CheerfullyInsane
Posts: 199
Joined: 12/5/2010
From: Birkerod, Denmark
Status: offline
|
Whoa, that's a lot of questions. *LOL*
I'm no expert on the intricacies of aerial warfare, but here's my two cents.
First, let's split it into two parts, a modern and a WWII issue, since there are differences.
Taking the modern, and looking at Libya (and Iraq/Afghanistan) you run into the problem of lack of targets.
While Iraq was paralyzed by the initial bombardments taking out C&C, bridges, power-stations etc. there's a certain lack of targets for aerial bombardment when fighting insurgents. This goes double if you're trying to rebuild the country, and can't bomb just anything that moves.
One reason for ground-pounders is to have spotters. It's kinda hard to spot infantry when flying at 300mph, hence the use of laser-designators e.g.
Second, targets move (damn inconsiderate of them,but there you go). While modern jets are very good at what they do, they're also damn expensive and hard to train pilots for, so this is not like 1944 France with hordes of fighter-bombers freely roaming the skies looking for anything that might be a target. Modern jets rarely hover over a target area looking for targets of opportunity.
Third, there's the human shield buggers. Either through mixing with the population (Afghanistan), or parking your armed forces in urban areas (Libya). Again, while modern jets *are* very good, there are limits to how much they can reduce collateral damage.
Fourth, modern AAA is friggin' lethal. Especially in rough terrain where every shrub can contain some bastard with a SA-7. Modern fire-and-forget AA missiles are not to be trifled with.
So while airpower is important, and a huge boon to the forces employing them, they can't do it alone.
If for no other reason that you need troops to guard the airfield while the planes are flying. 
As to WWII, and the failure of strategic bombing, there's the issue of accuracy.
If memory serves, the initial bombing runs the British made in '42 had something like 5 bombs out of 100 land within 5 *miles* of the target. While accuracy did improve as the technology advanced, it was still saturation bombing instead of pinpoint strikes.
And as hard as it may be to imagine, it takes ridiculous amounts of high-explosive to do serious damage.
Think of the preparatory shelling on the trench-lines in WWI. 3 *hours* of constant bombardment, and yet the advance was met with bitter resistance.
The only thing I've experienced myself was being at the wrong end of a mortar-shelling, and you'd be amazed at how little cover you actually need to be safe.
Suffice it to say that killing someone who is doing their best to avoid it is not an easy task.
It gets even harder if there's protection available, such as cellars, bunkers or the like.
You'd think it would be easy to destroy a country's production-abilities, but looking at the '43-'44 period (arguably the time of the heaviest strategic bombing) the German production of fighter-aircraft actually *increased*. I'm not sure why this is, but I would think that blowing the walls and roof off a production building doesn't necessarily mean it is out of order. And this is assuming you have intelligence to actually find the bloody thing in the first place.
Not to mention that every important target is bound to be ringed with AAA. Or failing that, heavily protected in other ways. If you ever get the chance to visit the U-boat docks at La Rochelle, they're a sight to see.
Something like 20ft of steel-reinforced concrete, and here 60 years later they're still completely intact.
(I suspect mainly because nobody knows how to get rid of them.)
Same thing with modern bunkers for that matter. The first Iraq war (Desert Storm) saw some embarrassing moments when US ordnance was unable to penetrate the underground bunkers of the Iraqi C&C.
That is, until some bright spark thought of filling a 155mm shell-casing with HE and use that.......
When in doubt, use a bigger hammer.
So those are at least some of the reasons why you need boots on the ground.
I'm sure brighter people than me in here can give you plenty more, but the conclusion is that infantry isn't going anywhere anytime soon, despite what the fly-boys may try to convince you of. ;o)
_____________________________
"Something is always wrong, Baldrick. The fact that I'm not a millionaire aristocrat with the sexual capacity of a rutting rhino is a constant niggle"
- Edmund Blackadder
|
Printable Version
for history buffs&grognards: WHY is airpower insufficie... - 
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