What is strategic bombing?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Jul 2009 10:57

What is called strategic bombing is the same as tactical strike. It helps in a war effort. But it does not do all those war winning things that are claimed. "Strategic" is therefore tactical, not strategic. One needs to use the words "strategic bombing" with caution because it evokes pictures of effects that simply do not occur.

disagree, while there are situations when the differences are blurred, strategy in general refers to the long term war-making potential of an adversary while tactics is about immediate 'ways and means' to counter current activities of enemy warmachine.

strategic and tactical bombing is thus just the names given to air-strikes in the respective cases.
they are not same.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 11 Jul 2009 11:35

If I was a strategic planner, i would totally focus on taking out the power generation facilities, refineries and oil producing infrastructure. With no or little fuel, the war machine grounds to a halt and the enemy's options become severely limited.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 11 Jul 2009 12:44

What about targeting enemy leadership?If you are able to take out enemy leaders their chain of command collapses.Is there anything more strategic.Although you would require extremely high quality intelligence to do so.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 11 Jul 2009 13:04

Targeting leadership is also a strategic goal. It can paralyze an enemy for a time. However, you must be able to take out the backup/reserve leadership in order to have a noticeable effect.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 11 Jul 2009 13:19

awesome .... br mods ... i had sincerely changed my mind after voting .... so i tried to vote again and it correctly recalculates all the math. I have changed my vote to "bombing industries...." after considering the effect of the gulf war.

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 11 Jul 2009 18:08

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 11 Jul 2009 21:14

Me thinks

Strategic bombing the the bombing of those vital targets which has a direct effect on the future conflict. For example taking out enemies C4I centres, important air bases, political centres etc

Tactical bombing is bombing enemy targets with the idea of slowly and steadily eroding his military and economic prowess. Like CAS to the army, attacking supply convoys, supply bases etc.

By the way during the Gulf War Version 1.0
"Strategic" bombing was done on Iraqi communications by "tactical" aircraft like F 117 and then by F 16s etc

"Tactical" bombing of Iraqi army positions, especially the much flaunted Republican guards positions, was done by a "strategic" bomber B 52s

Now
What is tactical bombing ?
What is strategic bombing ?

K

rohiths · Post by **rohiths** » 11 Jul 2009 22:30

Strategic bombing for me is nuking the enemy left right and center.

That would end any war instantly
However in the real world it may involve taking out the important elements of the enemy's war strategy
Pakistan's strategy would be based on its nuclear weapons, airfields, command and control, submarines and the important strike divisions. Taking them out will render its strategy ineffective and its winning the war impossible.
Any action/bombing which accomplishes that is strategic bombing.
In the present day context nuclear weapons are the easiest way to ensure complete destruction of the enemy's war strategy.

Sandipan · Post by **Sandipan** » 11 Jul 2009 23:08

Shiv - You have gone to great length in explaining the Strategic Bombing. I believe any big idea cannot be characterised black or white. Strategic Bombing as a concept has shades of grey, by which i mean it was successful in Second World War against Japan & Germany but was unsuccessful against an unconventional enemy in Vietnam which basically believed in Guerilla tactics. But, here too we cannot term it as total failure by just looking at the comparative casuality figures of American and Vietnamese forces. But, Ultimately Vietnam prevailed by its sheer capacity to take losses and America had to concede defeat due to prolong and brutal war far from home.

What I mean to say is, success or failure of Stratefic bombing in my opinion depends on few factors

1. Comparative strength of opposing forces. There can be better chances of success in USA v/s Iraq kind of situation then a USA v/s China.

2. Capacity of the Enemy to take losses, how desperate it is.

3. What kind of enemy you are facing. Strategic bombing can work only in conventional situations in my opinion. NOt against non-conventional forces.

Gurus can add points....

Strategic Bombing in my opinion in today's situation cannot be dismissed just because the weapons have become more accurate, or we have nuclear environment with advesaries armed with nuclear weapons and there is less possibility of Second World war like bombing runs.

I believe, even in today's world Strategic Bombing is a possibility, i just depends on the situation, adversaries, nature of conflict, what is in stake

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Jul 2009 23:12

Hitesh wrote:Targeting leadership is also a strategic goal. It can paralyze an enemy for a time. However, you must be able to take out the backup/reserve leadership in order to have a noticeable effect.

not necessarily, it's one of those grey areas. snipers for example target the commanders, that is a tactical strike (even though it may have strategic value too) because it has an immediate impact on the war.

Patni · Post by **Patni** » 11 Jul 2009 23:56

To me strategic bombing is any bombing run that advances or enhances chances of the war fighting army's fight plans by trying to influence the direction of war to ones advantage. Disruptive run on supply lines or say blow up some important bridges or ordinance factories ,so as to weaken or limit the options open to enemy units, and trap them to make them ineffective as fast as possible is what strategic bombing means.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 12 Jul 2009 00:23

Cross posting from thread "Indian Military Aviation"

-------------------------------------------------------

As for strategic bombing, well it does certainly have its uses. Check out the highway of death during Gulf War I. Also if you can fix enemy forces into place, you can carpet bomb them into oblivion.

Strategic bombers are very useful for negating conventional forces that are out in the open or trying to maneuver around your flanks. It is also useful for taking out warmaking and warfighting capabilities such as power plants, fuel depots, transmission relay stations, communication nodes, petroleum refineries. Once those things are hit and gone, your ability to wage war on your terms become severely degraded and you are down to guerrilla tactics which is not much to begin with. Downgrading the conventional capability to guerrilla capability is like downgrading to a go cart from a Porsche.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 12 Jul 2009 04:15

Rahul M wrote:
Hitesh wrote:Targeting leadership is also a strategic goal. It can paralyze an enemy for a time. However, you must be able to take out the backup/reserve leadership in order to have a noticeable effect.
not necessarily, it's one of those grey areas. snipers for example target the commanders, that is a tactical strike (even though it may have strategic value too) because it has an immediate impact on the war.

It depends.If it's the battlefield leadership then its tactical strike.But what if you are targeting the President/amy chief/Intelligence head.Surely that's strategic.There is a difference between neutralising a pakistani colonel commanding a tank unit and targeting ISI chief in Rawalpindi.

I will give you an analogy.If you take out a fuel convoy near battlezone that might be classified as tactical strike.But if you bomb a refinery it will be strategic in nature.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Jul 2009 06:49

Hitesh wrote:Cross posting from thread "Indian Military Aviation"

-------------------------------------------------------

As for strategic bombing, well it does certainly have its uses. Check out the highway of death during Gulf War I. Also if you can fix enemy forces into place, you can carpet bomb them into oblivion.

Strategic bombers are very useful for negating conventional forces that are out in the open or trying to maneuver around your flanks. It is also useful for taking out warmaking and warfighting capabilities such as power plants, fuel depots, transmission relay stations, communication nodes, petroleum refineries. Once those things are hit and gone, your ability to wage war on your terms become severely degraded and you are down to guerrilla tactics which is not much to begin with. Downgrading the conventional capability to guerrilla capability is like downgrading to a go cart from a Porsche.

An enemy who has a go kart or even intact legs will keep coming at you and your strategic aeroplanes can do nothing So the Porsche-go-kart analogy is charming, but the end point in war is that the enemy has no way of moving, not even a go kart, while you have something.

If the latter is the real aim of strategic bombing, it has never achieved that except in Japan.

I think that most of the "examples" of strategic bombing that have been quoted as successes are examples of what the US has done and claimed as a success. The US has a remarkable way of embellishing its successes with fancy names that go into folklore. For example:

"Thousand bomber raid" over Dresden
"Enola Gay"
"Highway of death"
"Shomali plain"

These examples are quoted time and time again as great and fearsome successes of strategic bombing when they remain mere tactical victories in a war that was either not won, or won by a thousand other means. Heck two of those wars are still being fought and it is the US that is pulling out. Exactly what did strategic bombing win?

And the same people who did "thousand bomber raids" are totally silent on the same or worse devastation in Korea and Vietnam which did not win the wars. Once again, we as people getting 90% of our inputs from the Anglophone propaganda apparatus tend to believe what is dished out by that propaganda apparatus and do not even hear about what is ignored and kept secret by omission. And I am talking about the great failure of strategic bombing used in Vietnam and Korea.

If you read what "strategic bombing" attempted to do in Korea - one of the things was to try and stop the Koreans from growing rice. North Korea is a standing example of the failure of "strategic bombing" - setting aside "strategic excuses" for the failure. And when you read about what was attempted - it is easy to see why North Korea does not give a damn about the US today.

Now guess who invented the expression "strategic bombing"

Guess who uses those words where convenient?

If "strategic bombing" as defined and used by the inventors of the concept has almost never succeeded in its stated aims - what the hell are we talking about when we say "strategic bombing" or worse, ask that the failed methods of strategic bombing should be emulated by the IAF?

