Re: Utility of airpower between comparable opponents
- From: Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAMLESS@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 22:34:29 GMT
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:47:49 GMT, Herbert Viola <no@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
The attack against Taliban controlled Afghanistan clearly showed the
overwhelming value of airpower and guided munitions to the ground campaign, but
that was a conflict between grossly unequal powers. When the militaries involved
are roughly equal in technology, etc, it seems that airpower only has a great
effect on the ground campaign when one side is on the move. Large scale movement
is simply very difficult without control of the air. Outside of that, will
airpower ever be greatly important to a ground campaign between near equals?
Your question (between the lines) seems to only focus on CAS, direct
support of ground operations almost in a "very heavy long-range
artillery" role.
But, there is also interdiction--the cutting off or at least slowing
of the flow of logistics. Deep interdiction can hamper deliveries from
supporting nations to client states or destroy basic enemy production
facilities or lines of communication.
There is also "strategic" bombing which can disrupt or destroy
command/control/communication/intel networks thereby rendering the
enemy leaderless and incoherent.
Airpower will be essential to any ground campaign and even more
critical if the battle is between near equals.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Could Britain and Russia alone defeated Nazi Germany without the U.S.
- Next by Date: US Air Force Decides to Retire Advanced Cruise Missile
- Previous by thread: Re: Thunderchief Engine Start
- Next by thread: Re: Utility of airpower between comparable opponents
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
