Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Chaos in Gaza: The libertarian position on the Middle East fiasco
I Read This
May 27, 2018, 05:52:12 EDT *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you have any issues at all, visit our support site.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
  Print  
Author Topic: Chaos in Gaza: The libertarian position on the Middle East fiasco  (Read 16918 times)
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #45 on: January 24, 2009, 00:50:56 EST »

They were speaking of _strategic_ air power.

Parroting part of my position, misrepresenting it, and pretending it counters other parts of my position is dishonest.
Close Air support has the problem of finding targets in time and the U.S.S.R intervention in Afganistan showed that they are extremely vulnerable when they fly over hidden enemy positions as their only real defense is a strong offense, meaning whenever helicopter pilots were against small groups of troops and they spotted enemy troops first they would always win the engagement yet whenever they didn't and the enemy had modern anti-air weaponry the helicopter would mostly be at least severely damaged before it even had a chance to return fire.

The PAVN did not have effective portable air defence.

You are also _still_ clinging to the myth of small units.
The NVA did get shoulder fired anti-air missile launchers late in the war, and they did start bringing down US helicopters with great ease, also there is no reason why they couldn't have been issued to the PLAF to strike a crippling blow to the US military by downing a large number of helicopters.

They couldn't 'have been issued to the PLAF' because they didn't start getting SA-7s until 1972, (and even assuming earlier supply, the PLAF couldn't get any because they didn't even enter Soviet service until 1968).

As for their effectiveness:  They were highly effective for about three months, (for rather limited values of highly effective, only scoring a kill on 20-25% of hits, often a second hit on an already damaged aircraft), the deployment of flare dispensers and IR strobes rendered them nearly useless.
That limited the effectiveness of helicopters, they had to fly high to give them time to evaded and use flares, even then when facing multiple Strela-2's the helicopter could run out of flares and get hit.   The Strela-2 in wide spread use could have overwhelmed US helicopters by having many troops each with a Strela-2's fire at the same helicopter from different positions (that was proven effective in U.S.S.R field testing of the Strela-2) thus increasing the odds that the pilot would evade the path of one by colliding into another.   Also Russian army reports showed the low kill rates was due to misuse of the weapon, some troops didn't wait for a lock before firing thus the missile had a high chance of not getting a lock during its flight, also since the SA-7 had no range finder and it can get a lock far beyond its range some troops fired with a lock yet the missile could not reach the target, some troops even tried to fire them at jets that were simply was too fast for the missile.

Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
You also need to learn a bit more about the Vietnam War:  The PLAF often deployed in Brigade strength, and even before Tet the PAVN would engage with up to Divisional strength.
That was still small enough to evade detection from the air.

Perhaps you should spend less time arguing, and more time reading what actually happened in those battles:  Not only could aircraft find those formations, they _did_ find those formations and _pounded_ them.

This is why the causality figures from the larger battles often ended up with figures like:  PAVN 1500KIA/MIA, US 120KIA/MIA.
The US army had no choice by have patrols as they couldn't even spot enemy divisions from the air.  They also were able to spot divisions from the air when there in the open, this is why there was booth the NVA and PLAF wanted to stay in the jungles they were winning the jungles.

Repeating a false claim does not make it any more true the second time around.

When the PLAF engaged in large operations, and most of the time the PAVN did anything, they were set-piece battles with the goal of actually capturing something.  You can't do that hiding in the jungle, (which didn't work for large forces anyway, as things like la Drang and White Wing demonstrated).
Most of the time the PLAF was not trying to capture anything, most of the time they were defending their supply lines and villages under their control.

Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Also when you look at the overall casualties while the PLAF and NVA it didn't matter, the war with France show Vietnam was more then willing to win through attrition while absorbing huge losses.

The Vietminh were not taking 10:1 causality ratios, and was facing a force smaller than themselves.

