Air Support V.S. Ground Control




 
--
 
January 1st, 2005  
ETNUSN
 

Topic: Air Support V.S. Ground Control


Lets take a quick look at two of the differing oppinions of modern warfare: Air Bombardment and Ground Control.

Air Bombardment:
I have to look back to WWII to see how truly effective this is. A small group of men on the ground having the ability to iniate a shelling with (somewhat) controlled accuracy. Now, a single soldier with a radio can call down a firestorm of Tomahawk's to rain death upon an enemy with surgical precision. What do you need to accomplish this? A group of men on the ground, satelite imagery, at the least, a local asset to assess the target, time the strike, and observe comlpetion. At risk? A small group of personel. Cost? Somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple million (USD) . Major benifit? The small number of persons involved=low number of friendly casualties=happy populace (as long as you're "winning")=votes=happy political figure(s). Downside? This shit takes forever if you don't have the assets to tell the pushbutton guys WHERE, WHAT, or WHEN to strike. As time goes on, populace becomes dissatasfied, questions political figure(s), who scramble around like headless chickens trying to blame SOMEONE, and entire effort becomes less effective.

Ground Control:
Soldiers with Guns, Tanks, Rockets, Bombs, Sharp Sticks, and all kinds of assorted toys on the ground kicking enemy ass. Nothing fancy, just flying lead. And, historically, may the team with the best training and equipment win. (NOTE: As far as troop stregnth, quantity has a quality all its own.) At risk? Sons & Daughters. Cost? Still not cheap, but cheaper than X number of precision-guided ordanance. Major benifit? There is nothing more dangerous than a Marine with his Rifle. Physically and Psychologically, if you see a soldier with his weapon, you are less likely to do something to piss that soldier off. Downside? Soldiers need R&R, as well as a normal rotation, support, and a mission with realistic goals.

So, what do you think? I know I'm missing (A LOT) of information here. So please, help me fill-in-the-blank, and give me your oppinions.

Thank you for your time and attention.

-ET3
[/b]
January 2nd, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
The two options you address are similar to a good martini, knowing what the best mix of both are. Aerial support is now high, medium, and low level. The high level is pretty well a smart bomb job which is no longer accomplished by carpet or optical sights. Usually GPS but can also be FLIR guided which means illuminating the target by either an airborne laser or SOPs on the ground.

Mid level is usually left to tactical missiles such as Tactical Tomahawks or any of the long range cruise technologies. These don't require Special Ops troops and depend on several guidance methods. GPS is only one, the guidance can switch to Scene Recognition entered into digital and analog memory coupled to the real time targeting system.

Low level air attack or support usually depends on Helicopter and A10 or several other aircraft capable of slower speeds for a longer linger times over the target. There are higher tech targeting for these missions such as the Predator or similar "spotter" aircraft but SOPs are more efficient
and accurate.

The Ground support by boots on the ground has become more of a political football these days. Aiming down a barrel whether it's a tank, tow missile, M-16, or all types of armor is, IMO, more civilian friendly. Less collateral damage. But with the huge sales of automatic weapons with armor piercing ammo, RPGs, and tons of C4 and the "experts" to use it, the expense in American lives has become higher. A garage door opener or cell phone can blow a tank or truck column. Couple that expertise with a very different kind of enemy since Japan, which took nukes to defeat, and you have a lot of fuel for anti-war sentiment abroad as well as home.

With a mix of technologies, you can keep this enemy off balance. They learn tactics quickly and adapt to our methods. I don't know if I told you anything that you don't already know but maybe I helped with some info.
January 2nd, 2005  
Kozzy Mozzy
 
Both.

mod edit:please try to explain your position with more than one word. One word replies do not have much value
--
January 3rd, 2005  
Marksman
 
 
nor ground nor air support can be sucssesfull if u dont mix those two,simple as that,its something in past expiriance
January 3rd, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
You need both. Combined Arms Operation's. It entails the proper use of Ground Manuver elements (Infantry,& Armor) Ground Support Units (Field Artillery) and Air Assets (Fixed Wing and Rotary Wing).

The use of air power alone cannot hold ground. If the target is destroyed by air power it can be reoccupied.