China Can Beat the U.S. Air Force in a War

[SolarWarden]

Many have never witnessed or studied urban warfare and does not realize how terrible it can be. Many do not understand that tanks should survive in cities or the offensive will fail. There is a reason why US develop strongest tanks in the world. Iraqi plan was to draw US-led forces into cities and defeat them there but American and British tanks could withstand many blows so the tide turned in the favor of US-led forces.

I still recall images of two American tanks that were destroyed near Baghdad, I wonder what was used to destroy such a strong machine. However, there were many tanks that could not be stopped.

An army in the Middle East or Asian would have flopped in Iraqi cities. Iran dispatched a force of 60,000 troops to take Basra and failed to take it in 1986. Those who think that Iraqi cannot fight, do not know Iraqi well enough. The region is home to one of the oldest civilizations to have ever existed. These are proud people who are willing to fight anytime. Even Taliban in Afghanistan learned from Iraqi fighters to come up with tactics to handle Afghan National Army.

They come to that conclusion because of the surrender rate when the ground war started but these people forget that for almost a month Iraqi forces were bombed from the air relentlessly and they couldn't do anything about it. There was no hiding and by the time ground forces came in they were shellshocked, exhausted, and broken. If US forces did what Russians did in Ukraine and send in ground forces the same day the US casualty rate would be very high possibly as high as some predicted it would be for Desert Storm.

No doubt if Russia had the capability to bomb Ukraine defensive lines for almost a month you'd likely see the same thing in Ukraine like in Iraq thousands of Ukraine soldiers surrendering or just quitting.

 

[Oscar]

I like the title of the thread -

As if the USMC and USN will wait their turn while the USAF is defeated.

 

[PakFactor]

I like the title of the thread -

As if the USMC and USN will wait their turn while the USAF is defeated.

Why do you have to spoil their fun? Lol

 

[j_hungary]

True:
Modern weapon systems alone are not enough.
In war, a war strategy is crucial.
But the Gulf War and the Russia/Ukraine war and their developments are not examples of/for a China/Taiwan war.

There are a few factors to consider.

Gulf War:

• 1. Iraq was weakened by the 8-year Iraq/Iran war(1980-88).
• 2. Saddam Hussein did not have the support of Iraq's Shiites (70% population).
• 3. Iraq's population 1991 was only 17 million.
• The willingness to fight for Saddam Hussein was almost zero.

Iraq was 1991 an easy target, it was weak and defenseless.

Russia/Ukraine War:
The course of the war and the front lines show that Russia has no intention to occupie the Ukraine.

If Russia had planned to occupy Ukraine, Russia would take control of Ukraine's supply routes and isolate most of the Ukrainian population from the world.
View attachment 50594

Incorrect assessments of Russian strategy and its consequences.
View attachment 50595
The strategy that Russia used would only be possible with the support of the population.
The Russians thought they would be welcomed with open arms. But the opposite was the case.

No two wars are the same, you can't really compare one to one literally in terms, because those term are going to be different between each war, and then action derived from those term would lead to different action, both competent and incompetent, which then make the outcome different.

That said, war can be learned as an experience, especially for the people who went thru a war, the experience then can be translate to decision making and also adaptation of the battlefield, which was my point, because most people would have discounted Iraq as a non-competent military because they lost, without realising that while war can have different pathway, but there can only be 2 outcomes, winning or losing, regardless of which path one execute a war. In this case, if I have to say, winning is no guarantee, and there are points in the beginning when we all think the war is falling apart, it's that decision making and adaptation that pull the US/Coalition thru. Not because Iraqi was incompetent.

People like me who served on the frontline as one of the thousand boots on the ground knows fancy aircraft or fancy ship won't get you there, it may make the journey more pleasant, but at the end of a day, you can bomb Iraq or [insert any place] anyway you want, the only way to win a battle is thru infantry, and that have absolute no bearing on what equipment you use or how advance they are, it still depends on rank and file infantry action thru group maneuver or individual initiative to win the day, without that, I don't really care if you have the best weapon in the world, it wouldn't mean anything.

As for both first gulf war and Russian invasion, both have their misstep and things we need to learn, if we attack Iraq head on across Saudi Arabia, that would have been a long stretch out war, the kind Saddam had expected. If Russia focus on their object in Kyiv instead of trying to take Kharkiv and cut Ukraine coast off, they probably would have succeed if they put enough effort on that air assault into Gostomel Airport, I can see why Iraq and Russia did what they did, but it wasn't their equipment that let them down, it's their execution, but those are topics on another day.

