The Airplane, re Type and Length of War

[Bill Greenwood]

The invention of the airplane and development of military aviation is one of two major changes in war. The other is length of wars now. Think of this, the 3 biggest and most major wars before military aviation were among the shortest. The civil war, a ground war with little naval and no aviation and limited weapons had 500,000 fatalities and was over in 4 years. WWI over in 4 years, not much aviation in the sense of bombing, still mostly a land war. Even WWII with both naval and air forces playing a major part and with 50 million fatalities worldwide, was over in 4 years. The Korean War, mostly land forces with some avaition was only about 3 years. All these, even with naval and air action were still mostly land battles, soldiers were main force.
Contrast this with 2 of our more recent wars, Vietnam went on for 15 years if you take first hostile action to last. The were large land forces but also a lot of aviation and tremendous amount of bombing, more even than in WWII. Huge casualties, 58,000 on our side plus 4 times that wounded and millions on the other side. Grenada was quick, but so small as not to be in the same category and Iraq was quick too, again pretty one sided. Aviation was a big part of these, but still a land war with soldiers and tanks. And the latest, in Afghanistan has lasted 15 years, not big as to number of casualties but still with 11,000 U S troops there now.
So what stands out in a quick look back or summary of 156 years of wars? TWO things at least. One aviation has grown so much that it not just a major factor in wars today, but maybe THE MAJOR FACTOR. And dont know if it is a cause and effect, but the more aviation in a war, and they less it is a contest of major ground forces, the longer the war seems to last. It just seems hard to win a war with aviation alone, unless major ground action accompanies the air war. And some current wars like Afghan are, on our part mostly an air war.
Just saw DUNKIRK, a small example but again a situation where air power alone was not enough to stop the evacuation, of course no where near the air power available today.

[rwanttaja]

The duration of any war is a political decision. Technology gives options, but the use of that technology is left to the politicians. Nuclear or biological weapons can end a war in a day, but the political consequences are usually unacceptable.

If the Taliban in Afghanistan organized itself into platoons, regiments, and brigades and marched out, banners flying, for an epic battle to settle things, it would quickly become a greasy smear in the sand and the US military would go on to other problems. Instead, of course, they use guerrilla tactics that make monkeys out of traditional armies. And extend wars interminably, as a guerrilla campaign generally ends only when the guerrillas win. The term (if not the tactic) dates from the Napoleonic wars... Spanish for "little war", it refers to the partisans fighting against the French in Spain. That one ended when Wellington came and booted the French out.

The US fought the Moro guerrillas over a hundred years ago, and that fight is STILL going on. Vietnam was largely a guerrilla campaign, which ended when the US decided to stop bleeding. This let the North Vietnamese Army troops enter Saigon.

Aircraft? They're a delivery system. During WWII, the Germans considered aircraft as being an extension of the land army's artillery. They were right. Sure, you can use it tactically or strategically, but the purpose is to place high explosive in a desired location. Any other aviation...fighters, reconnaissance, etc....exist just to enable putting bombs in the right places.

As such, aircraft themselves do not shorten or lengthen the war, except for the political decision of how much "artillery" to place on what targets. In many cases, the politicians have been wrong. Both sides thought massive bombing attacks on interior targets would bring victory; but the British kept fighting in 1940, the Germans in 1945, the North Koreans in 1953, the North Vietnamese in 1972, etc. etc., and g-damned et cetera.

To quote "No Time for Sergeants," "the Air Force is just the Army's helpers." Wars don't end until boots are on the ground. And when the "Little War" starts, those boots are just a never-ending stream of targets.

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Greenwood]

It wasnt really a whole war, but the battle over the Soviets trying to wall off Berlin was won and it was won by Allied aircraft, with the Berlin Airlift not by ground troops. Some negotiations and politics may have been important also on that issue, I dont know much about that.
By the way, lots of people admire Reagan or consider him a high point of his party even though he did some things un gop like. But I think his finest moment and one he handled so well was the line. "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
One thing I recall when the wall did come down and they flocked to West Berlin to see and shop, one thing they really wanted to buy, you'd never guess was fresh bananas!

[rwanttaja]

It wasnt really a whole war, but the battle over the Soviets trying to wall off Berlin was won and it was won by Allied aircraft, not by ground troops. Some negotiations and politics may have been important also, I dont know much about that.

If we're allowed to be flexible about our definition of "war", then my Great-Aunt Hilda's zucchini patch probably was more victorious against the Soviets than Minot's B-52s..... :-)

The Berlin airlift wasn't war...it was, pardon the phase, "Anti-War": Without the airlift capability, the west's only option would have been to fight their way to Berlin on the ground. In this case, the existence of aircraft kept a war from happening. Either side could have made the decision, politically, to escalate.

Ron "Great-Aunt Hilda, keeping Burleigh County Safe since 1919" Wanttaja

[Mayhemxpc]

Seven years war, thirty years war, hundred years war. French/Napoleonic wars lasted about 20 years. Wars sometimes went on a LONG time before airplanes came along.

In our own history there were the Indian Wars, officially 1866 to 1890, but really longer than that. Even if you just look at the Sioux campaigns it is almost 40 years of intermittent guerrilla type warfare. The campaigns in the West show that Western armies CAN win guerrilla war, if you have the will to do it. So too the British in Malaya and South Africa, US Special Forces supported COIN in South America (especially Bolivia) are just some of the examples where modern state forces were able to defeat insurgencies. The Soviets were also successful in their zones after WW2 (the Ukrainians fought for 12 years) and the Iraqi Soviet supported Fascists were able to defeat the pro-monarchist tribal insurgency from 1958 on into the 1960s. Actually, if you look at the totality of people's war, the insurgents don't win as often as it is popular to give them credit for.

Airpower: The problem is not airpower itself, but the illusion that airpower can do it alone or with minimal ground operations or friendly casualties. Now we are trying to do it without any casualties -- or so it seems.

[DaleB]

Not to be pedantic, but the Korean conflict was never a declared war and is not officially over... so either it was a war that lasted 3 years, or was not a war, or is a war that has lasted 67 years, I guess depending on your perspective. Hopefully it doesn't flare up again.

[rwanttaja]

Not to be pedantic, but the Korean conflict was never a declared war and is not officially over...
Ha! Good point. Come to think of it, we haven't actually declared war on anybody since December 11, 1941.

But Korea is a good point; conflict was suspended by armistice, but isn't really ended.

Ron "Make the stitches bigger" Wanttaja

[Frank Giger]

WWI over in 4 years, not much aviation in the sense of bombing, still mostly a land war.

No, not much in bombing - unless we count Zeppelins bombing London, or Gotha's bombing rail heads in France.

But bombers aren't the end all be all of wartime aviation, and not really needed in WWI.

In WWI, it was all about reconnaissance aircraft - the strategic bomber of their day. Recon aircraft were deadly things, as from them enemy movement was detected and artillery directed. Since maps were unreliable, they also were used for that purpose, too. The whole development of the Scout (fighter) was about denying the air to recon aircraft. The "Fokker Scourge" was the Eindecker's ability to accurately shoot down two seaters.

When one looks at development, WWI has everything else beat to hell. Improvements and innovations in design, engines, and manufacturing techniques meant that aircraft were often obsolete (or nearly so) as they were fielded. In four short years we went from wing warping Taubes and Eindeckers putting along at 50 MPH at five thousand feet AGL and able to perform wild maneuvers like an Immelman (today's wing over) to Fokker DVII's and Sopwith Snipes flying at 180 MPH at 20,000 feet (and yeah, they flew that high without oxygen!) and capable of full aerobatics.

My little representation of a Nieuport 11 - which ended the Fokker Scourge by outclassing the Eindecker - didn't have an interrupter gear, firing the fixed gun over the top of the propeller. But it was the hottest thing in the air, being fast, maneuverable, and had a lengthy total flight duration of two and a half hours. It entered service in January of 1916. It was replaced as obsolete by the Nieuport 17 in March. Three months of being the front line Scout of choice. They were flown here and there much longer than that (especially by the Russians, who had a knack for taking the "obsolete" aircraft of her allies and putting them to good use in both World Wars), but by August they pretty much gone, relegated to the duty of trainers.

One of the myths of WWI aviation is that very few aircraft were involved in battles. Not true. After Verdun, the Central Powers learned that the Entente's practice of massing aircraft in one area and putting up big numbers of them at once was deadly, and followed suit. By the end of the war it wasn't unusual for both sides to have 50, 60, 70 or even 90 aircraft in a flight - on each side - meeting in a fight, stacked at different altitudes. And yes, not colliding with other aircraft, both enemy and friendly, was as much a part of the melee as fighting.