IS there any point to tanks if your missing air superiority

[Destraex]

Like the recent Gulf was and the later stages of ww2, is their any point having tanks without choppers and jets having superiority first?

A hyperthetical scenario.

Your side has tanks and lots of them. Good modern tanks
The enemy has NO TANKS but lots of choppers and aircraft

WHo will win all other things being equal?

Could the enemy army hold your tanks long enough for his air forces to destroy you?

[PS-SCUD]

Your side has tanks and lots of them. Good modern tanks
The enemy has NO TANKS but lots of choppers and aircraft

WHo will win all other things being equal?

Neither.

A bunch of psychos with nukes will take both of them out.

[Destraex]

"all other things being equal"
No Psychos with nukes ;)

[PS-SCUD]

Quite frankly I don't think you are really asking a question. I think you are making a statement. I'm just not exactly sure what that statement is though.. :?

[GaryOwen]

What's guarding his FARRPs against my tanks? Do I get to first strike nuke his airbases? How effective are his fast-burners against my SAM network?

Not that hypothetical of a scenario at all, really. Compare the U.S. AirLand battle doctrine and the assumed NATO air superiority against the WP operational plans from the end of the Cold War. WP had tanks, lots of good modern tanks. NATO had tanks but not nearly in the same numbers. WP had good modern aircraft, but not as good as NATO's. Would NATO have been able to gain air superiority, and if so, would that have made the decisive difference?

But that's all operational and strategic level stuff. It's kinda fun, though, to game that stuff with something appropriate like The Operational Art of War.

[Destraex]

In all seriousness, would a tank army roll over an non-tank army (that has a strong air element\air force) before enough tanks were stopped by air power to stall the offensive. I am talking modern tanks NOT ww2 tanks.

Simple - Are tanks going to beat air power if only infantry\mechanised are facing them?

Are tanks still a MUST have for armies..... can they get away with mechanised\air power

[GaryOwen]

"all other things being equal"
No Psychos with nukes ;)

The tanks will definately win then.

[Destraex]

Another point against Nukes. Most tanks if not hit directly are protected from the nuclear fallout so that they can still operate. Probably still changing filters via support vehicles though.

So what you are saying Gary is that tanks are a necissary part of combined arms. To be with airpower and no tanks when the other side has them is to resign yourself to the fact that you will lose in a conventional war

[PS-SCUD]

Another point against Nukes. Most tanks if not hit directly are protected from the nuclear fallout


Who said the psychos will hit your tanks with nukes? They'll hit your cities with nukes until you send the tanks home.

[GaryOwen]

So what you are saying Gary is that tanks are a necissary part of combined arms. To be with airpower and no tanks when the other side has them is to resign yourself to the fact that you will lose in a conventional war

I can't think of any war that has ever been won by air power alone.* Allied bombing in WWII did not cripple the Axis, Soviet steel, bone, and gristle did. Air power may have played a big part in GWI, but the Third Army still had to cross the berm. Air power, despite the claims of Madame Albright, certainly wasn't decisive in Kosovo.

But I also can't think of a single war that wasn't won without feet on the ground. The thing is that armor has a bigger footprint than light infantry.

(*Closest example of a campaign being decided solely by air power, that I've ever read about, was the Italian occupation of Ethiopia. Not something you'd want to base a universal principle of strategy on though.)

[Enrage]

It would most likely be a long and costly attrition war. The enemy's airpower could do serious damage to our logisical lines of communication. The ultimate goal of armored warfare is The Breakout. If we get through the enemy defenses and go roll around their rear areas, blow stuff up, and in general have a whole lot of fun, we would stand a good chance of winning decisively. However, if we are short on supplies, it seriously limits our ability to conduct mobile operations and win a decisive victory. If we cannot manueveur, than we must attack straight through prepared enemy positions. A smart enemy would put infantry in forested areas to deny us their use. They would also probably use their APCs on reverse slope positions, to deny us the advantage of long range tank gunnery. We would have to slog through constant engagments, without the hope of a breakout. We would win in the end, but at a high cost in men and materials.

