The Korean war didn’t involve an insurgency to a large extent. Or russias last conventional war, which they won through attrition and throwing bodies at the line.
The thing about the gulf war, and the six day war, was they relied on overwhelming aerial superiority and a quick end to the conflict. That strategy only works for so long because eventually the enemy can take out your aircraft and modern planes are hard to build so it takes a while to build up again, so you have to use them sparingly. Even if we gave ukraine f22s the Russians have jets of there own and SAMs to take them down. Both sides have ramped down there air campaigns because both sides have ways to take down the planes which are very expensive. Again this is a war of artillery, drones and armor, both sides have them and no magical million dollar weapons system from Lockheed Martin will change that.
Shock and awe only works for so long, and once it’s worn off you can find yourselve in a quagmire and running out of troops.
Do you think the Iraqi air force is on the same level as the russian air force? Or Iraqi sam production and stockpiles are anywhere near Russian production and stockpiles?
I’m not moving the goalposts, I stand by my original statement, ukraine is short on man power and you need men to win a drawn out war of attrition.
You still haven’t addressed how China was able to push America out of north Korea even though America had the definitive production and technological advantage. They even had unquestioned aerial dominance for a while.
Aerial dominance is great in quick offensive operations, but once a line is entrenched and established it becomes more dangerous and costly to try and fly over that line, that’s why, again, the war has become one of artillery.
The Korean war didn’t involve an insurgency to a large extent. Or russias last conventional war, which they won through attrition and throwing bodies at the line.
The thing about the gulf war, and the six day war, was they relied on overwhelming aerial superiority and a quick end to the conflict. That strategy only works for so long because eventually the enemy can take out your aircraft and modern planes are hard to build so it takes a while to build up again, so you have to use them sparingly. Even if we gave ukraine f22s the Russians have jets of there own and SAMs to take them down. Both sides have ramped down there air campaigns because both sides have ways to take down the planes which are very expensive. Again this is a war of artillery, drones and armor, both sides have them and no magical million dollar weapons system from Lockheed Martin will change that.
Shock and awe only works for so long, and once it’s worn off you can find yourselve in a quagmire and running out of troops.
Didn’t Iraq have jets of their own? Didn’t Iraq have the latest SAM systems?
I love how you’re just making shit up and moving the goalposts
Do you think the Iraqi air force is on the same level as the russian air force? Or Iraqi sam production and stockpiles are anywhere near Russian production and stockpiles?
I’m not moving the goalposts, I stand by my original statement, ukraine is short on man power and you need men to win a drawn out war of attrition.
You still haven’t addressed how China was able to push America out of north Korea even though America had the definitive production and technological advantage. They even had unquestioned aerial dominance for a while.
Aerial dominance is great in quick offensive operations, but once a line is entrenched and established it becomes more dangerous and costly to try and fly over that line, that’s why, again, the war has become one of artillery.