The latter worries me deeply because the starting point of asking the IAF to have a "strategic bomber force" is the assumption that "strategic bombing works" (which it has almost never done). Naturally, the IAF will never match the USAF in force levels and when the IAF fails in strategic bombing, we will say "Oh we failed because we did not build up a force like the USAF" That would be such a tragedy. Strategic bombing has so far been a failure in the hands of the people who conceived of the idea and implemented it in World War 2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. It is hardly likely to be a success in anyone else's hands unless the definition and end point of strategic bombing are changed.

Fortunately Air Forces realise this - but public opinion has a way of affecting military forces and I think it is essential that we remain objective, neutral and comprehensive when we address the question of the value and methods of "strategic bombing". Everyone is still using a few tactical success examples of strategic bombing as justification for why it is essential with not a chirp about its astounding failures.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Jul 2009 09:59

The words "Strategic bombing" are usually associated with the following effects:

1) Heavy devastation
2) Laying waste of entire cities
3) Carpet bombing thousands of acres
4) Saturation bombing
5) Pulverization of enemy targets and decimation of everything in the area
6) Desolation of an entire nation
7) Flattening of vast areas
8) Reducing to rubble
9) Destruction of an enemy nation's will and ability to fight
10) Breaking the morale of the people of an entire nation bringing their ability to wage war to a halt

These ten effects can be divided into two groups, Group A and group B

Group A
1) Heavy devastation
2) Laying waste of entire cities
3) Carpet bombing thousands of acres
4) Saturation bombing
5) Pulverization of enemy targets and decimation of everything in the area
6) Desolation of an entire nation
7) Flattening of vast areas
8) Reducing to rubble

Group B
9) Destruction of an enemy nation's will and ability to fight
10) Breaking the morale of the people of an entire nation bringing their ability to wage war to a halt

Group A is true, but Group B is not

When people speak of "strategic bombing" the first 8 effects seem so terrible that the last 2 effects (Group B) seem to follow "naturally" from the first 8 effects (group A).

So it is automatically assumed that "Stregic bombing" achieves all these aims. An aeon long pox be upon those who have made up this story. Strategic bombing alone has never ever resulted in

Group B

9) Destruction of an enemy nation's will and ability to fight
10) Breaking the morale of the people of an entire nation bringing their ability to wage war to a halt

The problem is that everyone automatically assumes that if you develop the capability to inflict Group A points 1 to 8, then points 9 and 10 will follow. This is grossly incorrect. Money and effort spent on devloping the capability to inflict points 1 to 8 will not lead to 9 and 10.

Nations who have the means are welcome to develop the capability to inflict group A points 1-8, but they would be mistaken if that capability is assumed to deliver into their laps points 9 and 10 in "group B" above.

This is the precise problem created by advocates of "strategic bombing". It's devastating effects are assumed to lead to an easy road to victory in war. That is plain rubbish.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 12 Jul 2009 12:10

Even if the enemy has a go cart that keeps coming at you, you still have a porsche that can outrun that go cart. You just have to do the work. That is the nature of war. What the strategic bombing achieves is to make your grunts' lives a lot easier to take the battlefield to your liking and on your terms much faster. In short, you are making the enemy die harder and more bloody while giving your forces an easier time to win victories. Look at Gulf War I and see how easily US ground forces trumped Iraqi forces after 40 days of bombing day and night. US completely decapitated the central decision makers from the frontline troops. As a result the frontline troops were isolated from each other and from the main HQs leading to a chaotic state of Iraqi preparedness and incoherent posture. As a result, American forces were able to pick off Iraqi units one by one at their leisure.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Jul 2009 13:40

Hitesh wrote:Even if the enemy has a go cart that keeps coming at you, you still have a porsche that can outrun that go cart. You just have to do the work. That is the nature of war. What the strategic bombing achieves is to make your grunts' lives a lot easier to take the battlefield to your liking and on your terms much faster. In short, you are making the enemy die harder and more bloody while giving your forces an easier time to win victories. Look at Gulf War I and see how easily US ground forces trumped Iraqi forces after 40 days of bombing day and night. US completely decapitated the central decision makers from the frontline troops. As a result the frontline troops were isolated from each other and from the main HQs leading to a chaotic state of Iraqi preparedness and incoherent posture. As a result, American forces were able to pick off Iraqi units one by one at their leisure.

Hitesh - why is the US still in Iraq if the strategic forces were that good?

