The end of the tank?

[aquatus1]

so the new American Way of War is to make sure to only commit to wars where battles aren't likely to be fierce? i.e. American wars should only be against small countries that they can bully and awe into submission with their Overwhelming Might?

Politics has nothing to do with it. We are talking tactics. If we see a situation where our fighter jets are in danger, we don't send them in until we have missiled everything that looks at us funny. When there is no more danger of the jets getting blown out of the sky, that's when we send them in.

Like happened so effectively in Iraq and Afghanistan, and which made Syria so afraid that they gave in to America's wishes?

Yeah...not getting into politics...

You rather make it sound as if the Iraqis just gave in the moment they got to Baghdad, and peace has reigned ever since.

Yes to the first and no to the second. Hell, peace hasn't reigned in that area in thousands of years; why would it start now?

It doesn't work, does it.

Worked pretty damn good. What part of driving straight into the heart of Baghdad with barely a handful of contacts seems like not working to you?

These people aren't afraid of American overwhelming superiority. It just doesn't cow them into submission.

So? What does that have to do with the conversation?

[aquatus1]

55,000 artillery rounds in the gulf war?

I know, right? The joke at the time was that we just installed a 55,000 hole golf course in Iraq.

But the 6,000 I am speaking about is 2 guns in 1 location supporting 1 infantry platoon. 6,000 rounds in a radius of 24km.

Strange way to phrase it. Regardless, we are using artillery less and less. It is a natural consequence of advancing technology.

You don't have time to wait for F15s and Apaches during a firefight. Artillery is 100% necessary.

Air support is pretty much even with artillery as far as reaction time goes, and much, much more versatile. That was actually my job in the Navy. You know in the movies, where everyone is pinned down and the sergeant is screaming into the phone that they need air support NOW!, and suddenly an airplane swoops down and bombs the heck out of the bad guys? My job was to makes sure that we always had 7 F-18's up and running, so that 3 to 5 of them could circle over the combat arena at all times, just waiting for the call to come in.

In the not too distant future, drones will be taking over that job. They can stay up longer, more cheaply, and put less pilots at risk.

[Kaa-Tzik]

Meh. We had air superiority over other aircraft. We didn't have air superiority that could support ground troops till Vietnam.

Air battle won't ever be fierce. It would be suicide to send our pilots into a situation like that. Like I said, American pilots just don't train too hard in dogfighting. Prior to sending jets in, we would make sure that anything that would endanger the jets is reduced to component parts. The jets aren't there to fight other jets. They are there to fight ships and support ground troops.

Air superiority means you control the skies, and so can attack ground forces at will within the constraints of any AAA capability of your enemy. But simply to gain air superiority probably means you overwhelm your enemy in all aspects of conventional war anyway. Vietnam is not a good example.

It is clear I talk about a notional future war in Europe, and clearly between NATO and Russia. If you think the airwar will not be fierce, then think again. What precisely, given that my scenario discounts nuclear war, will reduce any threats to your aircraft to "component parts". While the location of the fixed SAM sites are known, and the vast majority nowhere near any battlefield, the major air defence assets will be mobile systems such as S-400. You simply will not be able to roam the skies at will to take them out. America has had an easy ride in three wars against demoralised, badly led and equiped enemy, do you not think that a war against a real army will be a bit different for you.....

It also needs to be considered that in a future major war, then spy satellites and GPS may not survive for very long as usuable assets, for either side. This will rather degrade the ability to track mobile SAM systems on the ground and give targeting information to cruise missiles. And I add that satellites are vital to waging modern war, and US is rather hamstrung in getting into orbit these days. Oh, still the ability to launch satellites, but no ability to get men into orbit, Soyuz may be old, but it can still fly about in orbit and have some value, then there is the ISS, which you will have no access to in war.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Kaa-Tzik

[Agent0range]

I know, right? The joke at the time was that we just installed a 55,000 hole golf course in Iraq.

Strange way to phrase it. Regardless, we are using artillery less and less. It is a natural consequence of advancing technology.