This is assuming our air defense systems cannot affect enemy air operations such a serious level as to nullify to enemy's air power. It also assumes we face a smart enemy (not always), who use's their strengths (air power, infantry, mech infantry) against our weakness (lack of mobility due to logistical shortages caused by their air power). If our enemy was to fight us on good open tank ground, then we would win and take low-medium casualties rather than very heavy.

[3Star]

Kosovo pretty much showed that if the will to sit still and take it is there, air power is pretty useless against defending targets: For all the ordnance that NATO dropped, the Serbs still took almost their entire army North out of Kosovo with them. 1991 war also required the use of ground troops.

You can win without air support. It's just a lot more difficult.

NTM

[Rodomir]

The Gulf War showed us that tanks without air cover are just sitting ducks. If the planes and helicopters are modern enough, the enemy only have to send air raids armed with guided bombs and missiles until the armored vehicles were destroyed or far too damaged to fight. Or even better, they might destroy the supplies routes-convoys-bases. Tanks without fuel are even better targets that sitting ducks. Oh, did I said men will run out of drinkable water and food too?.

[Enrage]

The Gulf War showed us that tanks without air cover are just sitting ducks. If the planes and helicopters are modern enough, the enemy only have to send air raids armed with guided bombs and missiles until the armored vehicles were destroyed or far too damaged to fight. Or even better, they might destroy the supplies routes-convoys-bases. Tanks without fuel are even better targets that sitting ducks. Oh, did I said men will run out of drinkable water and food too?.

Not entirely true. The Iraqis were very effective at disguising thier tanks in the desert. The Coalition Air Forces had a very difficult time tracking down SCUD launchers, and those things are HUGE! Basically the battle would come down to attrition ratios. Do I have enough tanks to take over your airbases or political objectives before I run out?

[Bluewings]

Irak always used its Tank as "Artillery Pieces" . They dig-in and do not move .
Stupid ... :casstet:

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Trekker]

Irak always used its Tank as "Artillery Pieces" . They dig-in and do not move .
Stupid ... :casstet:

Cheers . :3starSK:

On the other hand, if they would moved them the coalition airunits would take them out before they could gear up to second gear.

[Rodomir]

But tanks on the move can be easyly spotted by an AWACS or any Joint Stars plane with long range ground radars, and again the tanks would be destroyed by the air force if they had enough fighters and bombers to do that. And enough ammo.
A wise air force force should try to disrupt their comms and supplies, as they are the key on stopping the tanks advance or slowing it down so the ground forces could be bombed easyly (a costly war in human lifes and ground vehicles for sure).
On the other hand, on a highly forested country I´m sure it would be very different. Costly again for the ground forces, but at last they would have a chance. And don´t forget the attack helicopters.

[TopKick]

Yes the day of tanks ruling the battle are over. Soon the only tankers left will be those still using Steel Beasts.

[Rodomir]

Yes the day of tanks ruling the battle are over

I agree. Nowadays there are many missiles with top attack mode, even light and portable ones carried by troops wich can be fired inside buildings. And the newest are fire and forget missiles, no need to lase and risk your life when flying.
And they are capable of defeating any known armored vehicle, as the roof is the vehicle´s weakest armor but rear.
Just imagine insurgents with that stuff, instead of that unlimited supplies of RPG-7´s. And heavy missiles have a longer range than a main gun of a tank.
I mean, or somebody somewhere invent a revolutionary armor, or the tank will no longer be the king of the battlefield.

What do you think about that, dudes?. In my opinion, the future is lighter vehicles (and maybe cheaper) armed with fire and forget missiles and machineguns, with light armor like slat or so, and disrupting systems like the T-90´s Shtora. I´ve read that the Merkava Mk 4 has some stuff like that and it´s under development for US forces and other countries. M1A3 incoming?... (please, with the L55)

[Lone*star49]

But tanks on the move can be easyly spotted by an AWACS or any Joint Stars plane with long range ground radars, and again the tanks would be destroyed by the air force if they had enough fighters and bombers to do that. And enough ammo.
A wise air force force should try to disrupt their comms and supplies, as they are the key on stopping the tanks advance or slowing it down so the ground forces could be bombed easyly (a costly war in human lifes and ground vehicles for sure).
On the other hand, on a highly forested country I´m sure it would be very different. Costly again for the ground forces, but at last they would have a chance. And don´t forget the attack helicopters.
...

