Apologize to Iraq and Iran for making fun of their war in the 1980s as "WW1 with jets" since it's clear now that any war where both sides failed to achieve full air superiority would just turn into an immobile attrition trench warfare no matter how advanced the tech is.
Iraq initially opened with a fast tank thrust Blitzkreig style and managed to capture a huge chunk of the Iranian south with some major cities and they thought the way was clear to Tehran... Then they got bogged down in massive battles that pushed them all the way back to inside of Iraq itself so now the invadee became the invader. It just became a back and fourth trench slog but with jets, chemical warfare and massive tank battles for 8 whole years starting in 1980 and ending in 1988
>"WW1 with jets"
But it was.
I'll apologize when we get some Russians getting electrocuted in a swamp kino caught on drone cam
The fact that the Ukrainians and Russians are too incompetent to into combined arms breaches doesn't mean that all armies are. Breaching without air superiority should be eminently doable, especially with drones to provide PIR
>Breaching without air superiority should be eminently doable
the only army that could reliably do this were the germans in ww1 and ww2, and I guess you could say the allies in 1918 because of how little air superiority mattered in that period
the US military couldnt do it
just because weirdos online fetishizing both sides wish it was the second round of ww2 doesn't mean it is, ukraine and russia are both inept and its showing
>any war where both sides failed to achieve full air superiority would just turn into an immobile attrition trench warfare no matter how advanced the tech is
Explain how air superiority would solve the issue.
>Explain how air superiority would solve the issue.
Is /k/ usually this moronic?
>What is Germany and Japan 1944-1945
>What is Israel 1967
>What is Iraq 1991-2003
>What is Syria 2015-2018
The Pacific theater isn't comparable. Germany suffered more from strategic bombing than tactical use of aircraft.
Iraq 2003 actually zigged instead of zagged. Saddam's defensive plan was designed around the 1991-style massive air campaign prior to invasion. The US ruined his plans by going in with a minimal air campaign and emphasizing the bypassing of defensive lines. The example is not applicable in Ukraine. Humvees rushing defensive lines is kino as frick, but they can't drive past the Russians to capture Mariupol. The terrain and defensive layout does not allow it.
The Syrian example is actually baffling. Russia's air campaign straight up turned the tide of war. It wasn't a question of a stalemate being broken, but the Syrian government going from controlling like 30% of the country to recapturing pretty much all ISIS held territory and a good chunk of the FSA. They also went Grozny on cities as a way to siege them.
>The US ruined his plans by going in with a minimal air campaign and emphasizing the bypassing of defensive lines
Black person WHAT?
Battle of Nasiriyah on 23 March. Massive air strikes across the country and against Iraqi command-and-control threw the defending army into chaos and prevented an effective resistance. On 26 March, the 173rd Airborne Brigade was airdropped near the northern city of Kirkuk, where they joined forces with Kurdish rebels and fought several actions against the Iraqi Army, to secure the northern part of the country. The main body of coalition forces continued their drive into the heart of Iraq and were met with little resistance.
I think he means rather than the troops sitting waiting for a month to actually invade the air campaign was brief and focused occurring shortly before the invasion
>Germany suffered more from strategic bombing than tactical use of aircraft.
You what? Tactical aircraft raids were a massive pain in the ass to German units.
But not what prevented trench warfare. Trenches were built during WWII when the fighting became static enough to allow it. It was the higher mobility of WWII that prevented trench warfare from becoming the default, rather than aircraft being specifically used to break the trench line. When the fighting centered around an area that allowed the time to be devoted to fortification, trench lines were used and aircraft did not break them.
Anon is also right.
And how exactly do you think that trench networks are going to survive against an enemy with air superiority that can easily and quickly call in precise airstrikes on your static positions?
I sincerely doubt that your shitty pillbox can withstand a direct strike from a precision guided JDAM?
>how exactly do you think that trench networks are going to survive against an enemy with air superiority
Are you going to fly enough sorties to kill the fricking trench?
>that can easily and quickly call in precise airstrikes on your static positions?
