Matrix Games Forums

When you think about modern fighters and especially large bombers, you see that they can carry a large amount of bombs, several tons, sometimes even dozens of tons and you get impressed, however..then you take a look at Syria, ISIS more precisely and you can't not wonder whether they are even doing anything.

How is it possible that the largest air forces of the world, USA, Russia, Turkey,etc. bomb a ,,primitive" terrorist organization for 2 years and that the results are barely visible? If the planes are so ineffective against isis, how were those planes expected to fight against ussr/usa during cold war?

Of course no one excepts them to defeat ISIS in one day, but still, when you bomb command posts, ammo depot's and such for years, you are supposed to have at least somewhat visible results...

Another example would be the not that famous 1999 battle of Koshare (and Gorozhup) in Yugoslavia, basically for 2 months NATO intensively bombed Yugoslav positions along the Albanian border (in order to make a path for KLA to invade Kosovo from Albania) and there was the KLA on the ground and yet they didn't succeed for 2 months, in the end the peace treaty was signed and the Yugoslav forces withdrew. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ko%C5%A1are

So if we assume that the reason for ineffectivnes in the case of ISIS is the large territory, how did the Koshare thing happen, which was limited to a much smaller territory? (footage of B-52 bombing positions along the Albanian border https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbP2tKR-goQ )

Yugoslav forces didn't have any advanced AA weapons, the most advanced were the SA-3 Neva and SA-6 Kub, so ,,being careful" is not the problem, the area is mountainous and with a lot of forests, so perhaps its because of that..?

.

Because bombing alone never does the trick. In today's environment, it is the easy clean war that nations are okay with....as long as they don't have to put boots on the ground.

Its a chickensh!t way to fight wars by nations that really don't want to get involved in the first place but they don't want to look bad in the media.

The disaster unfolding in Aleppo is making my point. They have bombed those folks for days but right now Syrian forces are massing for a ground attack to finish the job.

God help those poor people. [:(]

I think the OP is not getting the point.

What percentage of the "huge air forces" from the nations cited are actually deployed targeting ISIS per se? Less than 1% of the US force? Certainly less than 1% of the Russian force is actually bombing ISIS per se (versus that percentage bombing Aleppo and NW Syria). What sort of results would you expect with such a negligible force deployed? Don't even get me started on the negligible contributions of other nations with not insignificant air forces of their own.

I would say that there *has* been some progress in whittling down ISIS per se by the use of air forces against them. Just ask the YPG and other kurdish fighters that we have been working with if they think the air support has been useful.

Numbers of boots on the ground, terrain, expense, military casualties, cost, national sense of responsibility (or lack thereof), fear of 'friendly' casualties, etc. etc. are all other factors affecting the pace of warfare against ISIS.

ORIGINAL: Jakers123

How is it possible that the largest air forces of the world, USA, Russia, Turkey,etc. bomb a ,,primitive" terrorist organization for 2 years and that the results are barely visible? If the planes are so ineffective against isis, how were those planes expected to fight against ussr/usa during cold war?

Of course no one excepts them to defeat ISIS in one day, but still, when you bomb command posts, ammo depot's and such for years, you are supposed to have at least somewhat visible results...

Another example would be the not that famous 1999 battle of Koshare (and Gorozhup) in Yugoslavia, basically for 2 months NATO intensively bombed Yugoslav positions along the Albanian border (in order to make a path for KLA to invade Kosovo from Albania) and there was the KLA on the ground and yet they didn't succeed for 2 months, in the end the peace treaty was signed and the Yugoslav forces withdrew. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ko%C5%A1are

How intensive are those bombings compared to bombings of Japan in Second World War and North Vietnam in Vietnam War?

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

How intensive are those bombings compared to bombings of Japan in Second World War and North Vietnam in Vietnam War?

What do you think is more effective:

a) 1000 tons of bombs where 5% land somewhere within 10 miles of the target

b) One bomb that hits the target

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

How intensive are those bombings compared to bombings of Japan in Second World War and North Vietnam in Vietnam War?

What do you think is more effective:

a) 1000 tons of bombs where 5% land somewhere within 10 miles of the target

b) One bomb that hits the target

Define target.

If you can...

The bombing campaign in Vietnam was working until politics entered and said we could only go no further north with the bombing.
Of course, the US was using many planes. Also agent Orange to deforest

Bombing campaigns in worldwarII were very successful. But it had the weight of thousands of bombers.

