jlf1961
Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomAviator
Yes I think war has evolved and have studied at great length where it has gone and where it is heading. The days of trench warfare and massed troops facing off are over. That all changed with the introduction of Air Calvarly to Vietnam.
Actually, the only change that Air Cav made to ground warfare was adding the ability to get as many troops as needed into a hotzone as fast as possible.
Trench warefare as seen in WW1 is gone, I agree, but by the same token, strong points established in a valley, hills or even a city with interconnecting trenches and tunnels still will serve a purpose.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomAviator
The focus also shifted from the infantryman to air power and technology.
Excuse me, but I have yet to see a fighter take and hold a position until more forces arrived to secure it. Saying the focus has shifted from the infantryman is a failure of judgement.
I would actually say that in today's war, the man on the ground is equally as important as that jet jockey buzzing around above his head. Lets face reality, the infantryman cannot, on his own, proceed without air cover, and the air power cannot hold ground. In many cases today, that infantryman on the ground paints a target so the fast movers can get in and hit it.
Sorry Aviator, there is still some things we ground pounders will always be needed for.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomAviator
Fighter pilots used to have to engage in protracted dogfights using guns, now they can engage over the horizon without ever seeing their target. This reduced the overall numbers needed to maintain air superiority. Whoever controls the skies controls the battlefield. (Subject of course to having the will and resolve to win even if unpopular. For example we COULD pull the ground troops back and oust insurgents through massive air strikes but the delicate members of our population would find the collateral damage unacceptable. )
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomAviator
However, I dare say I think warfare has changed to the point where there will never be another fighter ace....
Again, I will disagree with you here. As you pointed out, airpower needs less aircraft to maintain, HOWEVER, that is not going to stop air to air combat. Instead, it will make it that more important to have the best technology in the air.
Consider this, Korean war vintage Migs were shooting down F4 and F105's in Vietnam, why? Simple, the Migs still had guns, and the american jets didnt. It took a massive effort to even get the need for guns acknowledged, but by then the kill ratio was down to nearly 1 to 1. In Korea it was 5 to 1, in the second world war it was over 10 to 1.
Air combat is a combination of skill, training AND technology.
In the 91 gulf war, the few Iraqi pilots who did engage the coalition forces were shot down without a thought, why?
Simple, those pilots had the ability to fly and aim missles. No instinct born of constant training.
Just because every fighter equal to those in the American inventory is built by our allies does not mean that in the next few years some country will come up with one just as deadly, if not more so.
Now, on the evolution of war, yes, The weapions used in war have evolved, but the basic tactics, cruelty, inhumanity hasnt changed since Grog picked up the first club and beat the crap out of Gronk.
And, to be honest, I hope that it doesnt change. Robert E. Lee said "It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it."
He said this right after Shiloh.
I was a soldier once, guess I will always be in one shape or another. You cant see combat and ever enjoy it, or you are one psychotic individual. You cant walk through what was once one of the most beautiful cities in the Mideast and look at the maimed children, mass graves, and the unburied remains along the infamous green line of Beirut and find war enjoyable.
As for Police Actions and Peacekeeping missions, they are politically correct terms for sending troops in to blow the hell out of a bunch of people you dont agree with. The only difference between a Police Action and a Peacekeeping Mission is that in the Peacekeeping Mission, you have to ask permission to return fire from some idiot who has no clue as to what the situation is and wouldnt know it if he was standing next to you getting a chest punctured with AK fire.
If you dont believe me, ask any of the marines that survived the barracks in Beirut getting blown up by a truck bomb in 1983, or any poor sucker that had to walk the green line, or any one of a dozen little "Peacekeeping Missions" that President Reagan sent troops for.
Aviator, I will say one thing about you jet jockies, I dont care what anyone says, when the fit hits the shan, NAPALM is a welcome thing, so in my opinion, you guys deserve bunks with clean shits. Besides, what does a ground pounder know about clean sheets? Give us a pancho, pancho liner, a well covered hole to hunker down in, and we be happy. (okay, granted, the bad guys could morter the base, but still....)
_____________________________
Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?
You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.
Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI
|
RE: Has War Itself Evolved? - 
Profile
So I went reserve, and became an 0-4... If I had stayed active, instead of getting married and getting off active duty, Id be a fucking Admiral now... (Note to all junior officers: LISTEN TO THE MARINE GUNNY AT OCS. The Palmetto Bugs and Tarmac Debs WILL fuck up your life and career and the only things that can trip you up aint on base!) 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread