How do you win a war without air superiority?
How do you win a war without air superiority?
Other urls found in this thread:
archive.4plebs.org
defensenews.com
foxnews.com
foxnews.com
twitter.com
you fight it in the tunnels
Fake a holocaust
Outbreeding, Subversion & Female Manipulation.
archive.4plebs.org
You don't. This is why big infantry numbers, such as China, NK, are increasingly irrelevent with advent of things like drone bombs. You CANNOT effectively use those numbers if your deathcount will be in tens of thousands for every hour spent not ducking and covering. You either provide minimum threat for enemy air or you die.
Ov vey!
Force them to take in illegals and refugees.
Fuck off larper.
You fight in the shade
Shit tonnes of anti air and advanced radar
muh cyber attacks and hackers. The wizards and warlocks of 21st century warfare
get a respirator
Not again Frankie
Achieve air-superiority
An armed citizenry can win any war
tunnels, lots and lots of tunnels
> be near sighted.
> have buckteeth
> live in shitty tunnels under rice paddies
> wait for the democrats to lose the war
if the nation they fight against cannot use their full strenght, cannot wage a campaign of annihilation, must follow international protocol, and videotape and present a visual documentation of the war to be narrated by jews before consumption.
yes, then an armed citizen can win.
You don't
Air and Naval capacity are far, far more important than ground forces and always have been
The biggest and strongest Empires are the ones that had the best Navy's.
There are exceptions of course, mainly Empires that were so ridiculously strong that they expanded to the point where they controlled the entire flow of goods and didn't have to worry about facilitating international trade see: Rome, which always had a relatively bad Navy and heavily on Its heavy infantry, but also controlled all of the Mediterranean and most of the European Atlantic.
Fabian tactics. You win it via attrition over long periods of time. Vietnam and Iraq proved this method. We hardly took any losses against the Iraqi army in Desert Storm or the 2003 invasion. The losses came from IED and sniping attacks. We'd clear a mudhut village out in Vietnam or Iraq only for them to reoccupy it immediately after we left.
This tactic is straight from the Roman playbook. If Western armies refuse to genocide the population of occupied countries they will continue to suffer defeat. Nothing says "I'm not fucking around" like removing the entire population of a city like the Mongols did. Make it clear that you'll erase a city over minor infractions and the citizens themselves will rat out ANYONE they suspect of even possessing weapons.
Empires in the 18th century had this all down to a science. It's human psychology. The Prisoner dilemma FORCES them to sell out the bad apples to protect themselves.
By encouraging the other side to not reproduce, by promoting homosexuality, feminism, birth control, abortion and promiscuity.
>It's super effective.
Can you hack drones?
Illegal acts of biological and chemical warfare.
What'd one Soviet soldier say to the other?
>Who won the air war anyway?
You stage a false flag attack and make America be your air force.
PlanetSide 2 strat I take it?
It's difficult, but doable. It comes down to the different battles and feeding the enemy false information so they send their warplanes out to attack what is essentially a platoon of target dummies, while using that opportunity to strike your enemy's airfields and munitions stores.
There's a lot of counter measures for the situation when air superiority is not yours.
human shields
Implying the invading country doesn't desire intact natural resources, infrastructure, and a populace to do the work extracting the resources.
Emp the attacking nations homeland, navy and allied nations.
Pull all assets into your anti air zone.
Bunker everything you have up.
Essentially North korea defense.
Then wait for the attacking enemy to makes it move.
It comes at you conventionally ..you light your emps off everywhere.
The attacker has to either nuke you or continue its conventional attack against you albeit at a weaker state. If they attack conventionally - you stand a better chance of winning.
If they decide to nuke you - well its game over but you at least fucked your enemy and they can expect 30% population die off.
...
Chemicals.
If you can build a strong submarine fleet you can cut off the fuel supply of your enemy so they run out of fuel for their aircraft.
With benis superiority.
Space superiority
Space superiority.
defensenews.com
Even if they can't.
Armed citizens can use all kinds of chemical weapons, they aren't bound by ROE.
How simple are EMP's to produce, and how effective are they? From what I know, none have ever been intentionally used in a conflict even though they would be perfect for disrupting an enemy without directly harming civilians.
go underground
Guerilla
Isn't that what Germany tried and failed to do to the UK in WW2?
>How do you win a war without air superiority?
Same way you win every war, by holding the ground and paying the blood toll
I DON'T KNOW, ASK THE FUCKING VIETNAMESE YOU FUCKING GOPNIK BLYAT
Wit dat BBC superiority white boi
thats the Russian doctrine, along with a fuck ton of nukes
You evolve.
yes but I think they invested so much into the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe they couldn't build U-boats fast enough to won against the American and British Navies.
I think if they had invested more into U-boats before the war they might have given themselves a better chance.
Subvert the populace
Government loses it their people dissent
Air superiority hasn't done a shit for the US in Afghanistan. To win a war one must subdue the land and its people and in order to do that you need boots on the ground and guns, lotsa guns.
Only works if the regime doesn't have control of information.
Insurgency
Underground hideouts
Attrition
...
So to win, one must conduct informational warfare
>Who is Yuri Bezmenov?
You get a bigger boat
Two words.
Zerg Rush.
>pyramid faggot is back
Fuckin space superiority
Artillery and poison gas.
you don't. you can reach a stalemate with guerrilla tactics
Endwar was a really fun game even if it boiled down to RvPvS
Air mines.
you can win by moving a populations' mind without shedding blood
Win the battle before it even begun is the best outcome
Economic superiority
i honestly cannot stand you or your threads
ya don't
yup, basically discourage war in the first place
>you would win, but you would still lose
afghanistan isn't a war, it's an insurgency
i think we're talking traditional wars, against states and not ill-defined groups.
to your point, A way to beat airpower is to fight like you have nothing to lose and fight to the last man
you fight a completely asymmetric war and make the enemy spend the fuck out of themselves until they collapse
Lasers
>america is just gonna drone 4 million+ soldiers
stupid
SAMs? Also, they can be a shitty Air Force with undisciplined pilots/guards/mechanics. But then that wouldn't be air superiority.
Yes.
Which requires the population to have access to outside information.
Get Putin to convince his Jewish buddies that you're doing all the work and let America fix the problem?
Not if you utilize the six degrees of separation at it's fullest
Ear to ear is still the most efficient form of communication
I still want artillery-delivered tear gas to make a comeback. US artillery dumped lots of that shit
>US artillery dumped lots of that shit
*in Vietnam
>An armed citizenry can win any war
Then how did Germany lose WW2?
inb4 the "Hitler took muh guns from the volk" meme pic related
Finnish Winter & Continuation wars against the Soviet Union are a good example that air superiority is not always necessary if your army is fighting in heavily forested territories.