Why does North Korea exist if strategic bombing was that good?

Why did the US quit Vietnam? Why is the US in Afghanistan?

The answer is that "bombing the crap out of the gooks" to make "grunt's lives easy" and "keeping the body count ratios high" are just so many ways of describing a useless situation in which poor planning loses wars despite fancy terminology and fancy weapons. "Strategic bombing" belongs right in there with those fancy words that we all hear from Hollywood to Discovery channel. And I also hear the stonewalling denial that fancy terminology does not win wars.

In the end it was the Viet Cong "grunts" and the Noko "grunts" that won. And the Iraqi and Taliban grunts survived.

Yes I do agree that life was made easier for US grunts. That is why they don't seem to be winning. Despite strategic bombing.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 12 Jul 2009 13:48

I would say all the above.

The work done by B-52 types of bombers also fits in some strategies, so does bombing Cities, carpet bombing, Nuclear attacks, or even proclaiming a disbelief in strategic bombing could be a strategy to prevent another part with superior bomber srategic capabilites using some of the above as part of strategy. It depends on what strategy one wants to employ. JMT/

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 12 Jul 2009 13:54

shiv ji, if I might add, strategic bombing may be useful but not strategic bombers !

the problem with the US approach was that they thought air power is the solution to everything.
unfortunately for them air power is only one part of the matrix required to win a war.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Jul 2009 14:10

Rahul M wrote: the problem with the US approach was that they thought air power is the solution to everything.
unfortunately for them air power is only one part of the matrix required to win a war.

I would go beyond that to say that US policymakers and armed forces commanders after WW2 have become so enamored of the myths they have cooked up that they have convinced themselves that wars are won by "strategic bombing", "kill ratios", "winning firefights" and "making life easy for the grunt". The US jumps into wars with alacrity and has deep pockets to keep funding these wars and a huge propaganda apparatus to help come out of each war several presidents later using some excuse or the other.

"Strategic bombing" has preceded the start of every war that the US has fought in the last 20 years and only the war in Kosovo has been concluded. It may be that "Strategic bombing" is a way to start a war and make potential initial gains after which the war needs to muddle through and win itself. if it is won - the strategic bombing that started the war can take credit. But such winning has just not occurred!!

So what's the strategy in "strategic"? Could it be Start-e-gic?

The US is welcome to do all this. But there seems to be no earthly reason why any sane nation that lacks the US's deep pockets that is not straining to fight and lose needless wars should not be sensible and read through the hyperbole.

"Strategic bombing" is another tactic to help win a war (or start a war in the case of the US). Not an end in itself, and it has not been shown to win wars. The term really should be discarded in favor of terms like "Tactical strike", "Erosion of enemy warfighting potential" and "surgical removal of enemy assets" The term "strategic bombing" has been raped beyond redemption by US tactics and its employment of "Strategic Air Forces" to give people a particular picture of what "strategic bombing" means and a false idea that it wins wars and that winning requires the employment of such tactics. This is totally delusional.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 12 Jul 2009 14:30

"Strategic bombing" has preceded the start of every war that the US has fought in the last 20 years and only the war in Kosovo has been concluded.

even then, a lot of serbian military hardware that was supposed to have been destroyed (as eloquently described in the daily NATO briefings by jamie shea) was later found to have survived the "strategic bombardment" and "softening up of the enemy".

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 13 Jul 2009 01:44

Shiv,

Strategic bombing can end wars. Look at the fire raids against Tokyo, the nuclear raid against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Strategic bombing goes in hand to hand with ground forces. For example, it would be far more effective to have 100 B-52s and a 500,000 force than a 1.2 million force when the 500,000 force can lock the enemy force into place for the B-52s to bomb the crap out of the enemy force and obliterate it. Gulf War prove that. As for the Iraq war, that was a different beast but do read up the invasion reports and how bombing took care of the Medina Division and the one other division that was tasked with defending Baghdad. the 3-7 Cavalry drew the division out in the open and thus locked that division against the carpet bombing that followed. As a result, the 1st ID's brigades were able to march through Baghdad without significant opposition. Moreover, the threat of strategic bombing had played a demoralizing effect on Iraqi troops that they simply gave up and walked away and blended into the civilian population. However, during the occupational phase, the goals are different since it was a goal of winning hearts and minds which means you could not bomb the crap out of your enemy's locations. It had to be surgical.