If a conflict is going to be won using conventional weapons, it will be necessary to send in the infantry in order to win it. Bombing alone will not get the job done.

If bombing is allowed to be used as it was in WWII or Vietnam, it would be extremely effective.

Precision bombing with no or little collateral damaged has only limited effectiveness.

The small amount of bombs dropped by one B-52 in the video shows what I mean.

Now imagine 100 B-52s in formation dropping bombs on that same landscape.

ORIGINAL: sulla05

If bombing is allowed to be used as it was in WWII or Vietnam, it would be extremely effective.

Precision bombing with no or little collateral damaged has only limited effectiveness.

The small amount of bombs dropped by one B-52 in the video shows what I mean.

Now imagine 100 B-52s in formation dropping bombs on that same landscape.

I say that effectiveness depends on what the goal is. Without going into politics I would claim that achieving the US goal would be very hard with a WWII bomb campaign. It is even likely that it would make it harder to achieve the goals of the campaign. So, while it has huge impact it would be less effective.

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: sulla05

If bombing is allowed to be used as it was in WWII or Vietnam, it would be extremely effective.

Precision bombing with no or little collateral damaged has only limited effectiveness.

The small amount of bombs dropped by one B-52 in the video shows what I mean.

Now imagine 100 B-52s in formation dropping bombs on that same landscape.

I say that effectiveness depends on what the goal is. Without going into politics I would claim that achieving the US goal would be very hard with a WWII bomb campaign. It is even likely that it would make it harder to achieve the goals of the campaign. So, while it has huge impact it would be less effective.

There's no need to bring politics [:)]

And what is that goal if not an "act of force to compel our enemy to do our will"? Either you disarm or destroy them...

I remember a Soviet commander saying that of course they could have defeated the Talibans... err... after utterly destroying the country, obviously

Exactly like the Americans in Vietnam.

But for some reasons that path was not chosen.

Now think about the Red Army not bringing astronomical quantities of artillery, rockets in Berlin circa 1945 because hey there are civilians and NGOs might be monitoring our activities

And after that, the ruins, always the ruins.

And how would it be possible to talk about current bombings without politics? At least when you talk about the effect of the bombings. War in itself is political. Hence is bombings political.

Do I have to bring Clausewitz into this? [;)]

ORIGINAL: Orm

And how would it be possible to talk about current bombings without politics? At least when you talk about the effect of the bombings. War in itself is political. Hence is bombings political.

Do I have to bring Clausewitz into this? [;)]

Per definition that's what it is.

We still can talk about military operations I guess, regardless of the politics shaping these operations.

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Orm

And how would it be possible to talk about current bombings without politics? At least when you talk about the effect of the bombings. War in itself is political. Hence is bombings political.

Do I have to bring Clausewitz into this? [;)]

Per definition that's what it is.

We still can talk about military operations I guess, regardless of the politics shaping these operations.

Indeed.

But measuring the effectiveness of said bombing is hard without getting into politics. Both the goal with the bombings and the restrictions are political.

ORIGINAL: Orm
But measuring the effectiveness of said bombing is hard without getting into politics. Both the goal with the bombings and the restrictions are political.

Not necessarily. The OP should simply remember the Highway of Death, february 1991, that's the answer he is looking for.

The rest, let it die: it's not anymore military operations, but politics.

I was talking in general, not specific situations.

If you have command of the air and the other side cannot harm your bombers at all, bombing would be extremely effective. If it was used without a present day way of thinking about civilians it would be extremely effective.

I am not suggesting its use like that. I am just answering a technical question.

It is much like can I use Marvel Mystery Oil in my engine. You can, but beware of the consequences.

The thinking for the latter part of the 20th century and now is that 100 civilian casualties are extremely excessive. Compared to Allied and Axis bombing in WWII it is a very small drop in the bucket.

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

How intensive are those bombings compared to bombings of Japan in Second World War and North Vietnam in Vietnam War?

What do you think is more effective:

a) 1000 tons of bombs where 5% land somewhere within 10 miles of the target

b) One bomb that hits the target

Define target.

If you can...

Anything that is NOT a submarine

[;)]
Cheers
Jev

I feel bombing is only truly effective against a countries infrastructure and factories. Since isis does not have factories or railroads etc., bombing effects are limited. Infantry can survive intense bombing or artillery, just look at WW1 battles, or casino, or Stalingrad. The only way bombing has a chance is if it can be done without limits. As it is now, with limits, it is only symbolic.

Tactical ground support has a impact on how the war is fought.