Air support is pretty much even with artillery as far as reaction time goes, and much, much more versatile. That was actually my job in the Navy. You know in the movies, where everyone is pinned down and the sergeant is screaming into the phone that they need air support NOW!, and suddenly an airplane swoops down and bombs the heck out of the bad guys? My job was to makes sure that we always had 7 F-18's up and running, so that 3 to 5 of them could circle over the combat arena at all times, just waiting for the call to come in.

In the not too distant future, drones will be taking over that job. They can stay up longer, more cheaply, and put less pilots at risk.

No way, the reaction time is not the same! If you are not conducting a planned mission with designated air support the wait time is horrible. The time to get air support from Bagram to the Kunar province is at least 15 minutes. I have spent my fair share of time in a bunker praying to hear the sound of the some jet engines.

Artillery reaction time? 45 seconds.

[aquatus1]

Air superiority means you control the skies, and so can attack ground forces at will within the constraints of any AAA capability of your enemy. But simply to gain air superiority probably means you overwhelm your enemy in all aspects of conventional war anyway. Vietnam is not a good example.

Vietnam isn't an example at all. Vietnam was just the point where air superiority became a significant factor. In particular the helicopter, but we did see the initial stages of air-to-ground fighter combat as well.

It is clear I talk about a notional future war in Europe, and clearly between NATO and Russia.

Okay.

If you think the airwar will not be fierce, then think again. What precisely, given that my scenario discounts nuclear war, will reduce any threats to your aircraft to "component parts".

Missile strikes. Answer applies to both sides.

While the location of the fixed SAM sites are known, and the vast majority nowhere near any battlefield, the major air defence assets will be mobile systems such as S-400. You simply will not be able to roam the skies at will to take them out.

Like I said, as long as the threat is there, you won't be roaming the skies at all. Until the S-400's are taken out, fighter jets would not be sent in. It would be ridiculous to send a fighter to destroy something specifically designed to take down fighters.

America has had an easy ride in three wars against demoralised, badly led and equiped enemy, do you not think that a war against a real army will be a bit different for you.....

For me? I'm no longer in the military. And yes, of course a war with a well-trained, disciplined, and modern-arms force is going to be different than an insurgency war. What kind of silly question is that?

Artillery had its run, and it was a good one. It still has a place in the modern battlefield, but there are really no two ways about it; it is obsolete and new technology has put every capability it has into boats and aircraft that can act in conjunction or independently of the ground troops. It is slowly and inevitably being phased out, as should be expected of an army preparing to fight the next war, not the wars of the past.

[aquatus1]

No way, the reaction time is not the same! If you are not conducting a planned mission with designated air support the wait time is horrible. The time to get air support from Bagram to the Kunar province is at least 15 minutes. I have spent my fair share of time in a bunker praying to hear the sound of the some jet engines.

Artillery reaction time? 45 seconds.

Don't know what to tell you. Our squadron averaged a reaction time of 3 minutes in a 42-mile zone. The hardest night we had was 7 calls in a 15 minute period in different parts of the map, but we answered each and every one. I don't know how long artillery reaction takes, or if it can cover a 42 mile area and handle that many calls, but the fact remains that we could, we did, and 30 minutes later, we had another set of planes up there in case another set of call came in.

[Kaa-Tzik]

Vietnam isn't an example at all. Vietnam was just the point where air superiority became a significant factor. In particular the helicopter, but we did see the initial stages of air-to-ground fighter combat as well.

Okay.

Missile strikes. Answer applies to both sides.

Like I said, as long as the threat is there, you won't be roaming the skies at all. Until the S-400's are taken out, fighter jets would not be sent in. It would be ridiculous to send a fighter to destroy something specifically designed to take down fighters.

For me? I'm no longer in the military. And yes, of course a war with a well-trained, disciplined, and modern-arms force is going to be different than an insurgency war. What kind of silly question is that?

Artillery had its run, and it was a good one. It still has a place in the modern battlefield, but there are really no two ways about it; it is obsolete and new technology has put every capability it has into boats and aircraft that can act in conjunction or independently of the ground troops. It is slowly and inevitably being phased out, as should be expected of an army preparing to fight the next war, not the wars of the past.

It is not a silly question as you have made some posts here that seem to presume US just says something is so, and lo, it is so.....

What are you going to take out S-400 with? I made an edit to my post just as you posted this, so perhaps read the edit about satellites.