The PLAF/PAVN was taking those 10:1 ratios, (when tangling with the US, set piece battles against the ARVN were about even), and was facing a force twice its size.
You assume major battles were the norm, when the norm was patrols running into each other as on the average day the PLAF didn't have any major offensive so the only PLAF forces out were patrols, sentries and logistical units.

Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Psy, US combat involvement was predicated on North Vietnamese involvement, and included attacks on North Vietnamese targets.
No US combat involvement was predicated by nationalists independent of North Vietnam attacking their South Vietnam puppet.

Quote
Whereas naval units of the Communist regime in Vietnam, in violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law, have deliberately and repeatedly attacked United States naval vessels lawfully present in international waters, and have thereby created a serious threat to international peace; and

Whereas theses attacks are part of a deliberate and systematic campaign of aggression that the Communist regime in North Vietnam has been waging against its neighbors and the nations joined with them in the collective defense of their freedom;

The _US CONGRESS_ and _LYNDON B. JOHNSON_ disagree with you.

(To forestall the obvious rejoinder:  Yes, LBJ was not exactly telling the truth about what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin.)
LBJ said privitaly "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there"

Yes, we all know LBJ was lying through his teeth to get the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.  That would be why _I POINTED THAT OUT_, and you even quoted me doing it _A SINGLE LINE ABOVE_ you pretending that pointing it out is somehow a response to what I said.
Thus LBJ didn't disagree with me, at that time North Vietnam had limited involvement with the NLF as at the time the NLF was more of a home grown South Vietnam insurgency.

Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Also the US occupation of South Vietnam was an act of aggression since the peace treaty stated clearly that the French would leave, there would be elections and there would a unified Vietnam.  Since South Vietnam became a puppet of the USA basically illegally occupied Vietnam thus North Vietnam had the legal right to defend against US aggression against Vietnam as they would have probably have won the reunification election.

The State of Vietnam was never signatory to the Geneva Accords.
What state of Vietnam?  Vietnam didn't legally exist, thus the election that would have brought unification.  I meant that South Vietnam (that didn't have a legal right to exist) broke the peace treaty between Ho Chi Minh's forces and France, with the peace treaty broke legally Ho Chi Minh's forces wasn't restricted to North Vietnam as the temporary division was part of the peace treaty.
 
Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Your attempt to ignore two thirds of the time the US was involved in combat is noted, and your concession that North Vietnam was part of the conflict is accepted.
You are blending the entire Vietnam war into a single war condition.

Are you lying, illiterate, or are you just forgetting things again?

PAVN incursions into the South long predated Tet, and even predated large US ground force deployments.
Again you are bleeding the entire Vietnam war in a single war condition,

Are you lying, illiterate, or are you just forgetting things again?  Or are you simply a moron who does not understand that a war can consist of more than one type of fighting.

If you were to actually _READ_ and _UNDERSTAND_ my posts you would know that I had pointed out that the Vietnam War included a range of ground conflicts, from the patrol battles that communist apologists and Hollywood pretend was the whole of the war, up to large set piece battles on the divisional scale.

You are on notice, again:  Keep this dishonest shit up and it will count as a blanket concession that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about and that you are thus conceding the discussion.
Again you blending the Vietnam war into a single war condition,  yes there was major battles yet there were few of them early in the war and there really wasn't many major battles for the length of the Vietnam war.

Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
I'll should reword that, you do know that South Vietnam was the first belligerent since the cease fire between the nationalists and the French?

Rewording it does not make it any more relevant.

It doesn't matter who started things:  If the other guy controls the sea lanes leading to your ports, he can stop and seize any war materials anyone tries to ship to you.  If ships attempt to run the blockade, they can be sunk out of hand.
That assume the U.S.S.R wouldn't have started escorting them with warships and setting up screens of destroyers to prevent US warships from getting close to the cargo ships.

Well, if the Soviet government wanted to start WWIII....
That would be if the USA wanted to start WWIII, Vietnam was a illegal war, the US couldn't even get Britain to support the war.

Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Guerrilla actions can slowly bleed the enemy to the point they have to withdrawal their occupying forces. 

What you are thinking of is having the guerrillas hang on not losing until another avenue to win opens up.

No guerrilla force has _ever_ won a war, winning has always come at the hands of politics or switching to conventional warfare.
Bleeding the enemies army to withdrawal is political.

Except that wasn't what happened.  What turned things in the US was inaccurate reporting about battle results, and atrocities comitted by US forces.
Inaccurate reporting?  Atrocities?  Yes they were a factor but at the end the US couldn't ever win Vietnam, they were determined to liberate themselves from foreign occupation at any cost.
Logged
rwpikul
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1961


« Reply #46 on: January 25, 2009, 00:07:48 EST »

You are on notice, again:  Keep this dishonest shit up and it will count as a blanket concession that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about and that you are thus conceding the discussion.
Again you blending the Vietnam war into a single war condition,

Your blanket concession is accepted.
Logged

--

Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #47 on: January 25, 2009, 00:53:04 EST »

You are on notice, again:  Keep this dishonest shit up and it will count as a blanket concession that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about and that you are thus conceding the discussion.
Again you blending the Vietnam war into a single war condition,

Your blanket concession is accepted.
Look if Vietnam was like you said there would have been thousands of significant battles due to the length of the war, yet really there wasn't that many large battle for the length of the war, most days in most of South Vietnam during the duration of Vietnam nothing of significance happened.  Yes as the war dragged on there was more larger battles but early on there was very few.
Logged
rwpikul
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1961


« Reply #48 on: January 25, 2009, 13:39:18 EST »

You are on notice, again:  Keep this dishonest shit up and it will count as a blanket concession that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about and that you are thus conceding the discussion.
Again you blending the Vietnam war into a single war condition,

Your blanket concession is accepted.
Look if Vietnam was like you said there would have been thousands of significant battles due to the length of the war, yet really there wasn't that many large battle for the length of the war, most days in most of South Vietnam during the duration of Vietnam nothing of significance happened.  Yes as the war dragged on there was more larger battles but early on there was very few.

It's idiocy like that that proves that you are either unable to understand what you read, unwilling to actually read it, or simply dishonest.

GO BACK AND ACTUALLY READ WHAT I SAID.

If you want to argue with me, argue against my position and not some fantasy that only exists in your head.
Logged

--

Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #49 on: January 25, 2009, 18:37:09 EST »

You are on notice, again:  Keep this dishonest shit up and it will count as a blanket concession that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about and that you are thus conceding the discussion.
Again you blending the Vietnam war into a single war condition,

Your blanket concession is accepted.
Look if Vietnam was like you said there would have been thousands of significant battles due to the length of the war, yet really there wasn't that many large battle for the length of the war, most days in most of South Vietnam during the duration of Vietnam nothing of significance happened.  Yes as the war dragged on there was more larger battles but early on there was very few.

It's idiocy like that that proves that you are either unable to understand what you read, unwilling to actually read it, or simply dishonest.

GO BACK AND ACTUALLY READ WHAT I SAID.

If you want to argue with me, argue against my position and not some fantasy that only exists in your head.

You claimed "When the PLAF engaged in large operations, and most of the time the PAVN did anything, they were set-piece battles with the goal of actually capturing something.  You can't do that hiding in the jungle, (which didn't work for large forces anyway, as things like la Drang and White Wing demonstrated)"

First off the NVA was able to hide whole divisions from the air.  Next there was military commanders of the NVA, U.S.S.R and PLAF that had the option that the best long term strategy was hit and run tactics, that they didn't have to leave the safety of the jungle and could instead draw the US into the Jungle and win through attrition.
Logged
rwpikul
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1961


« Reply #50 on: January 26, 2009, 23:35:37 EST »

You are on notice, again:  Keep this dishonest shit up and it will count as a blanket concession that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about and that you are thus conceding the discussion.
Again you blending the Vietnam war into a single war condition,

Your blanket concession is accepted.
Look if Vietnam was like you said there would have been thousands of significant battles due to the length of the war, yet really there wasn't that many large battle for the length of the war, most days in most of South Vietnam during the duration of Vietnam nothing of significance happened.  Yes as the war dragged on there was more larger battles but early on there was very few.

