to say or add to a conversation but insist on acting like they know what is going on. Unlike myself; I know a lot about the evolution of Air Power as I was once an AS200. But seriousy, listening to this guy is like listening to Hillary Clinton talk about how good of a president she will be. My best advice is to just tune them out.

[busdriver]

There's no point arguing with that guy, you can throw down all the facts and sound theory you want and he won't listen. He thinks he knows everything and you can't change his mind. As Matt Damon said, set him to ignore.

[drewpey]

My argument regarding Afghanistan, Korea, and Vietnam was that air superiority had not been effective.

Wow, that guy is an asshat.

He should probably pick up a history book sometime and thumb through it, and while he is at it, pull out a geography book and take a look at the landscape in Afghanistan.

These trolls are best to be ignored, no amount of common sense or reason will force them to admit they are wrong.

Move along, nothing to see here!

EDIT: I always love reading about other peoples' stupidity though on the internet. So many "experts" out there on stuff they have no idea about. Forums like that, or reading the comments in youtube about the strength/weakness, ability/inability of anything related to military, is purely comical. The sad thing is people actually listen to them.

[check6]

didnt read the discussion, but tell him to check out this wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_day_war

booya

[PaddyPilot]

Here's his latest post:

Why are you talking about conventional warfare? My point was that air power isn't decisive no matter what the type of warfare, conventional or assymetrical.

Why don't battles matter? Because a battle is an inherently tactical affair. Whether you win the battle i.e. whether you defeat the enemy has rather little to do with whether you've attained any strategic objective.

Since Vietnam is such a hot topic, consider the Tet Offensive, which contains most of the few pitched battles of the war. The United States consistently won tactical victories, but the North ended it in a far better position than they started it. Who won?

Enough about WW2, it has absolutely nothing to do with modern warfare.

Stalingrad is absolutely relevant to modern warfare. It demonstrated that a blitzkrieg (which is essentially what we used in Iraq) can by completely stymied by drawing the enemy into unfamiliar, intricate, dangerous terrain. Like a city. Or, in previous wars, mountains and jungles.

Are you saying that Iran doesn't rely on its infrastructure? How can a nation with such a relatively large conventional military not rely on infrastructure? How do they continue to exist?

Did I say that? I said that " A war with Iran would not be a war where infastructure carries a great influence. " Whether Iran has an infastructure, and whether it would be important in a potential war, are different things. There are ways of conducting a war without an infastructure, and not all of them involve guerilla tactics.

Regarding cities, would you consider it a sound tactical or strategic decision to move tank divisions into a city populated with your own people? Large numbers of infantry? You've just brought down the wrath of one of the largest nations on earth to one of the central hubs of your country.

Bombing the * out of a city is not usually part of a limited war. It's the problem with trying to have actual justifications for your wars: all those pesky civilians.

[busdriver]

I think I know where he's getting these ideas. He's incorrectly applying fourth generational warfare ideas. I'm thinking this since he keeps harping on tactical outcomes being irrelevant. The idea is best shown by the first intifada. The Israelis attacked with tanks, helos and guns; and the Palestinians responded by throwing rocks. By all tactical accounts the Palestinians got run over, but in the court of public opinion the Israelis were turned into monsters. The idea is an insurgent attacks his enemy's moral credibility, if successful the world's and even his enemy's people's opinion favors the insurgency. He is confusing tools with tactics/strategy. Ground troops, airpower, armor, and ships are tools no more, no less.

[PaddyPilot]

Just an update, in a debate about a prospective war with Iran he says: Any modern battle will always take place to achieve one side's strategic goal, and very rarely is that goal to kill people.

I told him he was thinking of an operation, not a battle. It just sounds stupid to me that the strategic goal of a battle is something other than killing the enemy. The goal of the overall operation might be to capture an objective, but battles are quite frankly for killing people in order to pave the way to the objective.

If I'm wrong, please set me straight.

Edited March 11, 2008 by PaddyPilot

[Guest Jollygreen]

Any modern battle will always take place to achieve one side's strategic goal, and very rarely is that goal to kill people.

I'd agree that very rarely is a strategic goal ever to kill people. A notable, and very real, exception would be a strategic goal of genocide.

As for the rest of the discussion, the problem includes defining operational and tactical (battle) level of conflict. Multiple works out there provide multiple definitions. but a common accepted definition is that an operation is a series of efforts, which usually include battles, that work towards achieving the strategic objective. It is also important to keep in mind that a strategy includes more then just the military power of a nation (or non-nation) actor.

But keep in mind. Most of the above is drival regurgitated from PME. I tend to agree with it, but take it for what it is.

[PaddyPilot]

What I meant is that the specific goal of a battle is to eliminate the enemy. Why else would you need a battle? The overall strategic goal is why the battle is being fought, but the point of the battle is to eliminate the enemy. That's just imho, I guess it's just how you look at it.

[pawnman]

What I meant is that the specific goal of a battle is to eliminate the enemy. Why else would you need a battle? The overall strategic goal is why the battle is being fought, but the point of the battle is to eliminate the enemy. That's just imho, I guess it's just how you look at it.

Nope. You don't have to eliminate the enemy, you just have to eliminate his ability to fight.

[M2]

Nope. You don't have to eliminate the enemy, you just have to eliminate his ability to fight.

Not even his ability, all you really have to do is eliminate his will to fight.

The problem is that people only see "airpower" as the ability to fly great distances to break things and kill people. We all know it is much more than that (but it is always good to be able to do that proficiently!). The general public needs to realize that "airpower" is the ability to extend US goals and objectives anywhere on the globe quickly and efficiently. It is just as much flying MREs to refugees as it is conducting CAS for ground pounders in Afghanistan and Iraq.

To paraphrase Churchill, if you think winning a war with airpower is tough, trying winning one without it!

Cheers! M2

[zrooster99]

It is just as much flying MREs to refugees as it is conducting CAS for ground pounders in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Just look at the effect airlift has had on infantry tactics and strategy, i.e. helicopter warfare and Airborne units...the former is relevant regardless of the level of warfare...unless you're a cyber "warrior"