And as for your presumptions about artillery, then I reccomend you are given high reponsibility in Pentagon over this matter and get rid of US artillery, please. I wonder how on the battlefield will the "boots on the ground" deal with a barrage from "Buratino", because if you think all such systems are going to be destroyed from the air, then think again, or, like aircraft, you will not put the soldiers were they may get hurt, like back in USA in a bunker and not anywere near one of those dangerous battlefields....

Edited February 4, 2014 by Kaa-Tzik

[aquatus1]

It is not a silly question as you have made some posts here that seem to presume US just says something is so, and lo, it is so.....

And what posts would those be?

What are you going to take out S-400 with?

You'll have to ask the commanders and generals about the specifics.

I made an edit to my post just as you posted this, so perhaps read the edit about satellites.

I'm not sure what it is you expect me to say. Is air superiority still significant if we take away the technology that makes it significant? The answer seems kind of an obvious "No." That said, I am still not seeing what advantage that gives artillery. Even without GPS, a good pilot can dead-eye a missile into a target (which is exactly what one of our pilots did to Saddam Hussein's personal yacht ). They can also manually input coordinates, just like artillery does.

[Rafterman]

I disagree. I believe ground troops and personnel carriers can take care of whatever is left after the air support gets through with it.

Who has suggested that?

I'm not going to refer to nukes as "air superiority" (more like Scorched Earth). But new technology gets new results. Soldiers had never surrendered to drones either prior to the Gulf War.

Nothing changes war like technology.

Meh. We had air superiority over other aircraft. We didn't have air superiority that could support ground troops till Vietnam.

Actually, it will. That's precisely how we did it in the second Gulf War. While the tanks positioned themselves in the Nasirah and Basra regions, Navy aircraft did 7 days of Shock and Awe that decimated practically all opposition. Remember how everyone was reporting on how the troops pretty much drove all the way into Baghdad? They were able to do that because they didn't have to stop and fight all the time.

Air battle won't ever be fierce. It would be suicide to send our pilots into a situation like that. Like I said, American pilots just don't train too hard in dogfighting. Prior to sending jets in, we would make sure that anything that would endanger the jets is reduced to component parts. The jets aren't there to fight other jets. They are there to fight ships and support ground troops.

Prior to to the second Gulf war, this was absolutely true. There's an old WWII joke about two tank commanders meeting in the field and one casually asking if he had heard if anyone had won the air war (emphasizing the insignifigance of it). Nowadays, this is no longer the truth of combat.

In such a situation, I would agree. Thing of it is that we would never put ourselves in that situation.

My instructor in AMDO training, the pilots I worked with, the general knowledge I picked up in my 6 years as an aviation division officer.

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear; NSAWC stands for Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center. Top Gun was closed in 1996 and merged into this Marine school. Like it says on the page:

Largely due to the end of the

Cold War

in the 1990s, the TOPGUN syllabus was modified to include more emphasis on the air-to-ground strike mission as a result of the expanding multi-mission taskings of the F-14 and F/A-18. In addition, TOPGUN retired their A-4s and F-5s in favor of F-16s and F/A-18s in the Aggressor Squadron.

Yes, I'm sure the Air Force does something. If you would read the link, however, you will find that it tells you that the focus of the modern school has shifted away from fighter combat and more into the other technological aspects of weapon warfare:

With the stand-up of Air Combat Command in 1992, the school embarked on a dramatic shift from its 43-year focus exclusively on fighter aviation, dropping the "fighter" from its title and becoming the "Air Force Weapons School.

The change was much more than symbolic with the activation of the B-52 and B-1 Divisions that year. Rescue helicopters joined the school with the HH-60 Division in 1995 while the F-111 retired. That year also saw the addition of RC-135 RIVET JOINT and EC-130 COMPASS CALL courses to the CCO Division. To increase the graduate-level understanding of space and air integration for operators, the school added the Space Division in 1996.