It's idiocy like that that proves that you are either unable to understand what you read, unwilling to actually read it, or simply dishonest.

GO BACK AND ACTUALLY READ WHAT I SAID.

If you want to argue with me, argue against my position and not some fantasy that only exists in your head.

You claimed "When the PLAF engaged in large operations, and most of the time the PAVN did anything, they were set-piece battles with the goal of actually capturing something.  You can't do that hiding in the jungle, (which didn't work for large forces anyway, as things like la Drang and White Wing demonstrated)"

First off the NVA was able to hide whole divisions from the air.

Only when they weren't doing anything but hide.

And even then it generally did not work unless they were dispersed, (in which case you are not hiding a division, but rather a few dozen companies).

Now stop taking things out of context and try engaging in honest debate for once in your life.

Quote from: Psy
  Next there was military commanders of the NVA, U.S.S.R and PLAF that had the option that the best long term strategy was hit and run tactics, that they didn't have to leave the safety of the jungle and could instead draw the US into the Jungle and win through attrition.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT OVERALL STRATEGY, GO BACK AND ACTUALLY READ WHAT THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT.

If you honestly think I have ever been talking about overall strategy, you are either unable to understand the language, or you are unable to understand the concepts.  Are you illiterate, an idiot or hopelessly dishonest?
Logged

--

Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #51 on: January 27, 2009, 00:40:02 EST »

You are on notice, again:  Keep this dishonest shit up and it will count as a blanket concession that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about and that you are thus conceding the discussion.
Again you blending the Vietnam war into a single war condition,

Your blanket concession is accepted.
Look if Vietnam was like you said there would have been thousands of significant battles due to the length of the war, yet really there wasn't that many large battle for the length of the war, most days in most of South Vietnam during the duration of Vietnam nothing of significance happened.  Yes as the war dragged on there was more larger battles but early on there was very few.

It's idiocy like that that proves that you are either unable to understand what you read, unwilling to actually read it, or simply dishonest.

GO BACK AND ACTUALLY READ WHAT I SAID.

If you want to argue with me, argue against my position and not some fantasy that only exists in your head.

You claimed "When the PLAF engaged in large operations, and most of the time the PAVN did anything, they were set-piece battles with the goal of actually capturing something.  You can't do that hiding in the jungle, (which didn't work for large forces anyway, as things like la Drang and White Wing demonstrated)"

First off the NVA was able to hide whole divisions from the air.

Only when they weren't doing anything but hide.

And even then it generally did not work unless they were dispersed, (in which case you are not hiding a division, but rather a few dozen companies).

Now stop taking things out of context and try engaging in honest debate for once in your life.
Or when the division is moving with a thick jungle canopy above them, we are talking about when thermal imaging on planes was crude and the NVA setup decoys to make pilots looking through thermal imaging systems think they were looking at idling trucks when they were just diesel generators modified to give off as much heat as possible so it stands to thermal imaging.

Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
  Next there was military commanders of the NVA, U.S.S.R and PLAF that had the option that the best long term strategy was hit and run tactics, that they didn't have to leave the safety of the jungle and could instead draw the US into the Jungle and win through attrition.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT OVERALL STRATEGY, GO BACK AND ACTUALLY READ WHAT THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT.

