What are some examples of conflicts where air power was the most decisive component (i.e...

They were pretty important for sighting artillery, that was really their main purpose for most of the war.

honestly it'd be this or desert storm.

yes, i know desert storm could have been won without the use of aircraft, but the main reason the iraqis got btfo was the complete destruction of their chain of command, iraqi commanders still fought the coalition but they had no ability to take the initiative since they didn't know where the coalition units were ahead of time. america still would have won eventually but it would have taken a lot longer and probably would have been a lot bloodier. so i think it counts.

Six Day war and Yom Kippur war especially the latter. The Sinai is a wide open killzone once your force leaves SAM coverage. Egyptians learned that the hard way when Syria demanded they take the offensive in the Yom Kippur war. Paid dearly.

Attached: Yom-Kippur-War-Syrian-T55-Valley-of-Tears.jpg (700x460, 91K)

Nice convoy, would be a shame if something were to happen to it.

Attached: B-1B_Lancer_Awaits_Inspection.jpg (3000x1993, 1.29M)

Libya. Gaddafi's forces were about to take the final rebel stronghold of Benghazi. They were already on the outskirts of the city killing the rebels. Suddenly a few NATO planes show up, defeat the bulk of Gaddafi's forces, and the rebels took it from there.

>punisher intake covers

Attached: 1529432379970.png (600x580, 392K)

>a lack of it was the main cause of defeat)?
The Iraqi-Iran War the 80s it's the best example of it, if either of both sides managed to have air superiority the war could have gone very differently as it went for both sides alike

Attached: Kuwaiti M-84AB main battle tank.jpg (2800x1880, 2.18M)

our chief of defence banned skulls, spartan helmets, punisher etc even ones from WW1......
our Army is so cucked

theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/soldiers-banned-from-displaying-symbols-of-death-by-new-defence-chief-angus-campbell/news-story/25346fdb352cc23a9ff4ea9931bac90a

Attached: ausarmy1.jpg (1000x1500, 166K)

>They were pretty important for sighting artillery
Sure, but they weren't decisive or critical to the war's outcome.

>Punisher covers
I wonder where molon labe is written on it.

Battle of Britain.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain

youtube.com/watch?v=aZxgEi8gEsE

Attached: 3038105_battleofbritain2_9543.jpg (480x331, 21K)

literally every single conflict post ww2.
lmao, groundlets actually think they matter.

thats genuinely sad as fuck

>banned skulls, spartan helmets, punisher etc
not a bad thing at all. faggots who actually put that shit on their weapons/gear are sub 80 IQ retards who should be taken out back and shot.

skulls and other PC emblems have been around with many rates since WW1 and we have to cut it away because some PC faggot wants a comfy job in Canberra after he's done with army worst part is he was an Infantry officer
i'm guessing you're not Australia so you don't realise our Officers don't join to have a career in Defence or to serve their country they join so they can get a comfy job lined up in Canberra i wouldn't be surprised if Campbell was accepting bribes from Beijing in return to fuck the Australian military
youtube.com/watch?v=eWGuTGhehaw&t=2s

Attached: fagt.jpg (738x895, 102K)

>>Not really in the early days. In WW1 planes weren't THAT important.

Air reconnaissance identified a gap in the Allied lines at the Battle of the Marne that the Germans were preparing to exploit and roll up the entire French Army. If it wasn't for aeroplanes WW1 genuinely could have been over by Christmas.

Attached: 3-french-75mm-field-gun.jpg (600x247, 59K)

So what you're saying is that the aeroplane is responsible for the horrors of Nazism and Communism...

are ground forces that irrelevant?

No. It doesn't matter how many times you level your enemy's houses and factories, if you don't physically occupy the ground where they stood he'll just keep on rebuilding them and fighting. Aerial surveillance and force superiority are great, but they're no substitute for ground recon and occupation.

This.

>t. groundlet
have fun getting shredded by 30MM fire or a JDAM lmao

None. Air power is never the most decisive component of a military strategy because air power only functions in a combined arms doctrine with troops on the ground. I believe the primary authorial work on the failure of air power campaigns is Robert Pape's "Bombing to Win"

The loss of supplies to air attack failed to affect the outcome, the South still fell.

Morale and infantry were what decided Vietnam.

Attached: VC infantry.jpg (736x925, 128K)

none of them. in literally any real war, all current day airplanes would be out for maintenance after the first day. planes today have to go in for DAYS of maintenance after ONE flight. thats how pathetic modern day fighters are. planes were better in the past.

RAF Harriers? U wot mate?

Not really. Operation Pocket Money was back breaking. They only recovered because we agreed to disarm the mines.

The south fell when the planes stopped flying. Saying the south fell when the Americans had already left the conflict and coincidentally stopped bombing the North adds nothing to your argument.

The international intervention in Libya. France and the rest of the world decided which faction would win only through air power.

Every single conflict from WW2 on

putting a skull on your weapon makes you stupid?

why?

Ha you should see the shit the army implemented that cucked our navy too

Hope you’re not too close to the coast either, a destroyer can really put out a lot of firepower

>when you're more onions than Sailor
based Mark Latham had a dig at the Government
news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/it-was-a-money-shot-for-the-100-days-for-change-campaigners-but-a-navy-officer-with-his-pinky-painted-pink-has-copped-backlash/news-story/6af8e51c0d35e787c275d62963cefe9a

Attached: soyvy.jpg (600x400, 150K)