But when it comes to invading a county, strategic bombing is a must. Strategic bombing did work against North Vietnam when after 12 days of bombing, the North Vietnam finally agreed to come back to the bargaining table. The only reason why North Vietnam won the war was because US never bothered to invade North Vietnam. After operation Rolling thunder and linebacker I and II, the north Vietnamese forces suffered a lot of casaulties in that they were in no shape to offer a sustained fight in light of a credible invasion.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jul 2009 07:41

Hitesh wrote: But when it comes to invading a county, strategic bombing is a must. Strategic bombing did work against North Vietnam when after 12 days of bombing, the North Vietnam finally agreed to come back to the bargaining table. The only reason why North Vietnam won the war was because US never bothered to invade North Vietnam. After operation Rolling thunder and linebacker I and II, the north Vietnamese forces suffered a lot of casaulties in that they were in no shape to offer a sustained fight in light of a credible invasion.

These are called strategic excuses after losing a war. This is not a success story for strategic bombing.

Sorry Hitesh - I believe that you are making the same arguments that are usually made without addressing the fact that none of these wars was won and none of these wars (other than nuke attack) actually achieved the aims of demoralizing an enemy and removing his will or ability to fight. Iraqi soldiers melting away and not fighting is fine. But who is fighting now in Iraq - djinns? And who is talking of moving out of Iraq after declaring victory?

Please - we can't foist this kind of sham on the Indian people. The US can afford to play out this sham forever.The US is after all a Trillion dollar economy and the only superpower. It can waste billions of dollars and waste millions of foreign lives and claim that it is winning even after retreat - like a Kargil (x 1000)

Please take some time out to read what I have written and the links posted from the beginning of this thread and tell me why most wars involving strategic bombing were not won. After that we can talk about reducing "grunts" and increasing a B-52 like force. I believe that the US exerts such a great halo effect that people just go into denial when faced with facts.

Strategic bombing just does not work as advertised.

It is great for starting wars - "It is a must" according to both you and the US military. How can I disagree? All I am talking about is the ability to win wars. The US gets into wars with strategic bombing but cannot win them with strategic bombing? So what is the strategy here if it is used only to start war? Please..

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 13 Jul 2009 07:53

Shiv,
In the Indian context, we wouldn't be faced with a nameless, faceless enemy if we get into a conventional conflict with either TSPA or the PLA. So there wont be a scenario where we would think of applying (strategic) bombers. We wouldnt have done that in J&K even if we had the capacity to, isn't it? Despite the fact that J&K isn't quite the same as Iraq.

In such a case, assuming we dont go nuclear, wouldn't the capability to bomb to oblivion the supporting infrastructure for the amassed troops, tanks etc be a handy thing to have? Of course, we would have the use of ballistic and cruise missiles for this purpose, but how would bombers play in that role compared to the missiles? I have no idea and would like to know.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jul 2009 08:18

tsriram wrote:
In such a case, assuming we dont go nuclear, wouldn't the capability to bomb to oblivion the supporting infrastructure for the amassed troops, tanks etc be a handy thing to have? Of course, we would have the use of ballistic and cruise missiles for this purpose, but how would bombers play in that role compared to the missiles? I have no idea and would like to know.

A lot of things would be "handy" in war. And yes the ability to "pulverize" enemy forces would certainly be handy. But that would only be one of a number of handy things that one would need to take any war in a direction that leads to a conclusion in one's own favor.

"Strategic bombing" has never won a war by itself. A tactic helps towards the goal of winning a war. Such bombing is one such tactic. Not a war winning strategy.

The "capability to bomb to oblivion the supporting infrastructure for the amassed troops, tanks" is handy, but cannot be the sole war winning strategy. In other words it is one tactic that may need to be used if the situation warrants it, but that does not mean you can cut down on ground troops, artillery, heliborne forces, paratroops, making use of terrain and tactical air support. This so called "strategic bombing" is advertised as a war winning "strategy". It is not .it is only one tool in war. In this world that tool has been used most often by Americans to start or continue wars that they have not won.

Carpet bombing cities, forests, paddy fields, mountains and tanks in deserts never won any war for the people who did the bombing. The other side, with the grunts who gave their lives always won, or at least survived to continue the war. "Strategic bombing" enjoys a reputation that is does not deserve. Because of the propaganda used with it - this impression is very difficult to erase. Note that even you have had to resort to the usual rhetoric associated with strategic bombing that gives it an aura that enhances its reputation without any factual basis: "Bomb into oblivion" you say. The Vietnamese, Koreans, Iraqis and Taliban who were "bombed to oblivion" clearly still exist and are still fighting or have won. Oblivion can't be such a bad place if going there means ultimate victory for your side.

