No end in sight to the Army's dependence on airpower

#1
An interesting article from the US

No End in Sight to the Army’s Dependence on Airpower

I was amused by this quote

Every soldier generally thinks only as far as the radius of action of his branch of the service and only as quickly as he can move with his weapons.

– General der Flieger Karl Koller, Luftwaffe
Does this attitude exist within the UK?
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
Does this attitude exist within the UK?
I would have to say "yes", at least at an institutional level (I know some good, sharp SO2s who would disagree personally with it, but who are also raging against the machine).
 
#4
Yes, they are. It all comes down to risk averse, negative publicity etc.

"Hello is that the local CAS? Yes! Bomb that compound 300 meters north of my position if you will!".

It's easier to "nuke them From orbit" than close with the enemy and kill them.
 
#5
Yes, they are. It all comes down to risk averse, negative publicity etc.

"Hello is that the local CAS? Yes! Bomb that compound 300 meters north of my position if you will!".

It's easier to "nuke them From orbit" than close with the enemy and kill them.
Nice bit of bluff machismo there.
 

Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#6
A worrying lack of understanding from senior army leadership of the modern battle space.
 
#8
A worrying lack of understanding from senior army leadership of the modern battle space.
But surely their insistence on retaining mounted regiments of cavalry will serve us well in a post nuclear environment when the vehicles are broken from an EMP pulse and they can go see what hordes of irradiated mutants (or Cornish residents) are advancing over the hill towards us?

I'd argue that modern leadership have an excellent understanding of the post apocalyptic modern battlespace :)
 
#10
#12
Yes, they are. It all comes down to risk averse, negative publicity etc.

"Hello is that the local CAS? Yes! Bomb that compound 300 meters north of my position if you will!".

It's easier to "nuke them From orbit" than close with the enemy and kill them.
I think given the choice of advancing 300 metres over open ground towards an unknown enemy force or calling in air support I would pick the air support.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#15
I can't remember what the question was, but the answer is "Ajax".
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#16
Indeed - and it's grossly unfair for people to pick on the Army in this way. After all the Navy have more horses than aircraft carriers and nobody ever says a thing about that.
And the airforce has made a resounding success of both Libya and Syria.

That's probably the army's fault as well though because, like, VSOs went to oxbridge or something.
 
#17
And the airforce has made a resounding success of both Libya and Syria.

That's probably the army's fault as well though because, like, VSOs went to oxbridge or something.
,

The resounding success is always just around the corner. That kept us going in Helmand for years.

I suspect the crabs are probably working pretty hard in Iraq/Syria (and the risk of having to eject in Daesh-controlled territory is somewhat unappealing) but whether it's making any difference is hard to establish. All I can go by are the dismal releases on www.mod.uk telling us that we sent lots and lots of drones 'n' Tornados 'n' stuff in during the last few days, with loads of gucci ordnance, and destroyed a pickup truck, or a mortar. It's not really a compelling narrative, at least relative to the cost.

It means though that we are seen to be "doing something" which is of course what matters most.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#19
,

The resounding success is always just around the corner. That kept us going in Helmand for years.

I suspect the crabs are probably working pretty hard in Iraq/Syria (and the risk of having to eject in Daesh-controlled territory is somewhat unappealing) but whether it's making any difference is hard to establish. All I can go by are the dismal releases on www.mod.uk telling us that we sent lots and lots of drones 'n' Tornados 'n' stuff in during the last few days, with loads of gucci ordnance, and destroyed a pickup truck, or a mortar. It's not really a compelling narrative, at least relative to the cost.

It means though that we are seen to be "doing something" which is of course what matters most.

I think it's symptomatic of desperate concerns about future irrelevance of the army RAF. I imagine there's a feeling among VSOs from the army RAF that if they aren't seen to use their battalions aircraft then they won't be able to justify keeping them in the next SDSR.
 
#20
I think it's symptomatic of desperate concerns about future irrelevance of the army RAF. I imagine there's a feeling among VSOs from the army RAF that if they aren't seen to use their battalions aircraft then they won't be able to justify keeping them in the next SDSR.
At least the Army still HAS some battalions, and the RAF still HAS some aircraft. The Navy don't really have any ships left - and those they do have don't seem to be equipped with working engines.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top