Hmmm, take a timeless game of Kings, "Chess" or Backgammon, and add air-cover to it/them..

No No No..

Let's keep it an on the ground, a thinking-man's (or women's) game/sim, match between the minds of others.


LS :wink:

[Trekker]

Tanks fill a spot that noother land vehicle fills, they bring fear. Seing a coy of tanks rolling down the streets makes you go "these guys are for real". Seing a stryker or Pirahna, dosn't have that effect. Airplanes has been a issue since ww2, and they didn't stop roling those tanks then.

This discussion that tanks has come to an end has been going on for a long time. Anyone remember how pointless and suicidal it would be to drive tanks into urbanterrain, the americans showed us different. But the future projects is clearly taking the path of light armoured, airliftable, and with active protection.

[Destraex]

Anti-tank missile technology is behind ATM. THe americans were not fighting the latest and greatest when they drove tanks into town so I do not know whether that counts.
And how about the new ospreys? Who needs tanks when you can fly over them?
Anyway as far as holding ground is concerned I think the tank will always play a part.
Having said this I do not believe that a tank army without control of the skies will be very effective.

[Bluewings]

It is not for nothing if all Armies Worldwide plan to keep their Tank fleet up to 2050 ...

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Pillar]

I think it comes down to that if you have an opponent like the US, and they have AS, your tanks aren't going to be conducting any decently priced offensive operations.

[Kludge]

Not that hypothetical of a scenario at all, really. Compare the U.S. AirLand battle doctrine and the assumed NATO air superiority against the WP operational plans from the end of the Cold War. WP had tanks, lots of good modern tanks. NATO had tanks but not nearly in the same numbers. WP had good modern aircraft, but not as good as NATO's. Would NATO have been able to gain air superiority, and if so, would that have made the decisive difference?

I remember reading that the only way NATO could defeat a full WP onslaught on Western Europe was by using tactical nukes. The WP had a LOT of tanks, thats why systems like the AH64 and A10 were developed, to take out as many tanks as possible in the shortest amount of time. But even with the A10 and AH64 on the battlefield, the ratio for survivability rate/time vs. number of kills achievable by NATO systems did not exceed the total amount of AFVs the WP had. Therefore tactical nukes were the only way to guaruntee victory.

[Bluewings]

But tanks on the move can be easyly spotted by an AWACS or any Joint Stars plane with long range ground radars, and again the tanks would be destroyed by the air force if they had enough fighters and bombers to do that.
It depends who you 're fighting and where . NATO tried to bomb the shit out of the Serbs and we barely took out 5% of their tank fleet ...
I mean, or somebody somewhere invent a revolutionary armor, or the tank will no longer be the king of the battlefield.
Wrong . If you have decent Ground to Air Defenses to keep bombers away , the Tanks still the king of the Battlefield . Look how the Serbs forced NATO to give up low level bombing . NATO had to switch to 20.000 Ft because of SAMs . Then , there are hard-kill systems like the Russian ARENA who destroy ATGMs before they hit . US and France are working on some similar systems too .

The Main Battle Tank still have a bright futur , I tell you .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Pillar]

Werent' the Serbs mostly hiding their tanks?

[12Alfa]

The Serbs were draging barbed wire behind farm tractors. Awacs reported tanks, they bombed. They did however take the tractors out.

Air power can only do so much.
Tanks are still needed, more so now more than ever.

When a mbt shows up in a street fight, the situation now changes. The Inf want that Mbt when they fight, gives then the upper hand in most situations, even in cities if deployed properly. Something airpower can't do with little or no armour protection.

[Hackworth]

You've got to have boots on the OBJ or it isn't yours. You can deny it to the enemy with airpower, but you can't occupy it. Same reason tanks will never replace the infantry. Tanks can pierce an infantryman's armor very well, but they aren't going away.