With a growing need for weapons officers skilled at integrating all aspects of air and space power, the Weapons School has continued to expand. 2000 saw the addition of the

E-8 JSTARS

to the CCO Division. Special Operations Forces (SOF) also became part of the Weapons School in 2000,developing courses for the MH-53 and AC-130. Stealth joined the school in 2002 with the addition of the

F-117

and

B-2

Divisions. SOF added an MC-130 course that year as well. In 2003, all of the Weapons School divisions were re-designated (or initially activated) as squadrons, and the Intelligence Sensor Weapons Instructor Course was added to provide graduate-level training in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance integration. In 2006, the F-117 Weapons Instructor Course deactivated and the merger with the Mobility Weapons School added the C-130, KC-135, and C-17 Weapons Instructor Courses. In 2008, the F-22 joined the Weapons School and in 2009, the ICBM Weapons Instructor Course was added. Students of the ICBM and Space courses share a common Air Force Specialty code (AFSC) as well as a building on Nellis.

Today's Weapons School encompasses 17 squadrons, teaching 22 combat specialties at 8 locations. Only 30% of today's students come from the classic fighter specialties.

So, yeah, Air Force Weapons School teaches Bombing, Rescue, Air and Space, Data Gathering, Stealth, Special Warfare, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, Gunship Support, and Air-to-Ground support.

Dogfighting? Not so much, but that's Air Force.

The Marine Corp school is what TopGun was merged into.

And if we were talking about air combat in the 1960's-1970's in an arena that precluded long-range missile combat, that would be relevant. Even so, in modern warfare, we do not dogfight when we can avoid it, and being that we can outrun pretty much anything in the air, we never have to.

So you agree with me then. All of these schools still exist, they have simply been merged into more comprehensive programs - but dogfighting is still a component.

Oddly enough, in doing some Googling on this topic, I found several references to authors who claim that we have once again fallen down on our dog fighting training and their recommendation is that we begin to address this deficiency.

Funny how this is a topic about tanks.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Rafterman

[Kaa-Tzik]

I'm not sure what it is you expect me to say. Is air superiority still significant if we take away the technology that makes it significant? The answer seems kind of an obvious "No." That said, I am still not seeing what advantage that gives artillery. Even without GPS, a good pilot can dead-eye a missile into a target (which is exactly what one of our pilots did to Saddam Hussein's personal yacht ). They can also manually input coordinates, just like artillery does.

The thrust of your argument is that tanks and artillery are now obsolete, and that all that is needed is lighter armed troops to move into an area where the enemies "old fashioned" tanks and artillery have been destroyed or neutralised by airpower, correct?

What I am saying, is that can only work with air superiority, which is obvious of course, but that if you cannot gain air superiority, then the enemies tanks and artillery are not destroyed and will make mincemeat of these lighter armed troops. And don't forget that tanks and artillery do not go about by themselves, they are part of an all arms group, tanks, artillery, infantry and mobille AA and or SAM. Your system takes away the majority of your gound forces shock attack and firepower capability in the hope that airpower will save them. Worked against Iraqis, who did not really fight back in 2003, won't against a properly led, trained and equiped armed forces with their own significant technological capability on the ground, in the air and in space. You can say you won't put your forces in the cauldron, but what if the cauldron comes to you? Then, if you have no air superiority, or parity at best, with your weaker ground forces, you either get destroyed, run or surrender. The probable lack of GPS, or any satellite technology, will of course affect all, but your enemies pilots can also fly by seat of their pants as well. And when everybody has fired all their missiles, then those with cannon will have some fun against those with none. But, the only countries that could stand against you in a conventional war, are those that you cannot go to war with as the nukes will fly. So, do you suggest, and it seems so, that you disregard the possibility of conventional war with an enemy that you will exchange nukes with and everybody dies, and looks almost only at warfare at a lower level with enemies that have no nuclear capability and significantly lower ground and air capability than the US, which means all countries except Russia and China. Do you take a gamble on never fighting a war with Russia or China as it means death for everybody, and only have forces with the ability to fight short easy wars against, say Iran, using overwhelming airpower and technological resources, but then having to deal with the "revolting" population afterwards with IS type forces, drones etc. I don't not see where you are coming from, but your position seems a dangerous one as we never know what the future holds. For myself, please, scrap all your tanks and artillery and have nothing except nerds in bunkers in Missouri, or wherever, playing with their joysticks

Edited February 4, 2014 by Kaa-Tzik

[+OverSword]

A kindergarten class can occupy a territory if there is no resistance... besides, occupying territory has proven as expensive and ineffective in modern warfare.

facepalm to this.