Static positions can be bombarded with ground launched munitions, or long range munitions like the Storm Shadow which does not require air superiority.
>I sincerely doubt that your shitty pillbox can withstand a direct strike from a precision guided JDAM?
And you're absolutely right, it won't handle a direct strike from a JDAM.
But flying sorties and dropping JDAMs on every Head Quarters is a massive waste and force you to become SAM bait. Regular artillery bombardment will kill and injure the troops around such lightly built concrete pillboxes, if not shred them outright in a near miss. Guided artillery exists if you feel like spending 100k, and there's also the M1156 PGK which drops the cost to 20k per shot. You're not going to risk aircraft on this bullshit. It's completely disproportionate.
Also not to mention that would be a big waste of Air to Ground Munitions that would be better used against AA Missile Sites (or SAMs). Better to just use SSMs against Trenches (though at the Corps - Theatre Level).
>Are you going to fly enough sorties to kill the fricking trench?
The point is the you use PGMs for more accurate and efficient strikes. I'm not writing off artillery, it's still a vital part of warfare but saying that airpower is completely useless 30 years after Desert Storm is completely fricking moronic.
Airpower serves to tie down and strike at targets beyond the range of artillery, it's mobile and relatively accurate and tactically flexible.
>saying that airpower is completely useless 30 years after Desert Storm is completely fricking moronic
But anon, you misunderstand my point here.
I'm an air power supremacist, I fricking love air power. I just hate the take that "no air superiority = le WW1" take that spawned since this war started.
But WWI had Air Battles and "Air Power" - it's just that, during that conflict, such was in it's infancy (and obviously as with any weapon system in it's infancy it's gonna have some "bugs" to work out before it's implemented better).
Hell WWI was also where the First Aircraft Carrier was deployed (sauce: Tsingtao, mainly specifically when The Japanese were attacking a German Settlement in China).
Also I have been sketching down random Corps style Diagrams and ultimately I'm starting to get a better understanding of a Corps and I would like to create one where:
> Four Maneuver Divisions - ideally 2 Heavy Combined Arms Divisions, 1 "Reserve" Motorized Division full of "Volunteers" or "Friendly Nation Volunteers", and a Air Assault Division
> Armored Cavalry Regiment Combat Team - with MBTs, ACVs, and even it's own Engineering, Fires, and Support and Sustainment
> 2 Artillery Brigades that carries G6 Rhino 155 SP Howitzers, 130 SP Howitzers, Tactical MLRS, and even everything from SAMs, SSMs, and TOS-1s (i.e. the Tracked Vehicle the Russians used in Bakhmut)
> a Tactical Fixed Wing Aviation Division/Wing that ultimately provides CAS, Corps level Recon, and even a Corps Level UAV capability
> A Engineer Brigade mostly comprised of Combat Engineers but also Bridging and Assault Engineers
> And finally a Corps Sustainment Group with relevant structures to provide Sustainment for the Divisions, the Wing, and even other forms of Logistical Support
the side with air superiority can bomb the shit out of the problem until it goes away
You can also bombard the shit out of problems with tube and rocket artillery.
It's cheaper, requires less manpower in total, you're limited by barrel life rather than sortie rate, training artillerymen is easier than training pilots and aircraft mechanics.
So why is air superiority a requirement to break trench warfare?
If both sides have artillery they're going to spend most of their time on counterbattery and logistical interdiction because the side that over-focuses on direct support will lose the artillery duel
>If both sides have artillery they're going to spend most of their time on counterbattery and logistical interdiction
And if one side has air superiority and the other has air defense, the first will spend more time on SEAD and logistical interdiction than breaking the stalemate.
Not to mention that GMLRS have the range and accuracy of air-dropped munitions from a few decades ago. Outside of taking out structures like buildings and bridges, what is a F-16 with JDAMs going to provide over a HIMARS with GMRLS?
>The main body of coalition forces continued their drive into the heart of Iraq and were met with little resistance.
You can't replicate the scenario in Zaporizhzhia considering that Russia didn't put half their fricking forces in Belgorod. Until the very last minute Iraq presumed there would be an invasion axis from the north, which left southern defenses lacking.