As for using light armored vehicles like the Stryker... I don't think the solution to missles that can defeat modern armor is to lighten the vehicles. All you do then is present an even easier target to kill. I don't see tanks loosing a place on the battlefield in our lifetime. I think it would take a new invention, like tanks, to replace them. Maybe some sort of hover tank that would remove some of the obstacles tanks have, such as their heavy footprint and inability to cross all terrain, would replace them. In that case, weight wouldn't be a problem anymore and manufacturers could build hundred ton vehicles with super-duper layers of chobam (s.p.). Then those man portable AT missles might not make any difference any more. I just don' think the solution to better AT missles is to remove tanks and replace them with more lightly armored vehicles.

.02

[Kludge]

One point of view I've heard is that the MBT will go the way of the battleship. Modern naval tactics depend on sensors, countermeasures and speed to survive. Maybe that is what the brass is thinking by deploying a more mobile force.

Also, God knows what armor is going to be worth when energy weapons start appearing formidable, maybe that’s what the brass is banking on. Strykers with high energy plasma weapons laying waste to hordes of Chinese tanks.

Not knocking tanks, I love ‘em but I also love fighter aircraft (Dad and Grandpa were both fighter pilots) and I have come to conclusion that they are on the way out as well. Especially after I heard that UCAVs were being fitted with Hellfires.

Such is life, out with the old, in with the unfamiliar and frightening.

[ShermansWar]

To answe trhte question posed in the thread title, my answer is yes. Chappy, i think it was, in another thread makes the point that he uses the sim to train for armored combat IRL. so, does the game have any value if it doesnt deal with airpower in a comprehensive manner? of course it does, inasmuch as armored creman can train in many aspects except those that include facing enemy airpower. most training is gonna be about gunnery, and following orders, and formations,a nd aproaches to offense and defense anyway, and the majority of these operations do not need the inclusion of airpower for the purposes of training an armored crewman.

[dejawolf]

this is probably the future:

http://www.rusarmy.com/photo/bron0/tnk_bmpt/tnk_bmpt%20004.jpg
tank armour, IFV weaponry.

[Kludge]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/fcs-remotesensorvehicle.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/xuv_pic3.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/cougar_pic2.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/cougar_pic3.jpg

[Cobra2]

the thread said Tanks vs Airpower all things being equal.

the 'all things being equal' is the decisive factor in all this. what exactly is equal. numbers? money? men?

if we are talking numbers, then air will win. if money is the same then the tanks will win.

consider the price of one AH64D and compare it to a t72. you can have 15 or 20 tanks for one chopper and easily 50 tanks for one Strike Eagle. here you see that having more tanks is more bang for your money. one HEAT shell will set you back $500. a JDAM will const $40k to $150k depending on type.

a fighter will also use more fuel, spare and man-hours to stay air worthy. a tank can keep running on half what it usually needs which is nothing compared to a fighter.

what about men and crews? you can have one pilot but several support crew per fighter. a tank only needs the 3-4 man crew. do the math.

[EiZei]

And of course terrain, it's a lot easier to use air power efficiently when there are no places to hide. *cough*Iraq*cough*

[Cobra2]

I would disagree with desert terrain giving airpower and upper hand. wooded may give cover, but will slow you down. mountain is always difficult for air or land units. desert alows rapid movement for even large AFV formations. also, aircraft are much more exposed to AD assets in desert terrain. this is due to the lack of large terrain features and hence little room for terrain masking. radar is more effective in deserts too.

[-=UK=-Tanker]

Well i see it as airpower being preperation for ground forces you cant ocupy terrafirma with jets :)

[Jester_UK]

Well i see it as airpower being preperation for ground forces you cant ocupy terrafirma with jets :)


I'd agree with you. Ground forces and air forces need each other to operate efficiently.

It does need to be noted though, that since 1939 there has never been a major ground offensive succeed without air superiority in some degree.