If you honestly think I have ever been talking about overall strategy, you are either unable to understand the language, or you are unable to understand the concepts.  Are you illiterate, an idiot or hopelessly dishonest?
Then you must not know the topic of this thread, we were talking air-power as a overall strategy.  It started with the statement that air-power and not ground forces win wars.
Logged
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #52 on: January 27, 2009, 06:12:12 EST »

Then you must not know the topic of this thread, we were talking air-power as a overall strategy.  It started with the statement that air-power and not ground forces win wars.

Now as the statement you trying to use to prove your point was mine, I think i is you tha must not know what this about.

my statement. Air power wins the field, but you one nothing if you don't hold it with ground forces. Also, Vietnam did not have Apaches, A-10 warthogs or GPS guided cruise missles. are othe equvlem power air-to ground. Though Vitename error Carpet bombing was extremity effect as well, when the valuble targets were in the atreas they were alound to strike (poltical not technical reason)

Also you "war of patrols" is note even have as much as what you though, Whe a Patrol foound a singican body or resiest, the called in an Air strike, like modern Marine Recon does.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2009, 06:17:32 EST by rogue-kun » Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #53 on: January 27, 2009, 09:17:45 EST »

Then you must not know the topic of this thread, we were talking air-power as a overall strategy.  It started with the statement that air-power and not ground forces win wars.

Now as the statement you trying to use to prove your point was mine, I think i is you tha must not know what this about.

my statement. Air power wins the field, but you one nothing if you don't hold it with ground forces. Also, Vietnam did not have Apaches, A-10 warthogs or GPS guided cruise missles. are othe equvlem power air-to ground. Though Vitename error Carpet bombing was extremity effect as well, when the valuble targets were in the atreas they were alound to strike (poltical not technical reason)
World War One proved that armies can protect themselves from bombardment from artillery and the NVA used the similar tactics (yet more tunnelling then trenching) so they could survive bombardment after air strikes, the NVA learned this tactic when fighting the French and needed a tactic to survive French artillery.

Quote from: rogue-kun
Also you "war of patrols" is note even have as much as what you though, Whe a Patrol foound a singican body or resiest, the called in an Air strike, like modern Marine Recon does.
That is correct, yet for that to work it means the patrol has to then keep a distance away from the enemy body, in Vietnam NVA divisions tried to get as close as possible to patrols so when US air strikes came there was a chance the air strikes would also hit US positions.
Logged
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #54 on: January 27, 2009, 16:16:32 EST »

Then you must not know the topic of this thread, we were talking air-power as a overall strategy.  It started with the statement that air-power and not ground forces win wars.

Now as the statement you trying to use to prove your point was mine, I think i is you tha must not know what this about.

my statement. Air power wins the field, but you one nothing if you don't hold it with ground forces. Also, Vietnam did not have Apaches, A-10 warthogs or GPS guided cruise missles. are othe equvlem power air-to ground. Though Vitename error Carpet bombing was extremity effect as well, when the valuble targets were in the atreas they were alound to strike (poltical not technical reason)
World War One proved that armies can protect themselves from bombardment from artillery and the NVA used the similar tactics (yet more tunnelling then trenching) so they could survive bombardment after air strikes, the NVA learned this tactic when fighting the French and needed a tactic to survive French artillery.

Quote from: rogue-kun
Also you "war of patrols" is note even have as much as what you though, Whe a Patrol foound a singican body or resiest, the called in an Air strike, like modern Marine Recon does.
That is correct, yet for that to work it means the patrol has to then keep a distance away from the enemy body, in Vietnam NVA divisions tried to get as close as possible to patrols so when US air strikes came there was a chance the air strikes would also hit US positions.

You tiny to invoke WWI where a bomber was a recon plane where the piolt droped an hand grade over the side? wat more a plane that had a reall posiblity of not making it back to base even with out enemy invoment. And Say the Tactic as stil reven when Atteril inclde Bucner Busters and ground shaking "equake bomb?

And angian Vitatnam style comping bombing is unnessary with the Apache and a A-10
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #55 on: January 27, 2009, 18:37:51 EST »

Then you must not know the topic of this thread, we were talking air-power as a overall strategy.  It started with the statement that air-power and not ground forces win wars.