Really I guess if your war is just to kill a bunch of guys on the other side of the globe who are fighting against your drones with AK-47's then you are right. Try a drone against a jet fighter of some modern SAM's and see what happens. In other words drones are effective against military forces very behind your own technologicaly and fiscally, but against a comparable military they may be good for survielance.

[Space Commander Travis]

And in the first Gulf War, we used about 55,000 artillery rounds. And in the Korean War we fired so many rounds it is reported by weight, not per round (we fired 1,132,000 tons of explosives).

We are using less and less because we don't need to saturate the area anymore. As technology grew, so did precision. Now technology is to the point where we can precision land a missile fired miles away by a fighter jet way the hell out of any engagement zone. Ground troops don't have to stay in the combat zone as long as they used to. They can wait for the air support to wipe out the majority of resistance, move in largely unopposed, and set up shop without waiting for the heavy artillery to catch up.

and you believe that wars can be won by Incredibly high tech Incredible precision? They didn't, did they, they didn't win in Iraq or 'Stan. Unless you're going to try to argue that the actual war finished when ol' George parachuted onto the Abraham Lincoln and bellowed "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" , and the decade or more following that was just mopping up operations against Unlawful Combatants ... And all this "taking out Al Qaeda's Number Two" every other week with Surgical strikes; does anyone believe that that made the slightest difference at all?

Worked pretty damn good. What part of driving straight into the heart of Baghdad with barely a handful of contacts seems like not working to you?

What part of the fighting dragging on inconclusively until the troops were finally pulled out and left the iraqis to carry on fighting among themselves ad infinitum sounds like working to you? If that was just what the Iraqis always did anyway, then it seems very disingenuous indeed to try to argue that taking out the government and army was any kind of victory. ... Although this may be politics again, of course.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Colonel Rhubarb

[Thanato]

And in the first Gulf War, we used about 55,000 artillery rounds. And in the Korean War we fired so many rounds it is reported by weight, not per round (we fired 1,132,000 tons of explosives).

We are using less and less because we don't need to saturate the area anymore. As technology grew, so did precision. Now technology is to the point where we can precision land a missile fired miles away by a fighter jet way the hell out of any engagement zone. Ground troops don't have to stay in the combat zone as long as they used to. They can wait for the air support to wipe out the majority of resistance, move in largely unopposed, and set up shop without waiting for the heavy artillery to catch up.

We may be firing less but what we are firing is more precise. The guns are still a required and fast response to remove the enemy from the battlefield. They have proven how effective they are in Iraq and Afghanistan and will continue to provide indirect fire support to forward units well into the future of warfare. Its just easier, cheaper, and quicker to fire a 155mm shell at an enemy then it is to launch an air support mission.

~Thanato

[aquatus1]

**Bad Post**

I seems a lot of people are getting strangely heated up about this topic. It is one thing to be a fan of a particular military asset, but wuite another to defend it on a...rather passionate level, to the point that responses become somewhat petty.

Edited February 4, 2014 by aquatus1

[aquatus1]

And as for your presumptions about artillery, then I reccomend you are given high reponsibility in Pentagon over this matter and get rid of US artillery, please. I wonder how on the battlefield will the "boots on the ground" deal with a barrage from "Buratino", because if you think all such systems are going to be destroyed from the air, then think again, or, like aircraft, you will not put the soldiers were they may get hurt, like back in USA in a bunker and not anywere near one of those dangerous battlefields....

Case in point.

Why would I want to be put in charge of getting rid of artillery? It is being phased out all on its own just fine. Why would I want soldiers back in the US, where they are useless in fighting a war, when I could have them in the combat arena fighting other ground troops, like they are trained to do?

[aquatus1]

So you agree with me then. All of these schools still exist, they have simply been merged into more comprehensive programs - but dogfighting is still a component.

You never talked about all these schools. I did. You didn't even know the marine base and the NSAWC were one and the same.