Anons you keep presuming the Iraqis actually gave a fight. Sure their command probably put all sorts of plans and shit but when the invasion started their army simply disintegrated with most of the soldiers outright just leaving their lines and going home to their families rather than fight for Saddam. By the time the American tanks showed up the only ones left are the hardcore nationalists and the Jihadi militias.
Damn now that is a short ass tank. How does a turret this small not pop off when the gun fires? It's the same gun size as an Abrams too.
Iraqi terrain is not suitable for the kind of war(Vietnam/Afghanistan) a defending nation against US needs to fight.
Well but The US got fricked there anyhow. Especially to the point where it had to evacuate in 2011, whereas with Afghanistan it took until 2021 for us to leave (almost just as long as The Philippine Insurgency).
Actually it is. Iraq isn't a flat desert like most believe from video games and movies it's basically just very dense date tree forests and farming fields with many small rivers in the south and middle of the country and alot of green mountains in the north, all of which supplemented by huge cities with dense urban population. The only real flat deserts are in the west and the east, both of which saw little action.
Imagine US soldiers fighting in this environment, kino as it would be.
we already did, zoomer
>Outside of taking out structures like buildings and bridges, what is a F-16 with JDAMs going to provide over a HIMARS with GMRLS?
One jet can carry the payload equivalent of 20 HIMARS trucks. You forget that most of the missiles weight goes into thrust while gliding bombs are mostly payload.
>One jet can carry the payload equivalent of 20 HIMARS trucks
Which you won't do. Between dedicating pylons to fuel tanks/HARMs/self-defense missiles and not weighing yourself down excessively, you'd never go with max takeoff weight.
>You forget that most of the missiles weight goes into thrust while gliding bombs are mostly payload.
And you forget that HIMARS doesn't have to get off the ground and dodge SAMs.
JDAMs don't glide, by the way. They have fins for steering but not for lift generation.
>mig-21 behind a tomcat
lol. lmao, even.
in reality the iraqis would simply die with no warning because most of their jets didn't even have RWRs - letting tomcats pick them off with sparrows even when they didn't feel like using a phoenix
Iraqi jets were blowing up without warning so frequently that they actually grounded the entire air fleet on suspicions of sabotage.
>thought the way was clear to Tehran...
they were like a thousand km and two mountain ranges from tehran
the goal was always khuzestan, never the iranian heartlands
>no matter how advanced the tech is.
Neither Ukraine nor Russia have modern ground forces you bootlipped bluegummed streetshitting abortion.
>Neither Ukraine nor Russia have modern ground forces
And NATO does? LMAO
Post toilet
Oh look, it's the only picture vatniks have been able to spam for the past two weeks. You'd think if things were going well for them, they'd have something else to post.
Can't wait to see vatniks retreating into and drowning in the sea of Azov.
Lots more where that came from, Plebbit tourist.
Just fricking attack NATO already. I want to see Russia's (allegedly) superior forces beat NATO
>And NATO does?
Yes. Far more modern forces than what Russia or Ukraine has.
Does that fricking moron actually question the capability of NATOs combined arms capability?
The moronation is almost insulting.
I'm still baffled by it. This is what the average Russian IQ is. It's like arguing with a moron who counter-argues by shitting himself and flinging feces at you.
>Muh combined arms
See how good that does when the airspace is DENIED by Soviet/Russian AD and air superiority fighters
>More like it's clear now that everyone in the world is generations behind America.
LMAO
>Muh HIMRAS wonder waffles
If Russian air capabilities are so good, how come they haven’t established air superiority in Ukraine? Just waiting two more weeks? Ukraine is the poorest country in Europe using decades old equipment with very few troops receiving any training and Russia has still failed to take it
Are you fricking twelve? You're either twelve or a boomer there is no in between
No, he's absolutely right you unwashed swine, even Germany that has somewhere around 36-48 EF2000s in flight condition could've had established air dominance over Ukraine by now.