[Elf`]

I think it comes down to that if you have an opponent like the US, and they have AS, your tanks aren't going to be conducting any decently priced offensive operations.
Remember, even Israeli air power didnt win in Yom Kippur,...It was Tanks that did.....As Gary said, no real war has ever been decided by air power alone.

[Cobra2]

luck would have it that Elf is no tank commander. :D

blitz all over the place with no where to hide for the people of Poland!

[Homer]

Original topic:
Since it only mentioned tanks vs infantry/aircraft and nothing about holding ground or SAMs, I would have to go with the infantry, planes and helos.

Other topic:
Given unrestrictive rules of engagement and freedom from any political considerations, modern air power would obliterate a modern land force. It is true that air power alone has not won a war but in today's terms, it can be now said that land power can not win a war without air power. The instances where air power was truly unleashed, such as WW2 and Desert Storm, it proved to be the decisive factor. The events discussed so far where air power has "failed" can be directly attributed the decisions made by the civilian politicians. They invariably limit the full capabilities of air (and land) power. The military fights the battles but it's the politicians who have to win the war. A couple of you guys need read up on Kosovo and learn why the numbers don't tell whole story. Start here: http://www.cybercomm.nl/~redbad/balkan/index.html

There also have been a lot of comments regarding what air power can't do but it also can do a lot of things that the tank can do and lot of other things that a tank can't do (I hope I said that right).... like deliver a 2000lbs bomb to any location on the earth within 24 hours and represent the ultimate form of power projection when operating off aircraft carriers. Air power may not be able to hold land but if allowed, it can quickly and efficiently blast the enemy's nation back to the stone age by destroying its economy and infrastructure.

[Elf`]

Homer, Buster Glosson's Air Force, the most modern and powerful in the world, could not even get to Schwartzkopf's req of 50% attrition in Gulf War 1. That was against an army as pathetic as Iraq. Air was NOT the decisve factor in Iraq. A month of bombing did NOT drive the Iraqis from Kuwait. Marine M-60 tanks and British Challengers DID,...FACT, look it up.Same thing basically happened on D-Day june 6 1944, and a host of other instances. Air helps, but it NEVER resolves the situation. Feet and Tracks DO....

[Jester_UK]

Now imagine a scenario where the Iraqi air force had matched (or even worse been superior to) the coalition airforces in numbers, equipment, training and motivation.

Sure the tanks and infantry MAY still have reached their objectives, but the cost in men and materials would have been so high that the politicians would most likely have pulled the plug since all those body bags would not have been good for their chances at the next election.

The bottom line is that in todays modern battlefield environment there is no single weapon (excepting perhaps tactical nuclear weapons) that is so dominant as to be able to function single-handedly. As surely as air forces cannot take and hold ground, the ground forces cannot operate effectively if the opposition has air superiority.

BTW, in Normandy and the western front in 1944-45, it was NOT the allied armour that did the damage. Far more German armoured vehicles killed by the allied fighter bombers and destroyed by their own crews due to lack of spares and fuel than were destroyed by allied armoured units (and let's also remember it was air power that reduced Germany's production and fuel reserves).

Not that this one instance alone negates your argument about the value of armour per se since, in this case, it was more due to the total inferiority of the Sherman, Churchill and Cromwell tanks in comparison to the German machines (at best the allied tanks were on par with the Panzer IV, and even that had a better gun than the average Sherman etc), combined with the Allies having to fight through countryside well suited to defence. But it most definately WAS air power combined with an eventual overwhelming superiority in numbers (thanks to Hitler's insane insistance on no retreat) that allowed the Allied forces to defeat the Germans in the field.

However, had Hitler not interfered with his commander's running of the theatre, and the Allies not had total air superiority, even with a superiority in numbers the Allied armies in Normandy would most likely have been defeated in detail. On the other hand, had the Allied tanks been a match in armour thickness and hitting power to the German vehicles, perhaps the role of the air forces in this particular operation would have been less decisive.