I was always talking about dogfighting. In my first post I talked about how dogfight training was minimized, but still present. I was also the one who said tha TopGun, the school created specifically to bring the US back to the top in dogfighting, was closed down in 1996 and merged with NSAWC, where fighter tactics are barely 30% of the curriculum, and most of that is air-to-ground combat.

Oddly enough, in doing some Googling on this topic, I found several references to authors who claim that we have once again fallen down on our dog fighting training and their recommendation is that we begin to address this deficiency.

There's no point to it. Dogfighting is no longer a preferred strategy.

Funny how this is a topic about tanks.

This topic is about the end of tanks. The end of tanks is coming because technology, such as air-to-ground capabilities of modern aircraft among other things, have made it redundant.

[DecoNoir]

You never talked about all these schools. I did. You didn't even know the marine base and the NSAWC were one and the same.

I was always talking about dogfighting. In my first post I talked about how dogfight training was minimized, but still present. I was also the one who said tha TopGun, the school created specifically to bring the US back to the top in dogfighting, was closed down in 1996 and merged with NSAWC, where fighter tactics are barely 30% of the curriculum, and most of that is air-to-ground combat.

There's no point to it. Dogfighting is no longer a preferred strategy.

This topic is about the end of tanks. The end of tanks is coming because technology, such as air-to-ground capabilities of modern aircraft among other things, have made it redundant.

Nothing is trulty "redundant". Our military stll uses pack mules despite having transport vehicles, and we still train soldiers in hand to hand combat despite even clerks and cooks carrying fire arms that can put an enemy down from 50 yards away, hell our missle cruisers are still armed with line of sight large caliber guns, despite being loaded up with cruise missles. In Vietnam we had a large force of propeller driven attack aircraft despite jets being fielded by both sides.

Edited February 4, 2014 by DecoNoir

[Kaa-Tzik]

Case in point.

Why would I want to be put in charge of getting rid of artillery? It is being phased out all on its own just fine. Why would I want soldiers back in the US, where they are useless in fighting a war, when I could have them in the combat arena fighting other ground troops, like they are trained to do?

Internet does not convey the sense of what is meant very well, if at all. I hoped you could see that I, a believer in artillery and tanks, may want somebody in Pentagon who does not care for them, and so let them die, and would prefer to see US troops at home, not abroad. The post was not meant to be taken at face value, but with tounge in cheek, rather like wishing your Chief of staff to be a concientious objector as that would help potential enemies, but it's not serious..

[Kaa-Tzik]

This topic is about the end of tanks. The end of tanks is coming because technology, such as air-to-ground capabilities of modern aircraft among other things, have made it redundant.

I don't disagree that airpower destroys tanks with ease, that has been conclusively proved since at least the battle of Falaise Pocket. But, the point I make is that only holds true when you have air superiority, if your airpower is more involved in having to combat your enemies aircraft, then you are not so able to attack tanks, and neither, in this scenario would your enemy. So, on a level playing field as regards air superiority, it comes down to the capabilities of the ground forces, and if one side has tanks and artillery, and the other does not, then I suspect a defeat for that side. In general terms, US Army moves forward when Airforce has pacified enemy air defence and then air capability, which is what happened in both Gulf wars. I know you have mobile airdefence capability that moves forward with your ground troops, but it is not at the same massive level as, say, GSFG would have employed, and Russian army would today. This is a known factor to your planners, but it is still something you have never encountered before, and I think have no answer to other than nukes. I'll say again that I know exactly what you are saying and why you are saying it, and in general terms you are not wrong in a scenario that involves fighting lesser enemies that simply cannot compete on numerical or technical terms, but against an enemy with parity in most areas, and is superior, imo, in air defence, your army will suffer for lack of tanks and artillery. To see just a few batteries of "Buratino" advance to engage the enemy is a sight to make any enemies blood run cold, for it is simply not a dozen or so systems rolling forward, it is the tank company and all the rest along with them, and above them and the mobile SAM. There is nothing like this you have come across before, and if you cannot stop them with airpower, and it will be no Iraq, then there will likely be only one outcome, and I think not in your favor if you have no tanks and artillery. I don't make this or other posts in some pettyness or childish "we are better than you, yah boo", simply looking at realities and pointing them out, and that you are generally correct, except against a potential enemy that can counter your airpower, and then some. I know the arguments used by admirals before the war for keeping battleships, but I think this about tanks is not the same at all, and that they, and artillery, have a future.