Now as the statement you trying to use to prove your point was mine, I think i is you tha must not know what this about.

my statement. Air power wins the field, but you one nothing if you don't hold it with ground forces. Also, Vietnam did not have Apaches, A-10 warthogs or GPS guided cruise missles. are othe equvlem power air-to ground. Though Vitename error Carpet bombing was extremity effect as well, when the valuble targets were in the atreas they were alound to strike (poltical not technical reason)
World War One proved that armies can protect themselves from bombardment from artillery and the NVA used the similar tactics (yet more tunnelling then trenching) so they could survive bombardment after air strikes, the NVA learned this tactic when fighting the French and needed a tactic to survive French artillery.

Quote from: rogue-kun
Also you "war of patrols" is note even have as much as what you though, Whe a Patrol foound a singican body or resiest, the called in an Air strike, like modern Marine Recon does.
That is correct, yet for that to work it means the patrol has to then keep a distance away from the enemy body, in Vietnam NVA divisions tried to get as close as possible to patrols so when US air strikes came there was a chance the air strikes would also hit US positions.

You tiny to invoke WWI where a bomber was a recon plane where the piolt droped an hand grade over the side? wat more a plane that had a reall posiblity of not making it back to base even with out enemy invoment. And Say the Tactic as stil reven when Atteril inclde Bucner Busters and ground shaking "equake bomb?

And angian Vitatnam style comping bombing is unnessary with the Apache and a A-10
No I'm comparing areal bombardment of troops to artillery bombardment of troops.  Also penetrating bombs are ineffective against entrenched troops, you'd only get the troops in the intermediate area as even trenches of WWI were engendered to avoid bast energy from channel through the trench as the trench (or tunnel) would have 90 degree turns so explosive energy in the trench would only travel so far then hit a wall.
Logged
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #56 on: January 27, 2009, 19:05:00 EST »

Then you must not know the topic of this thread, we were talking air-power as a overall strategy.  It started with the statement that air-power and not ground forces win wars.

Now as the statement you trying to use to prove your point was mine, I think i is you tha must not know what this about.

my statement. Air power wins the field, but you one nothing if you don't hold it with ground forces. Also, Vietnam did not have Apaches, A-10 warthogs or GPS guided cruise missles. are othe equvlem power air-to ground. Though Vitename error Carpet bombing was extremity effect as well, when the valuble targets were in the atreas they were alound to strike (poltical not technical reason)
World War One proved that armies can protect themselves from bombardment from artillery and the NVA used the similar tactics (yet more tunnelling then trenching) so they could survive bombardment after air strikes, the NVA learned this tactic when fighting the French and needed a tactic to survive French artillery.

Quote from: rogue-kun
Also you "war of patrols" is note even have as much as what you though, Whe a Patrol foound a singican body or resiest, the called in an Air strike, like modern Marine Recon does.
That is correct, yet for that to work it means the patrol has to then keep a distance away from the enemy body, in Vietnam NVA divisions tried to get as close as possible to patrols so when US air strikes came there was a chance the air strikes would also hit US positions.

You tiny to invoke WWI where a bomber was a recon plane where the piolt droped an hand grade over the side? wat more a plane that had a reall posiblity of not making it back to base even with out enemy invoment. And Say the Tactic as stil reven when Atteril inclde Bucner Busters and ground shaking "equake bomb?

And angian Vitatnam style comping bombing is unnessary with the Apache and a A-10
No I'm comparing areal bombardment of troops to artillery bombardment of troops.  Also penetrating bombs are ineffective against entrenched troops, you'd only get the troops in the intermediate area as even trenches of WWI were engendered to avoid bast energy from channel through the trench as the trench (or tunnel) would have 90 degree turns so explosive energy in the trench would only travel so far then hit a wall.

there is no compareson when it come to Range and mobility. WWI you had an "behind the lines" that the artillery could not touch your command structure, your supply lines etc. Airral bombard changed all that.
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #57 on: January 27, 2009, 19:39:50 EST »

Then you must not know the topic of this thread, we were talking air-power as a overall strategy.  It started with the statement that air-power and not ground forces win wars.