[Homer]

Homer, Buster Glosson's Air Force, the most modern and powerful in the world, could not even get to Schwartzkopf's req of 50% attrition in Gulf War 1. That was against an army as pathetic as Iraq. Air was NOT the decisve factor in Iraq. A month of bombing did NOT drive the Iraqis from Kuwait. Marine M-60 tanks and British Challengers DID,...FACT, look it up.Same thing basically happened on D-Day june 6 1944, and a host of other instances. Air helps, but it NEVER resolves the situation. Feet and Tracks DO....

Hi Elf, How have you been?

Desert Storm was the first war that was won almost entirely by air power. The fact that the Iraqi did not surrender before the start of the ground war is irrelevant. The Allied Air Force could have kept pounding them months if neccessary; however, it became increasingly clear toward the end of the air campaign that the Iraqis were beaten (It was even obvious to my wife at time who has absolutely no military knowledge). All that was needed to end the war was a mop-up operation by the ground forces. The ground offensive against a broken and disorganized Iraqi army only last 100 hours and was assisted by massive air support. As the Allied army advanced, the Iraqis were flushed from their positions and surrendered, fled or were destroyed by air power. The very few Iraqi units stood their ground and fought were cut pieces by ground forces. By this stage, the war had turned into a massacre.

If you re-examine the early events of the war, you will see that air power had won the all important first battle, long before any significant ground forces arrived in theater and without the need of having to fire a shot. In the hours that followed the invasion of Kuwait, the US sent forces to block the advance of Iraqi forces into Saudi Arabia. One of the ground units that were the first to arrive was the 82nd Airborne. This force was lightly armed and has very few heavy weapons so it was called the Speed Bump Division. The arrival of this division and others like it in the first few days of the conflict was only possible because of air power's ability to transport men and material over long distances in a short amount of time. The Iraqi advance stopped at the Saudi border not because light ground forces stood in their way it was because the US had deployed hundreds of fighters to the area and these aircrafts were flying hundreds of sorties to deter any attack. The Iraqis had lost the inititive and were force into a defensive strategy to hold Kuwait.

From our experiences in SB, we both know that once the inititive is lost, the battle is lost.

[Cobra2]

you people should get your facts straight. the 1st battle won entirely by airpower was the Battle of Briton. the 2nd was in Kosovo.

what Elf said about ODS was 100% correct. not all the A10/AH64 and other aricraft could get the Iraqi land forces out. by the numbers that we have about 50K iraqi troops where killed in the entire operation, not counting civilian deaths. several thousand more where killed on the Road of Death after the signing of the ceasefire. air power is thought to have killed only about 2 or 3 thousand troops, and fewer than 2000 AFV. not counting the RoD kills.

[Homer]

First, I said "war", not "battle".

The war was over by the time the ground operations started. If you guys wish to perceive the ground phase as more significant than the air phase in ODS, there is nothing I can do about your narrow point of view.

Second, I said "decisive", not "deciding".

The deciding factor in the ODS was the political will of the Allied nations to allow their military forces to conduct their operations without the usual interfering and restrictions imposed on them.

[Cobra2]

okay, just wanted to point out that land forces did more damage in 100 hours than airpower did in 40 days.

[Jester_UK]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the Air Forces in the lead up to the start of ground operations were tasked with primarilly strategic targets, not tactical ones. You're also ignoring the fact that the air forces were effectively working with one arm tied behind their backs due to political considerations over civilian casualties.

Now I must admit, I have never studied the Gulf conflicts in detail, but from what I've seen it seems that the ground forces had far less restrictions placed on their actions than the air forces did. Also ALL the ground effort was directed against the Iraqi armed forces. The majority of the air effort was directed at strategic targets. Unfortunately that means your quoted figures mean nothing since the two arms of the coalition effort were concentrating on different aspects of the campaign.