[Rafterman]

You never talked about all these schools. I did. You didn't even know the marine base and the NSAWC were one and the same.

I was always talking about dogfighting. In my first post I talked about how dogfight training was minimized, but still present. I was also the one who said tha TopGun, the school created specifically to bring the US back to the top in dogfighting, was closed down in 1996 and merged with NSAWC, where fighter tactics are barely 30% of the curriculum, and most of that is air-to-ground combat.

There's no point to it. Dogfighting is no longer a preferred strategy.

This topic is about the end of tanks. The end of tanks is coming because technology, such as air-to-ground capabilities of modern aircraft among other things, have made it redundant.

I'm sorry, but you're simply incorrect. And there's no need for you to move the goalposts any further by talking about "preferred" strategy. Of course dogfighting hasn't been a preferred strategy for almost 50 years, but to say it isn't still taught or emphasized is being intellectually dishonest. It is still a strong component of all of these tactical schools and other training programs such as Red Flag.

And I never said that the Marines had a separate school. I just said they had one.

As far as the end of tanks goes, we'll see. But you flyboy types have been saying that for decades and they're still around.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Rafterman

[Yamato]

Eventually it's going to prove an error to just assume air superiority in whatever hypothetical ground scenario the army might find itself in. Rumsfeld's diet of lighter and lighter forces proved to be a deadly proposition for our troops when blown up brains and bodies learned the hard way. If the only consideration that's made for no longer needing tanks is that they can be easily destroyed from the air, I would suggest replacing the simple-minded transplant from the Air Force with a more robust and experienced ground commander who understands the complexities of combat aren't met by rosy assumptions and dangerous oversimplifications bureaus often make.

[aquatus1]

I'm sorry, but you're simply incorrect.

About what? What have I said that is incorrect?

And there's no need for you to move the goalposts any further by talking about "preferred" strategy. Of course dogfighting hasn't been a preferred strategy for almost 50 years, but to say it isn't still taught or emphasized is being intellectually dishonest.

Are you insane?

Have you completely forgotten that this is a discussion forum? That posts stay online for anyone to check with just a click of the button?

The USA even closed down Top Gun back in 1996 because we just didn't need elite dogfighting skills anymore. Oh, pilots still practice it as deemed necessary, and the Marines still have NSAWC,

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear; NSAWC stands for Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center. Top Gun was closed in 1996 and merged into this Marine school.

If you would read the link, however, you will find that it tells you that the focus of the modern school has shifted away from fighter combat and more into the other technological aspects of weapon warfare:

In my first post I talked about how dogfight training was minimized, but still present.

What in any of that says to you "it isn't still taught or emphasized"?

How did any goalposts move anywhere? Tell me that.

Don't you DARE accuse me of intellectual dishonesty unless you can back it up. I can't think of a bigger insult to accuse a person with. Right there is the evidence that not only is your accusation unsupported, it is directly contradicted by my posts. Don't insult my intellectual honesty when the problem is your comprehension skills.

It is still a strong component of all of these tactical schools and other training programs such as Red Flag.

Gee, you mean to say in wargame that focuses on dogfighting, they emphasize dogfighting? No ****?

Like the very links you posted to but didn't read very well said, fighter training is barely 30% of the total training available, and of that 30%, dogfighting is not a significant portion.

Today's Weapons School encompasses 17 squadrons, teaching 22 combat specialties at 8 locations. Only 30% of today's students come from the classic fighter specialties.

And I never said that the Marines had a separate school. I just said they had one.

You very clearly thought it was a separate school.

Who told you that?

http://en.wikipedia....tructor_program

There's also an Air Force version:

http://en.wikipedia...._Weapons_School

And even a Marine Corps version.

Admitting a mistake doesn't even rate embarrassment unless you keep trying to double up so much it can't help but increasingly draw attention to it each time you do it.

As far as the end of tanks goes, we'll see. But you flyboy types have been saying that for decades and they're still around.

I'm not a pilot.

[aquatus1]

I don't disagree that airpower destroys tanks with ease, that has been conclusively proved since at least the battle of Falaise Pocket.