So what is the "strategy" in strategic bombing? How much money and resources can you put aside to maintain a huge fleet of large, expensive aerial targets that drop a whole lot of bombs? The US could afford to lose thousands of these in Germany and Vietnam. The US does not lose thousands nowadays (only the odd stealth bomber to a rainstorm) - but those strategic bombers are not winning wars. They only start wars and make things look good - "Good to invade nations" as someone said. Not good for getting out with a win though..

How come the Vietnamese and Koreans won their wars without these assets? Only strategic excuses can explain why such large and expensive assets need to be maintained in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are not value for money in winning wars. The US may want to waste money on such forces. It's their money. But India?

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 13 Jul 2009 09:29

I am sure these points have been discussed before but FWIW I wanna put my perspective:

1). Strategic Bombing during the 2nd WW was used extensively by the USAF & RAF primarily, now please compare the effect they had as compared to the bombing raids that were more tactical in operation by the Luftwaffe and the Japanese AF. Even without these massive bombers such as the B-29s and B-24s ityaadi they were still able to do extensive damage to the allied nations.

2). As Shiv has mentioned Vietnam and Korea with Iraq are the biggest examples of failures of Strageic Bombing. Duriing the Cold War the Soviets and the Yanks had them and to a certain extent needed to have them to ensure MAD balance was always maintained. The USAF litterally bombed the living SH$% outta the Vietcong to the extent that for years people were being killed by unexploded ordanance and to what avail afterall it was the North that marched right in and took over as one! Similar result for Korea.

3). With the advent of ICBMs, CMs, and other advanced mijjiles the Strategic Bombers have become obsolete IMVHO. Also you now have systems that can deliver focussed impact such as the Brahmos. One Brahmos hitting an industrial plant in a key area would be enough to disable it rather than a Tu160 bringing down 40tonnes of ordanance on the plant! Yes range can be a potential issue but this can be negated with better range systems being developed

4). In todays military world the key buzz word is precission strikes. What is the darn need to take whole cities out when the Industries that are located with in can be targeted accurately and thus be disabled with minumum collateral.

5). Also given how advanced the air defence environment is and the suppa duppa SAM systems that are being developed n deployed namely the S-300, PAD, AAD, THAAD, PAC-3, Barak-8, etc really how effective would these bombers be trying to get to their assigned targets. Now most people would say try CM strikes or SRAM strikes but these can be done without the bombers too form Naval or land based platforms. Having said that there have been recent incidences where the 95s and 160s have taunted NORAD over Alaska and the RAF and Norwegian forces. But these should not be taken in our context as our main adversaries would be Chicoms and Bakis neither of which have Strategic Bombers the best the Plaaf has is those darn Badgers who are now being reengined to be ALCM carriers.

6). Lets say we do have them would our beloved netas have the balls to use these in anger...I highly doubt!

7). The best India would benefit from would be those Tu22M3s prowling the IOR region but then again what if the money spent on these was spent on a squadron of MKIs for the IN and the IN has complete op control on these!

JMT

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 13 Jul 2009 10:56

Shiv,
My definition of what constitutes 'strategic' "warfare" is the capability to decisively change the outcome of a conflict either during or before one has even begun by pre-emption.

To assume that it is the be-all end-all kind of Brahmastra which you can wield to annihilate your enemy without having boots on the ground and a proper land army is naive. And you say the same thing. Neither do I consider carpet bombing civilians or guesstimated regions of forests where the enemy hideouts might be to be covered under the ambit of strategic bombing.

As andyB says, given the fact that we have LACMs and BMs, how would bombers give us any special edge? As missile carriers, carrying them far and wide on patrols like SSBNs? Sounds too far-fetched?

The Vietnamese, Koreans, Iraqis and Taliban who were "bombed to oblivion" clearly still exist and are still fighting or have won. Oblivion can't be such a bad place if going there means ultimate victory for your side.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jul 2009 11:19

tsriram wrote:Shiv,
My definition of what constitutes 'strategic' "warfare" is the capability to decisively change the outcome of a conflict either during or before one has even begun by pre-emption.

To assume that it is the be-all end-all kind of Brahmastra which you can wield to annihilate your enemy without having boots on the ground and a proper land army is naive. And you say the same thing. Neither do I consider carpet bombing civilians or guesstimated regions of forests where the enemy hideouts might be to be covered under the ambit of strategic bombing.