Now as the statement you trying to use to prove your point was mine, I think i is you tha must not know what this about.

my statement. Air power wins the field, but you one nothing if you don't hold it with ground forces. Also, Vietnam did not have Apaches, A-10 warthogs or GPS guided cruise missles. are othe equvlem power air-to ground. Though Vitename error Carpet bombing was extremity effect as well, when the valuble targets were in the atreas they were alound to strike (poltical not technical reason)
World War One proved that armies can protect themselves from bombardment from artillery and the NVA used the similar tactics (yet more tunnelling then trenching) so they could survive bombardment after air strikes, the NVA learned this tactic when fighting the French and needed a tactic to survive French artillery.

Quote from: rogue-kun
Also you "war of patrols" is note even have as much as what you though, Whe a Patrol foound a singican body or resiest, the called in an Air strike, like modern Marine Recon does.
That is correct, yet for that to work it means the patrol has to then keep a distance away from the enemy body, in Vietnam NVA divisions tried to get as close as possible to patrols so when US air strikes came there was a chance the air strikes would also hit US positions.

You tiny to invoke WWI where a bomber was a recon plane where the piolt droped an hand grade over the side? wat more a plane that had a reall posiblity of not making it back to base even with out enemy invoment. And Say the Tactic as stil reven when Atteril inclde Bucner Busters and ground shaking "equake bomb?

And angian Vitatnam style comping bombing is unnessary with the Apache and a A-10
No I'm comparing areal bombardment of troops to artillery bombardment of troops.  Also penetrating bombs are ineffective against entrenched troops, you'd only get the troops in the intermediate area as even trenches of WWI were engendered to avoid bast energy from channel through the trench as the trench (or tunnel) would have 90 degree turns so explosive energy in the trench would only travel so far then hit a wall.

there is no compareson when it come to Range and mobility. WWI you had an "behind the lines" that the artillery could not touch your command structure, your supply lines etc. Airral bombard changed all that.
Yet artillery has been used to bombard troop positions also aerial attacks has the disadvantage of being vulnerable to anti-air weapons, in theory a army with enough anti-air power wouldn't need any air power as they would have the ability to shoot down any aircraft that approaches them thus could achieve air superiority from the ground.
Logged
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #58 on: January 27, 2009, 19:48:49 EST »

Then you must not know the topic of this thread, we were talking air-power as a overall strategy.  It started with the statement that air-power and not ground forces win wars.

Now as the statement you trying to use to prove your point was mine, I think i is you tha must not know what this about.

my statement. Air power wins the field, but you one nothing if you don't hold it with ground forces. Also, Vietnam did not have Apaches, A-10 warthogs or GPS guided cruise missles. are othe equvlem power air-to ground. Though Vitename error Carpet bombing was extremity effect as well, when the valuble targets were in the atreas they were alound to strike (poltical not technical reason)
World War One proved that armies can protect themselves from bombardment from artillery and the NVA used the similar tactics (yet more tunnelling then trenching) so they could survive bombardment after air strikes, the NVA learned this tactic when fighting the French and needed a tactic to survive French artillery.

Quote from: rogue-kun
Also you "war of patrols" is note even have as much as what you though, Whe a Patrol foound a singican body or resiest, the called in an Air strike, like modern Marine Recon does.
That is correct, yet for that to work it means the patrol has to then keep a distance away from the enemy body, in Vietnam NVA divisions tried to get as close as possible to patrols so when US air strikes came there was a chance the air strikes would also hit US positions.

