60 Years Ago Another Democrat Stole the White House

[beagle9]

Nukes are not a "war strategy". Nukes are political weapons, the idea of them being "military weapons" ended decades ago.

And you keep failing, because you can only revert back to WWII, when that foolish concept was dreamed up by Curtis LeMay. Which has never worked in reality.

And there as no real "air superiority" during WWI! Hell, the biggest threat during that war was not actually enemy aircraft, but fire from the trenches. And you do not even need "air superiority" to do recon missions.

As I said, you keep spinning in circles, and relying on theories from 70 years ago that never worked. As is obvious, as you can not seem to come up with a single example from after WWII. And even ignore obvious cases where the very concept was proven to be a failure.

Well we shall agree to disagree then, but stay tuned because you will be proven wrong about air supremacy not being the ultimate lynch pin in any war effort.

Ukraine didn't start gaining ground until their drones started turning the tide of war back into their favor, and now Moscow is using the same tactics in order to gain back it's advantages in the conflict. Modern warfare is a back and forth learning experience for all those participating. As you see, the air war strategy is favored by both sides in hopes to gain the advantage for the troops and equipment to freely move forward in the ground war part of it.

 

[Mushroom]

Well we shall agree to disagree then, but stay tuned because you will be proven wrong about air supremacy not being the ultimate lynch pin in any war effort.

Even though it has never worked in any conflict after WWII.

Sorry, I will put my faith in over 75 years of military history, as opposed to what you are saying.

Air Supremacy actually meant little to anything, ever. The Japanese fought tooth and nail against the Allied forces, with almost no air power at all. And almost literally had to be beat over the head over and over by the forces on the ground until there was nobody left to fight.

Hell, look no farther than Iwo Jima. We invaded because it had an air base, and we wanted it. Only a squadron of fighters was there, the Japanese aircraft all left before the invasion commenced. So they had no air power at all, yet around 20,000 soldiers held off a force more than five times their size, for over a month.

The same thing in the "Bloodiest Battle of the Pacific", Okinawa. Kadena Air Base was already there, and was captured on the third day, all Japanese aircraft that could fly had already left. Yet the battle continued for three months, with the Allies throwing in over seven times the number of forces that Japan had. Yet, it fell also. After many months, with no "Japanese Air Force" at all. They could have bombed that island for years, and that would have gotten them no closer to taking it than sitting on the fantail of a ship and spitting at it.

The linchpin of any military operation is the boots on the ground, nothing else but. Aircraft are only there to support them in their mission. They are not the mission.

But tell me, the last time I can think of that we relied heavily on "Air Power", was in locating and taking out all those Iraqi SCUD launchers that plagued us in the Gulf War. Exactly how well did they do against those slow moving ground vehicles?

 

[beagle9]

Even though it has never worked in any conflict after WWII.

Sorry, I will put my faith in over 75 years of military history, as opposed to what you are saying.

Air Supremacy actually meant little to anything, ever. The Japanese fought tooth and nail against the Allied forces, with almost no air power at all. And almost literally had to be beat over the head over and over by the forces on the ground until there was nobody left to fight.

Hell, look no farther than Iwo Jima. We invaded because it had an air base, and we wanted it. Only a squadron of fighters was there, the Japanese aircraft all left before the invasion commenced. So they had no air power at all, yet around 20,000 soldiers held off a force more than five times their size, for over a month.

The same thing in the "Bloodiest Battle of the Pacific", Okinawa. Kadena Air Base was already there, and was captured on the third day, all Japanese aircraft that could fly had already left. Yet the battle continued for three months, with the Allies throwing in over seven times the number of forces that Japan had. Yet, it fell also. After many months, with no "Japanese Air Force" at all. They could have bombed that island for years, and that would have gotten them no closer to taking it than sitting on the fantail of a ship and spitting at it.

The linchpin of any military operation is the boots on the ground, nothing else but. Aircraft are only there to support them in their mission. They are not the mission.

But tell me, the last time I can think of that we relied heavily on "Air Power", was in locating and taking out all those Iraqi SCUD launchers that plagued us in the Gulf War. Exactly how well did they do against those slow moving ground vehicles?

I'm tired of living in your fantasy world.. We shall agree to disagree.

 

[Mushroom]

I'm tired of living in your fantasy world.. We shall agree to disagree.

Translation: "I can't think of a single time it has worked, and can't deny that it has never worked. So I will pretend I won".

It might be interesting if you could even come up with a single instance where it did work since WWII.

 

[beagle9]

Translation: "I can't think of a single time it has worked, and can't deny that it has never worked. So I will pretend I won".

It might be interesting if you could even come up with a single instance where it did work since WWII.

I won, you lost and I've given you enough evidence in our exchange, but you refuse to accept anything except what you want to allow, and that's closed minded bull crap fantasy land you live in, and seriously I don't have time for your idiocy really. I've entertained your ridiculousness enough.