 

[j_hungary]

Many have never witnessed or studied urban warfare and does not realize how terrible it can be. Many do not understand that tanks should survive in cities or the offensive will fail. There is a reason why US develop strongest tanks in the world. Iraqi plan was to draw US-led forces into cities and defeat them there but American and British tanks could withstand many blows so the tide turned in the favor of US-led forces.

I still recall images of two American tanks that were destroyed near Baghdad, I wonder what was used to destroy such a strong machine. However, there were many tanks that could not be stopped.

An army in the Middle East or Asian would have flopped in Iraqi cities. Iran dispatched a force of 60,000 troops to take Basra and failed to take it in 1986. Those who think that Iraqi cannot fight, do not know Iraqi well enough. The region is home to one of the oldest civilizations to have ever existed. These are proud people who are willing to fight anytime. Even Taliban in Afghanistan learned from Iraqi fighters to come up with tactics to handle Afghan National Army.

Funny that you mentioned Urban Warfare.

Many people here comment on the issue lack one basic understanding of how Urban Warfare is fought. And that is the logistic behind the Urban Warfare.

Of all type of different warfare, Urban Warfare is probably the most complicated and resource consuming warfare there are, it basically stretch your supply line, because you have to mass a concentration of force in a, what we called a "FOCUSED" area, and then have to constantly supplying the front, while the battle will be attritional in nature, it means you don't just replace equipment or restock food/water/ammunition, but you also need to supply fresh troop to keep the momentum going. In a standoff or set piece battle, you only maneuver a portion of the body of troop, you will have your flank that it may not move, or tactical reserve that it may not needed, but Urban Warfare is basically all in, where you have your concentration of troop take a build up area, they all move in, no one get left behind, because it wouldn't be doing much, either you go kick down some door or stay out of the area.

Urban warfare is highly dissuaded by modern war planner, this is probably the last option, usually is the last battle in a war that make that city the center of gravity, otherwise we would have either by-pass the town and hold/cut (depends on your perspective) enemy GLOC to either lay siege of the town, or just cutting off their retreat and have they surrender.

If we have to go in and fight with high rise, then combine warfare is a must. US armored doctrine is based on the MPF Doctrine (Mobility. Protection. Firepower) and that in term based on the equal sharing of Infantry and Armor being operate side by side in a battle, and that in turn distinct Motorised Infantry from Mechanised Infantry, but then that would be a top of another day as this is going to go very off topic....

 

[Sarsilmaz]

No two wars are the same, you can't really compare one to one literally in terms, because those term are going to be different between each war, and then action derived from those term would lead to different action, both competent and incompetent, which then make the outcome different.

That said, war can be learned as an experience, especially for the people who went thru a war, the experience then can be translate to decision making and also adaptation of the battlefield, which was my point, because most people would have discounted Iraq as a non-competent military because they lost, without realising that while war can have different pathway, but there can only be 2 outcomes, winning or losing, regardless of which path one execute a war. In this case, if I have to say, winning is no guarantee, and there are points in the beginning when we all think the war is falling apart, it's that decision making and adaptation that pull the US/Coalition thru. Not because Iraqi was incompetent.

People like me who served on the frontline as one of the thousand boots on the ground knows fancy aircraft or fancy ship won't get you there, it may make the journey more pleasant, but at the end of a day, you can bomb Iraq or [insert any place] anyway you want, the only way to win a battle is thru infantry, and that have absolute no bearing on what equipment you use or how advance they are, it still depends on rank and file infantry action thru group maneuver or individual initiative to win the day, without that, I don't really care if you have the best weapon in the world, it wouldn't mean anything.

As for both first gulf war and Russian invasion, both have their misstep and things we need to learn, if we attack Iraq head on across Saudi Arabia, that would have been a long stretch out war, the kind Saddam had expected. If Russia focus on their object in Kyiv instead of trying to take Kharkiv and cut Ukraine coast off, they probably would have succeed if they put enough effort on that air assault into Gostomel Airport, I can see why Iraq and Russia did what they did, but it wasn't their equipment that let them down, it's their execution, but those are topics on another day.

That's exactly what I mean.

The statement: China Can Beat the U.S. Air Force in a War, Is far from any reality.
A Turkish proverb says:
"Who has never been punched by someone else, thinks his own fist is a millstone"
(Means: A person who does not understand that he will have to bow to someone else's power thinks that his own power will make everyone else submit.)

 

[Foinikas]

Yo @LeGenD look what I found: