Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Theories of war essay
“I believe that operational-level commanders must first master the basic philosophy and principles of warfare. Only then can they make current or new technologies their servant.” Since 1947, airpower theory had the greatest impact on the employment of American airpower, because the promise of strategic bombing would deliver decisive effects and achieve a swift victory continued throughout the wars in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. Although strategies, doctrines and technology changed over time, the application of US airpower revealed the dependence on the traditional air power theory in the second half of the twentieth century. In the first part, this paper will present the main prophecies and predictions of two of the most relevant airpower theorists. …show more content…
The Italian General Douhet viewed airpower as an offensive mean of warfare with a strategic mission. When the command of the air was once established, then direct offensives against surface targets could be employed. Air superiority with crucial for him. He believed, a war could be won quickly through aerial bombardment of an enemy’s population and vital center. This would demoralize civilians to such an extent that they would turn against the government and overthrow it. General William “Billy” Mitchell was the most influential air power advocate and theorist in the United States. He was influenced by Douhet´s thoughts. He was certain that strategic bombing in mass formation attacking centers of gravity would cripple civilian´s morale and could bring the defeat of any adversary on its own. Furthermore, Mitchell saw the need for centralized control of all airpower assets in a future air campaign. Having presented the main prediction and prophecies of two air power theorists, let us turn to their application through USAF leadership in the Korean and Vietnam …show more content…
In his influential work, The Air Campaign, John Warden argues that the use of strategic bombardment against the leadership of a government would lead to strategic paralysis. Furthermore, there would be no longer the need for direct attacks against an adversary’s forces. The purpose of the strategic employment of air power is to create strategic effect on the identified target set. This effect will be in support of the defined strategic aim, but may not be part of a theatre campaign. Warden developed a theoretical shift from economic warfare based on targeting the industrial web or directly against the population to informational targeting. The central theme of Warden´s Five Strategic Rings model is the focus on leadership. The other elements are organic essentials, infrastructure, population, and fielded forces. Warden stressed the importance of identifying the centers of gravity, which could vary depending on the adversary´s political, economic, military, and cultural characteristics. By circumstances, Warden´s Checkmate Division in the pentagon supported the development of the air option against Iraq in 1990. His model was applied to guide the development of the strategic air campaign and as Warden later contended “This was a case where the theory existed before the fact and the facts validated the theory.” There is little to say about the overwhelming success of operation
Air Defense Artillery remains one of the most respected assets to the United States Army, ready to deploy its units and weapon systems at anytime and anywhere in support of freedom. Works Cited Brigade General Scales, Robert H. JR. Certain Victory. The U.S. Army in the Gulf War. NewYork: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993.
1. What do you think of when you drive by that big B-52 at the museum? Being the history buff that I am, I think about Vietnam, where that old “Buff” was used the most. “Why should I care about Vietnam?” you ask yourself. Well, last time I checked there’s a history section in the PFE guide, so there might be a test later! The intent of this paper is to inform you about Operation Linebacker II. I’ll explain the events leading up to the operation, discuss the strategy, and finally I’ll sum up the results of a bombing campaign Sir Michael Knight characterized In the book Strategic Offensive Air Operation as “...may have played a role not unlike two B-29s over Japan 27 years earlier”. (Knight: 77) I’ll start by explaining why President Richard Nixon gave the order to begin this new bombing campaign.
Thesis. Air War College, 1987. http://www.airwar.edu//a>. Maxwell, Alabama: United States Air Force, 1987. DTIC Online -.
Ignorance and Air Power: The Failure of U. S. Leadership to Properly Utilize Air Power in Vietnam
Armies and Navies have clashed since antiquity, but the airplane that enables aerial combat is barely a century old. Airplanes saw widespread combat in the First World War, and, despite the doubts and financial concerns of military leaders of the time, the brave men who fly them have gained their own dedicated military division, the United States Air Force. Billy Mitchell, through his charisma and an image that endeared him in American culture, was an instrumental figure in developing the modern Air Force.
The United States of America is a powerful and well known force throughout the world. It has become a superpower of nations in just about three hundred years, being one of the newest nations in existence today. Its military reaches out into several countries in the globe and holds a presence as a peacekeeper and wielder of democracy. Of the US military’s five branches, the Air Force is the ruler of the skies, keeping control of the earth’s aerospace. Without the Air Force Special Operations, the military could not complete operations as effectively or efficiently as it potentially could. The United States Air Force is a key part of America’s mission to spread and assist democracy throughout the world.
Johnson, David E. Fast Tanks and Heavy Bombers: Innovation in the U.S. Army, 1917-1945. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1998. Print.
The airmobility concept is one of Army Aviation’s most prominent battlefield innovations, almost single handedly shaping the Vietnam War and in many ways, helping to influence how we fight wars today. In its essence, airmobility is a concept that utilizes Army aircraft in order to enhance the ground forces’ ability to perform the five fundamentals of combat: command and control, firepower, intelligence, mobility, and communications (Rottman, 2007). At the zenith of the airmobility concept is the airmobile assault or commonly known today as, the air assault. The airmobile assault was more than just moving troops from point A to point B; it involved intense planning and preparation. When implemented correctly, the airmobile assault provided light infantry greater mobility on the battlefield, along with the ability to seize the initiative and to synchronize attacks.
The Vietnam War provided challenging and exciting times for United States (US) military aviation. Jets were still considered new technology at the beginning of the 1960’s and had not been tested thoroughly during the Korean War. As the situation in Vietnam started to escalate, US leadership recognized the importance of air superiority and the need to use and adapt newer technology. Air superiority can be achieved through multiple means, but none as romanticized and iconic as aerial combat. The general concept remains the same even to this day—defeat the other plane. However, the means to winning a dog fight had changed greatly due to the quick advancement in jet propulsion and guided weapon technology. This paper provides a summarization of the US efforts towards achieving air superiority through the means of aerial combat.
Following the devastation of trench warfare during World War I, early airpower theorist believed strategic bombing could be the new way to win wars and reduced the number of lives lost. Theorist like, Guilio Douhet, Hugh Trenchard, and William “Billy” Mitchel became pioneers and advocates of strategic bombing. They believed striking the enemy’s troops, war-marking industry, and vital centers would produce a decisive victory. The airpower theory would be a key element to the Allies strategy in Second World War (WW2). Leaders in Britain and the United States believed Germany was a greater threat than Japan. Thus, the airpower strategy of the European theater of operation became the primary focus. Allied airpower was decisive in the European theater of WW2. The combination of strategic and tactical airpower produced the defeat of the Luftwaffe and the Third Reich.
Maxwell, Hilary. “Warfare Plans of Countries.” Monta Vista High School, Cupertino. 26 Jan. 2014. Lecture.
The Air Corps Act of 1926 created the Army Air Corps, established an Assistant Secretary for War for Air, and provided representation on the War Department’s General Staff. Moreover, airpower enthusiasts created professional military education programs, such as the Air Corps Tactical School, that not only emphasized the importance of strategic bombing, but also facilitated debate on the role of fighter aircraft as well. Consequently, future advocates of airpower expanded their conception of theory and furthered their practical approach to implementation of aviation technology and air war tactics. This proliferation of airpower theory through education, perhaps, was the most significant element of institutionalization of airpower into the culture of the American military
Current military leadership should comprehend the nature of war in which they are engaged within a given political frame in order to develop plans that are coherent with the desired political end state. According to Clausewitz, war is an act of politics that forces an enemy to comply with certain conditions or to destroy him through the use of violence. A nation determines its vital interests, which drives national strategy to obtain or protect those interests. A country achieves those goals though the execution of one of the four elements of power, which are diplomatic, informational, military and economical means. The use of military force...
By the end of the Cold War the literature focusing on strategic studies has highlighted transformational changes within international system that affected and altered the very nature of war. As a result many security studies scholars have renounced traditional theories of strategic thought. Clausewitzian theory, in particular, has taken a lot of criticism, regarding its relevance to modern warfare. (Gray, How Has War Changed Since the End of the Cold War?, 2005)
a comprehensive research service. Retrieved May 2, 2004, from Terrorist Attack by Al Qaeda: http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/033104.pdf. Gunaratna, R. (2005, September). Retrieved September 2005, from http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/articles/05spring/henzel.pdf. Gunaratna, R. (n.d.).