[-=UK=-Tanker]

As i see it there were two phases of the war the first being to prep the battlefield for the ground troops, the air campagin started with the systematic removal of sadams IAD and the ability to deny the coallition forces air superiority, once this was achived there was an extensive use of the CAS mission with Hogs an OA-10s to spot and pindown the enemy while the allide forces marched forward to destroy them, once the air was clear and sadams troops were reluctant to turn on thier radars the air war to a degree was a sucsess at that point, So in marched the troops to push sadam out of Kuwait. on leaving thay were moped up by aircraft litrely stacked up in the skys above to dive down and kill em,

my 2 cents :)

[NEpi]

I think the main problem of tanks is not their vulnerability to air strikes, but rather their huge hunger for supplies (fuel and ammo). hitting supply convoys from air is one of the best usage for any air force. the tanks will get through, and get stranded pretty quick. it is not much of an issue if the campaign is limited in scale, but it is of most importance when you're going deep into enemy territory.

when it comes to choppers vs. tanks head to head, tanks have three huge advantages:
1. tanks can use terrain better. it's much easier to stay under the horizon with a tank. a chopper is much more easily spotted and shot at. finding a good BP with a chopper and jumping to another fast enough isn't as easy as it is with tanks.
2. tanks can take a beating. since they don't have to lift themselves, they can get much heavier with armor than choppers.
3. tanks can haul much more ammo. while a good strong chopper can take care of about 10 targets, a tank can do better before rearming. this point is especially important in more intense battles, when flying back up to rearm takes too much time.

there's also another, more strategic point: tanks cost less, both to produce and to maintain. that means you can have many many more of them on the battlefield, and overwhelm your enemy with power.

as far as I know, in the cold war NATO not only relied on a huge air fleet. it also took great care to have the largest nuclear arsenal available. hence, psychos with nukes isn't as smartass as it seems at first glanse ;)

BW, using tanks as AT guns can be the result of another problem: they can't move, because they don't have the spare parts. those tanks might not been able to move at all. the Iraqi military was in worse condition than was expected.

[Captain_Colossus]

The fact that the Iraqi did not surrender before the start of the ground war is irrelevant.

One might argue the diminishing returns of the ground phase to be sure- but irrelevant is a difficult case to prove wherever there is even a hint of correlation in this problem or in any argument, so strong a notion is irrelevant that it presumes to altogether chop up and compartmentalize a string of events like disattaching links in a chain. It probably cannot be irrelevant that the ground offensive actually chased the occupation forces out of Kuwait, no matter how much it might be argued that the air component would co-opt the greater burden before and after. Like a prize fighter withered by body blows before the final uppercut on the chin, the Battle of Khafji for example concluded once Arab mechanized units expelled the Iraqis rather than interdiction from the air alone.


The Allied Air Force could have kept pounding them months if neccessary; however, it became increasingly clear toward the end of the air campaign that the Iraqis were beaten (It was even obvious to my wife at time who has absolutely no military knowledge).

Media coverage of the air war may have impressed a strong notion of the Coalition air forces carrying the war for several weeks straight- but then, there was little or nothing of the similarly violent ground phase shown on CNN at the time. And it was over far too quickly for the public to really gain an appreciation of it- out of sight, out of mind. Proponents of air power alone after weeks of air attacks would be forced to answer the skeptic's question in the face of a comparatively shorter one hundred hour ground battle- "What took you so long?"

As everything here can never yield anything more than reasoned argument, the domain of cause and effect will extend into necessary but ultimately unwarranted assumptions (meaning at some point a first premise will be discharged without the antecedent justification to warrant its own claim- or else there would be some infiinte regression of justifcations) and even metaphysics. But facts won't prove anything other than to provide supporting evidence for the arguments in either case. So be it then.

[-=UK=-Tanker]

And the fact that if thay wiped out the iraqi ability to fight at all who would stop "say iran" from trying a bit of cross border action, i heard that to reduce the iraqi ground forces to near 0 capability would make light work for an opertunist to walk stright in after the coallition left.....think about it for a sec for an area so rich in somthing we all need can you realy say that somthing like that would have never crossed the minds of some person with evil intent?