Can you go into detail how that might be done (and I reckon that it could be done with more than 36-48 EF2000s).
>Can you go into detail how that might be done (and I reckon that it could be done with more than 36-48 EF2000s).
I sure can.
Please do anon. I am really interested, though honestly I mainly prefer Tanks, Helicopters, and Ships (even thought about designing a Cargo Ship converted into a Helicopter Destroyer).
Though also wouldn't mind converting a Cargo Ship to also be a Fixed Wing Destroyer (but then of course Fixed Wing Aircraft might have generally limited uses than a Rotary Wing Aircraft).
That means MAD, anon you absolute Black person-brained moron. Stop being childish.
>DUUUUH WHY DOESN'T RUSSIA START WORLD WAR 3 TO PROVE A POINT
Russia is already proving that point by defeating every weapon NATO throws at them from HIMARS and Panzerhaubitzer 2000 to Patriots and Leopard 2A6, the supposed super tanks of NATO.
>See how good that does when the airspace is DENIED by Soviet/Russian AD and air superiority fighters
Yeah, they're very good, as evidenced by the fact that the Ukrainians are routinely downing Russian fighter and helicopter's within Russia's borders and the Moska was sunk by an anti-missile. Truly top tier AD2D system.
Thoughts about this:
(also, for the Howitzers, it's 155mm and 130mm)
A single aircraft type was so dominant over Iraq's air force it stopped them from getting air superiority. Even the Mirages didn't fix the situation but they did a lot better than the MiGs.
>chemical warfare
A very one-sided one, with Iraq using it.
Really all Iraq needed to do, or at least the Iraqi Military, needed to do was to MORE OR LESS gain Based Saddam's Trust and ultimately work itself into a competent fighting force (even during the middle of a high intensity conflict with their Shi'a Neighbor, Iran).
>gain Based Saddam's Trust
Yea but you're also forgetting that we're talking about an authoritarian country.
Also it's a fricking Arab country.
>Military leaders start being quite good
>Saddam gets scared they might coup him
>Put them on the frontline like Solomon or just kill or arrest them
It's one of the big problem for paranoid authoritarians and authoritarians in general that if their army gets too competent or free thinking then they'll be deposed.
But the USSR's Army in WWII eventually by the end of it became competent, also The Wehrmacht was also rather competent going into WWII. Surely it's possible (SURE I will agree both eventually got reigned in, however, it's still possible).
The German armed forces were constantly plagued by moronic infighting and mistrust between it's branches, just look at the shit Goering got up to.
The Germans are different, and then during the war there was the plot to kill Hitler. Stalin feared Zhukov replacing him at the end of the war so as soon as he wasn't needed he had all his positions and titles removed so that he would have no power base to challenge him.
The cult of patronage to the supreme leader makes armies weaker in general, the Russian Army has been shown up to have suffered from it under Putin, and the PLA would probably be much the same if it ever had to fight another war again.
>USSR's Army in WWII eventually by the end of it became competent
lmao no. Simply no. They were just as shit as they started out with germans inflicting still higher kill to death ratios to the very end despite the overwhelming force against them and they being merely fractures of their former selves. Vatnik union just had infinite supply cheat unlocked thanks to naive burgers which enabled it to spam its clueless lemming waves infinitely. They did the same in the opening phases of the war in Finland
You make a good point there. Sad The US supported the Vatnik Union during that. You'd think we'd know better.
We needed them, morons, because they were fighting our enemy for us and diverting men and materiel from being used against allies we actually cared about. Arguably the mistake was supplying them too well, or letting Stalin have his way with eastern Europe after the war ended.
>Apologize to Iraq and Iran for making fun of their war in the 1980s as "WW1 with jets" since it's clear now that any war where both sides failed to achieve full air superiority would just turn into an immobile attrition trench warfare no matter how advanced the tech is.
No.
sandmonkeys
>since it's clear now that any war where both sides failed to achieve full air superiority would just turn into an immobile attrition trench warfare no matter how advanced the tech is.
More like it's clear now that everyone in the world is generations behind America.
WAR
WAR NEVER CHANGES