Kaa, I think somewhere along the line you got confused. No one is arguing whether or not fighter jets can destroy tanks. The topic of discussion is whether or not they can replace artillery (or tanks) that can do the same.

But, the point I make is that only holds true when you have air superiority, if your airpower is more involved in having to combat your enemies aircraft, then you are not so able to attack tanks, and neither, in this scenario would your enemy. So, on a level playing field as regards air superiority, it comes down to the capabilities of the ground forces, and if one side has tanks and artillery, and the other does not, then I suspect a defeat for that side.

Except that the side that puts ground forces, tanks, and artillery, in the field prior to gaining air superiority is going to lose ground forces, tanks, and artillery. Just how many missiles do you think ground forces can shoot down at any given moment, compared with how many missiles can be launched from a carrier group in the same amount of time? How could enemy aircraft intercept that many missiles while simultaneously avoiding the attacks directed at them? In a fight against a carrier group, you better have a whole hell of a lot of fighters if you intend for anything to happen.

The strategy works from both sides. What could a carrier group or a squadron do to protect ground forces against enemy artillery or aircraft? Not a whole heck of a lot, once the shooting starts.

Nope, until you have air superiority, and all these targets are taken out to the point that you can maintain reliable air cover, sending ground troops in would result in dead groud troops.

n general terms, US Army moves forward when Airforce has pacified enemy air defence and then air capability, which is what happened in both Gulf wars. I know you have mobile airdefence capability that moves forward with your ground troops, but it is not at the same massive level as, say, GSFG would have employed, and Russian army would today. This is a known factor to your planners, but it is still something you have never encountered before, and I think have no answer to other than nukes.

I have no idea why you keep bringing up nukes.

I'll say again that I know exactly what you are saying and why you are saying it, and in general terms you are not wrong in a scenario that involves fighting lesser enemies that simply cannot compete on numerical or technical terms, but against an enemy with parity in most areas, and is superior, imo, in air defence, your army will suffer for lack of tanks and artillery.

I don't think you do, because you keep talking about troops on the ground prior to air superiority being achieved.

To see just a few batteries of "Buratino" advance to engage the enemy is a sight to make any enemies blood run cold, for it is simply not a dozen or so systems rolling forward, it is the tank company and all the rest along with them, and above them and the mobile SAM.

Which is precisely why we don't want troops on the ground until they have been eliminated.

There is nothing like this you have come across before, and if you cannot stop them with airpower, and it will be no Iraq, then there will likely be only one outcome, and I think not in your favor if you have no tanks and artillery.

If we cannot stop them with airpower, we sure as hell aren't going to send ground troops in to stop them. You keep repeating this over and over.

I don't make this or other posts in some pettyness or childish "we are better than you, yah boo", simply looking at realities and pointing them out, and that you are generally correct, except against a potential enemy that can counter your airpower, and then some. I know the arguments used by admirals before the war for keeping battleships, but I think this about tanks is not the same at all, and that they, and artillery, have a future.

I'm not seeing any difference between artillery, tanks, and battleships, in terms of ground support. They can all do it to a high degree of satisfaction. But the future is smart munitions, littoral combat, and surgical strikes. And in terms of efficiency, safety, and cost, you get more bang for your buck (literally) with missile strikes than with artillery.

[aquatus1]

Nothing is trulty "redundant".

The heck it isn't. We have an entire boneyard of redundant craft that no one wants to throw away, but that will never see combat again. Don't confuse "redundant" with "useless".

[Space Commander Travis]

Eventually it's going to prove an error to just assume air superiority in whatever hypothetical ground scenario the army might find itself in. Rumsfeld's diet of lighter and lighter forces proved to be a deadly proposition for our troops when blown up brains and bodies learned the hard way. If the only consideration that's made for no longer needing tanks is that they can be easily destroyed from the air, I would suggest replacing the simple-minded transplant from the Air Force with a more robust and experienced ground commander who understands the complexities of combat aren't met by rosy assumptions and dangerous oversimplifications bureaus often make.

The unfortunate thing that often seems to happen is that the politicians insist on picking fights with people who don't do it the way that the Military thinks they ought to. People can be so inconsiderate.