You tiny to invoke WWI where a bomber was a recon plane where the piolt droped an hand grade over the side? wat more a plane that had a reall posiblity of not making it back to base even with out enemy invoment. And Say the Tactic as stil reven when Atteril inclde Bucner Busters and ground shaking "equake bomb?

And angian Vitatnam style comping bombing is unnessary with the Apache and a A-10
No I'm comparing areal bombardment of troops to artillery bombardment of troops.  Also penetrating bombs are ineffective against entrenched troops, you'd only get the troops in the intermediate area as even trenches of WWI were engendered to avoid bast energy from channel through the trench as the trench (or tunnel) would have 90 degree turns so explosive energy in the trench would only travel so far then hit a wall.

there is no compareson when it come to Range and mobility. WWI you had an "behind the lines" that the artillery could not touch your command structure, your supply lines etc. Airral bombard changed all that.
Yet artillery has been used to bombard troop positions also aerial attacks has the disadvantage of being vulnerable to anti-air weapons, in theory a army with enough anti-air power wouldn't need any air power as they would have the ability to shoot down any aircraft that approaches them thus could achieve air superiority from the ground.

Ground-to-air has a significant speed problem in hitting jet speed targets.
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #59 on: January 27, 2009, 21:32:24 EST »

Then you must not know the topic of this thread, we were talking air-power as a overall strategy.  It started with the statement that air-power and not ground forces win wars.

Now as the statement you trying to use to prove your point was mine, I think i is you tha must not know what this about.

my statement. Air power wins the field, but you one nothing if you don't hold it with ground forces. Also, Vietnam did not have Apaches, A-10 warthogs or GPS guided cruise missles. are othe equvlem power air-to ground. Though Vitename error Carpet bombing was extremity effect as well, when the valuble targets were in the atreas they were alound to strike (poltical not technical reason)
World War One proved that armies can protect themselves from bombardment from artillery and the NVA used the similar tactics (yet more tunnelling then trenching) so they could survive bombardment after air strikes, the NVA learned this tactic when fighting the French and needed a tactic to survive French artillery.

Quote from: rogue-kun
Also you "war of patrols" is note even have as much as what you though, Whe a Patrol foound a singican body or resiest, the called in an Air strike, like modern Marine Recon does.
That is correct, yet for that to work it means the patrol has to then keep a distance away from the enemy body, in Vietnam NVA divisions tried to get as close as possible to patrols so when US air strikes came there was a chance the air strikes would also hit US positions.

You tiny to invoke WWI where a bomber was a recon plane where the piolt droped an hand grade over the side? wat more a plane that had a reall posiblity of not making it back to base even with out enemy invoment. And Say the Tactic as stil reven when Atteril inclde Bucner Busters and ground shaking "equake bomb?

And angian Vitatnam style comping bombing is unnessary with the Apache and a A-10
No I'm comparing areal bombardment of troops to artillery bombardment of troops.  Also penetrating bombs are ineffective against entrenched troops, you'd only get the troops in the intermediate area as even trenches of WWI were engendered to avoid bast energy from channel through the trench as the trench (or tunnel) would have 90 degree turns so explosive energy in the trench would only travel so far then hit a wall.

there is no compareson when it come to Range and mobility. WWI you had an "behind the lines" that the artillery could not touch your command structure, your supply lines etc. Airral bombard changed all that.
Yet artillery has been used to bombard troop positions also aerial attacks has the disadvantage of being vulnerable to anti-air weapons, in theory a army with enough anti-air power wouldn't need any air power as they would have the ability to shoot down any aircraft that approaches them thus could achieve air superiority from the ground.

Ground-to-air has a significant speed problem in hitting jet speed targets.
Low to ground anti-air guns can take care of jets as they can't outrun bullets and computers that have a lock on the jet can fire where the jet will be.  As for jets higher up, if the SAM has a lock early enough it can fire the SAM so the missile goes for the jet head on rather then catching up to the jet from behind.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!