I like your definition.

One of the reasons I am coming out so strongly against the expression "strategic bombing" is that while there are a whole lot of people such as yourself and over 80% of the voters of the poll on this thread who have a perfectly realistic view of what constitutes "strategic warfare" - the word has been polluted by a particular propaganda apparatus that makes people imagine that limited successes of "strategic bombing" were victories in themselves.

You look at the adjectives and rhetoric attached to the idea and you begin to think that there is some conspiracy there to make it seem like magic is being done by "strategic bombing" and the idea gets reinforced when you actually find a whole lot of people using the same examples and same terminology that is used with strategic bombing to indicates great success in wars that were either lost outright or certainly not won.

You cannot start talking about "strategic bombing" without people starting to sing paeans using examples and terms like

B-52 alley
Highway of death
Shomali plain
Carpet bomb, decimate, pulverise, reduce to rubble, blow to bits,

Anyone who wants to look at the hard truth about the success of strategic bombing has to contend with the above examples and reputation that are brought up again and again - all from wars that were either not won, or lost by the side that the "strategic bombers" worked for.

The idea of "strategic bombing" is supposed to invoke fear and awe. But hey - even a gun pointed at anyone's head will invoke fear and awe so why should any tactic get a reputation it does not deserve? "Strategic bombing" never took down the morale of Germans, Vietnamese, Koreans, Taliban and Iraqis for long. It did a lot of damage, but it never won a war. The whole idea sounds a bit like the tragic news item in today's paper. A sleeping man was woken up by a 6 year old child playing and he got so angry he hit the child hard and it died. He then tried to mutilate the face and hide the body, but eventually confessed. Why hit so hard if it not going to benefit you in the long term? Especially when history shows that hitting anyone so hard does not lead to a consistently favorable outcome? This certainly applies to the concept of "strategic bombing" as it is pushed in the media, Western history books and folklore.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 13 Jul 2009 12:29

Its a credit to BRF if 80% of the forumites who discussed the topic have a realistic take on the concept instead of buying the Psy-ops produced by the gora west.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 13 Jul 2009 13:00

shiv wrote:
The whole idea sounds a bit like the tragic news item in today's paper. A sleeping man was woken up by a 6 year old child playing and he got so angry he hit the child hard and it died. He then tried to mutilate the face and hide the body, but eventually confessed. Why hit so hard if it not going to benefit you in the long term? Especially when history shows that hitting anyone so hard does not lead to a consistently favorable outcome? This certainly applies to the concept of "strategic bombing" as it is pushed in the media, Western history books and folklore.

Shiv that example straight away brought the Highway to hell in mind where everything civilian or military was bombed to kingdom come!

One can only imagine what the people would have had to suffer through the ordeal that is called Carpet Bombing...

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 13 Jul 2009 13:06

shiv wrote:The idea of "strategic bombing" is supposed to invoke fear and awe. But hey - even a gun pointed at anyone's head will invoke fear and awe so why should any tactic get a reputation it does not deserve? "Strategic bombing" never took down the morale of Germans, Vietnamese, Koreans, Taliban and Iraqis for long. It did a lot of damage, but it never won a war

Why hit so hard if it not going to benefit you in the long term? Especially when history shows that hitting anyone so hard does not lead to a consistently favorable outcome? This certainly applies to the concept of "strategic bombing" as it is pushed in the media, Western history books and folklore.

This is particularly apt for an analogy to the evolution of bombing itself. During WWII, they carpet bombed cities by design and by mistake. Now we can choose through which window we want to shower rose petals.

So, "strategic bombing" may no longer imply carpet bombing the crap out of enemy positions like they did in Iraq with the B-52s. In our case, that is if we choose to use such methodologies, we might end up using smart munitions, which again may be missile delivered rather than bomber delivered. Shock and awe tactics of a much greater military effect rather than on public/civilians.

wig · Post by **wig** » 13 Jul 2009 16:47

bombing precision or carpet with normal bombs will always leave survivors whoe are of an extremely virulent strain of. Till the enemy is not reduced to a very small count it might not be a sensible decision to send in ground troops. We must encourage the enemy to die in the service of its nation. such widespread destruction can be caused only by nuclear weapons.
a strategic bomber unit will always act as a fear factor in the mind of the enemy and will be factored into war games. this will always work as a factor that delays or complicates the action calculus of the enemy- assuming that it thinks rationally- which is a big if.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 13 Jul 2009 17:11

wig wrote:a strategic bomber unit will always act as a fear factor in the mind of the enemy and will be factored into war games. this will always work as a factor that delays or complicates the action calculus of the enemy- assuming that it thinks rationally- which is a big if.