[Cobra2]

there is a vital point that needs to be mentioned here in regard to ODS. the role of the stealth fighter. coalition air formations were unabe to effectively persicute iraqi ground forces until after the F117 did its work on air-search radars.

what if the ODS conflict were to be reset/replayed with the same weapons and numbers, but excluded the F117. i think airpower would have played far less a significant role in the conflict.

the radars would be operational and this would have made iraqi air power and defenses more effective. just think of the absense of high level bombers and all them guided bombs. it would have given ODS a whole new and different look. under such conditions, land forces would have been what make or break the allied military effort.

up until now we were talking about airpower as if nothing could touch it. its a situation that mimics an army with no AT weapons facing ten tank divisions.

this whole discution seems unbalanced. jets with AT weapon vs tanks. tanks have no AD weapons, hence would naturally get destroyed. the discution would have made more sense if it where 'who would own the air space, modern aricraft or AD'

alternativly, we could discuss who does more damage on to the enemy. does airpower do a better job than tank forces? that is the question that should have been asked from the start.

[NEpi]

cobra has an interesting point, and I think it could be generalized.

air supperiority depends highly on technology. if your enemy has anti-aircraft weapons you're not aware of, your airforce will be toast. ground forces are less susceptible to technological surprises.

[DrDevice]

cobra has an interesting point, and I think it could be generalized.

air supperiority depends highly on technology. if your enemy has anti-aircraft weapons you're not aware of, your airforce will be toast. ground forces are less susceptible to technological surprises.

I disagree. Doctrinal changes and slight advantages in technology can make a big difference, even if you know of the existence of technology. Look at the Sinai in 1973. ATGMs weren't new, but they were a hell of a surprise. It didn't change the final outcome, but it made a big impact.

I think it can be said that a minor shift in tactics and technology can create nasty surprises for ANY military forces. Current issues like Iranian high-speed torpedoes or older ones like Russian/Chinese anti-ATGM systems are the subject of much debate when it comes to planning for future conflict. Land forces have no exemption here. I think it may be less pronounced, but it is still there.

[NEpi]

let us look at Sinai 1973: after 1967, the IDF had two force-building strategies:
1. tanks rule
2. we don't need artyllery, since airplanes can do the job better.

in 1973, two nasty surprises, custom built to take advantage of this folly:
1. SA-6
2. Sager

while the israeli ground forces took a blow, they were not overwhelmed completely, while it took the israeli airforce half the war to get back from the shock. in the first phase of the war, the airforce was ineffective to the point of almost not being a factor at all. then, the egyptian army crawled out of the channel-based air defence umbrella, the israeli airforce striked back and hard, and the ground forces moved forward.
my point was such surprises have a much bigger effect on aircraft, since aircraft gets attrited faster than ground forces.

[Homer]

As everything here can never yield anything more than reasoned argument, the domain of cause and effect will extend into necessary but ultimately unwarranted assumptions (meaning at some point a first premise will be discharged without the antecedent justification to warrant its own claim- or else there would be some infiinte regression of justifcations) and even metaphysics. But facts won't prove anything other than to provide supporting evidence for the arguments in either case. So be it then.


The air campaign was a significant military event in the evolution of air power and conventional warfare in general (at least for the US). If people fail to appreciate that fact, I dont think pressing the issue with a history lession will get them to see beyond the horizon when they only can think in 1 dimension.

[1-64armor]

well, think about 10 soviets hinds against a hole armored force, the hinds are going to get a few tanks, but there going to get hit on the next tank the pilot see's, so long story short a a few hinds dont stand a chance againts a armored company, including that the new m3 bradley, the something linebacker, whick carrys four stinger missles.

[Homer]

.... now replace those 10 Hinds with 10 F-16s.

[Scorpius]

Just to add to the conversation....The M6 Linebacker has been withdrawn and replaced with the Avenger I believe....which IMO is not a good move.

As a former SHORAD guy I was more than happy to trade in the M163A1 for an M2A2 Stinger taxi...After I got out they fielded the M6 Linebacker and now those are no more. A Bradley-based ADA asset can go with the tanks and go places that Hummer-based systems can't.

[ShermansWar]

I think cobras argument doesnt hold a lot of water. the fact is, without the F-117s, they simply would have done the same job with different assets, british tornadoes, whatever. they would have taken higher initial casualties, but to assume that 2 days into the air campaign the results would have been any different is a mistake. what followed afterwards would have been the same.