In Your Words

[ScOoTeR1992]

look i don't know if this is the spot to be posting this but anyway me and my friend are having an argument, he says that a war can be won with just ground force like infantry, tanks and all that, but i say you need to have an air force to support the ground force. i wanna see what u people say who is right me or my friend

[AVRoe]

Air Superiority is a concept that has been the goal of military commanders since fighter aircraft were invented. Air Superiority means having total control of the airspace above a battlefield or theatre of conflict. Gaining this control means the destruction or neutralisation of enemy air assets that can pose a threat such as fighters , bombers and even recon aircraft. This can be done by their destruction in the air or on the ground by bombing airfields. This is not easily done as the Battle of Britain illustrates were the German commanders wanted air superiority before committing to an invasion of Britain. During this conflict the British airfields proved difficult to put out of action for any length of time and the British were able to replace fighter losses more quickly than the Germans.

[Konigstiger205]

Like AVRoe said air superiority gives a tremendous advantage....in 1944 in France the german panzer divisions where decimated by allied aircrafts...

[Aussie1001]

in todays war the sort of ordanance that aircraft can carry would make life very uncomfortable for the groundtroops can you imagine something like the A 10 having free reign over the battlefield not having to worry about other planes that may try to shoot it down.....
Your right.

[Negative Creep]

Although in your friend's argument does the enemy have air power? If it were just two regular armies fighting it out then yes, I'd say you could win a war. However, at larger cost and timescale that would be possible otherwise. With air power you can easily strike at enemy's logistics and infrastructure at relatively little cost in manpower. Without being able to directly target bridges, factories, powerplants etc any conflict would last a lot longer and cost more soldiers (but maybe less civilian?) deaths. Not to mention reconnaissance and information gathering that planes provide

[Njaco]

A couple factors:

Is it a convential war, i.e., WWII or non-convential like Vietnam or current situation in Iraq?

Any restrictions such as political or expendeture?

IMHO in an all-out war, air superiourity is first consideration and winning depends upon that.

Example would be the post I put in Stories:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/sto...lah-11132.html (The RAF vs the Mad Mullah)

[ccheese]

I guess it depends on the era. Rome's legions conqured half the world
without air power. Where two ground armies are slugging it out, it would
probably be a war of attrition, or just overpowering the enemy with superior
numbers. In today's age, no.... you need to maintain control of the skies
over the battlefield.

Charles

[Thorlifter]

Scooter, by your post, I'm assuming your just talking about one side has only ground forces and the other side and ground and air forces.

If this is the case, I think the side that has only ground forces is going to have a tough time.

Can you imagine squadrons of Stuka's, Helldivers, much less any of the heavy bombers, entering a battle with no return fire? Ouch!

[Matt308]

You guys are being naive about a ground forces ability to inflict hurt upon an airborne force. Certainly, airpower is a force to be reckoned with. However, the question of whether a war can be one without airpower vice whether a war can be one without ground troops are diametrically opposed.

An ultimately powerful ground force with anti-air forces can absolutely win a war. The cost would be high, since the effectiveness of air assets is so absolute vs ground troops. However, conversely, you cannot win a war with air power alone. While this might not hold true in all out nuclear war, even then I would not bet upon air assets only (assuming only aircraft delivered nukes).

War is the penultimate form of political negotiations. And todays precision bombing may destroy the will of the average populace, it cannot remove the will of a fighting force to enable occupation. It may demoralize, neutralize or perhaps even beat into submission an enemy, but to enable the ability to occupy the won territory by non-combatants cannot be accomplished with air power alone. In all cases, ground troops will be required. It is only the comparison of the effectiveness of a single ground troop versus a single airmen that is called into question.

[wilbur1]

Matt you summed up every single point i wanted to say damn Guys he nailed it on the head.

[ScOoTeR1992]

ok guys thanks for the help and i meant a conventional war like Iraq if that would help and i also mean a army with strong ground forces and a weak air-force and the other side having a strong air-force and weak ground force

[Konigstiger205]

I don't know where I read this but someone said that to have conquered a territory or a city you must have at least one soldier standing there.

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

That's pretty funny. If I was one soldier in an enemy city, and I had 100 planes overhead guarding me, I would still be scared of a mob attack.

[Konigstiger205]

I wonder if you where under attack by a mob of Muslims and you had a naked women standing in front of you, would they still attack or advert their eyes and go back....

[Negative Creep]

Originally Posted by Soundbreaker Welch?

That's pretty funny. If I was one soldier in an enemy city, and I had 100 planes overhead guarding me, I would still be scared of a mob attack.

It also raises a quite interesting question. If you had total air superiority, just how smaller ground force would you need to control an urban area?