Not to nitpick, but to overcome this very fear rebels in Vietnam and Afghanistan developed large networks of tunnels.

If the premise of a concept/ platform is to just instill fear or create surprise, then IMVHO it is a waste, especially expending billions of dollars. Because what next when the enemy overcomes the fear/ surprise is lost?

I believe India needs a long range, reusable (possibly stealth, fast) munition delivery platform (conventional or/and nuclear payload, missiles or guided bombs). But we dont need it right now. Our immediate concerns of China and Pakistan are met by a combination of Su-30s, Jaguars, Prithvis, Agnis and Brahmos.

We can wait 10-20 years and see in which direction technology progresses. Bombers in their current avatar are in their last throes. I see AVATAR type platforms as future for India and the world. So why not conserve the money, spend on developing in-house technologies to move into the next generation when we may need such a system, depending on geo political situation then.

nitinr · Post by **nitinr** » 13 Jul 2009 18:05

I have selected none of the above as Strategic bombing has to be part of the whole game plan and not the plan in itself. It depends on the enemy you are fighting as well as the objectives for the fighting. It all depends on the objectives at hand and not one size fits all.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 13 Jul 2009 20:42

Any decision or action which influence the outcome of an event can be categorised as Strategic or Tactical. But the term "Strategic bombing" has its own connotation.

Operationally, Startegic bombing differes from tactial one by load of ordance delivered and the selection of traget. By default nuclear payload is considered Strategic.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 13 Jul 2009 20:45

nope, there's tactical nukes as well !

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 13 Jul 2009 20:59

Quote:
What is called strategic bombing is the same as tactical strike.

Not really.

A tactical strike is to the immediate battlefield with results that are immediate or near immediate.

A strategic strike has a longer period of effect!

Blasting a tank making facility would not have an immediate effect, but if the war is prolonged, it will.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 13 Jul 2009 21:03

nope, there's tactical nukes as well !

I said, by default...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Jul 2009 07:49

RayC wrote:
A tactical strike is to the immediate battlefield with results that are immediate or near immediate.

A strategic strike has a longer period of effect!

Blasting a tank making facility would not have an immediate effect, but if the war is prolonged, it will.

In his book Jasjit Singh refers to the origins of these definitions.

He classifies the use of "Tactical" air power as
1) Counter air
2) Air defence
3) Forward air support
4) Interdiction

It is with reference to "interdiction" that the terms "Tactical" and "strategic" became associated.

With "interdiction" the destruction of a bridge or a supply line behind enemy lines also changed the course of battle but it took some time to have an effect on battle unlike the actual strafing/rocketing of enemy lines.

Destroying a tank factory or oil installation in the deep interior of enemy territory also falls in the same category of "interdiction" that takes a longer time to have an effect. But it turned out that "short distance interdiction" (supply depots/bridges) could be done by fighters/fighter-bombers and the "tank factory" type interdiction required a longer range aircraft, and because of the inherent inaccuracy of dumb bombs, these longer ranged aircraft also tended to carry a much heavier bomb load.

So traditionally the word "strategic" cam to be applied to the deep interdiction strikes using heavy bombers while tactical came to be applied to interdiction that was closer, but still behind enemy lines to cause a delayed effect. The distinction was based on the distance travelled and the need for different aircraft platforms to do that

Gradually the distinction between "bomber" and "fighter/fighter-bomber became blurred, because both ended up flying similar missions and the latter were inherently more accurate. So the time taken for a given act of interdiction to have an effect upon the battle became a new distinguishing feature between "tactical" and "strategic"

Close air support on the battlefield is immediately obvious to the soldier on the ground and has an immediate but perhaps not a long lasting effect. This tends to be called "tactical". The effect of a "behind enemy lines" interdiction destroying infrastructure, storage and production facilities tends to get called "strategic".

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 14 Jul 2009 08:13

After reading all the posts here on this subject from very learned people, here are JMT:
Strategic bombing is destroying the logistical infrastruture i.e fuel dumps, ammon dumps, bridges and power statons. Tactical Bombing is giving advantage to friendly forces and denying that advantage to enemy forces.

I may be wrong in the eyes of many Generals, but I can say for fact, I do have experience, that is very current.

Strategic bombing means..