The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - December 3, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Logistics Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Invasion by air
Prometheus Bound    12/26/2003 10:38:04 PM
I'm looking for some input on the logistics on launching an invasion using air alone -- for the purposes of this topic, land and sea routes are unavailable.

What considerations are there?

A few thoughts I have:

1) You obviously need to take a large (preferably remote) airport. You have to drop the troops and equipment in, so they will be lightly armed.
2) If you lose tactical surprise, you get a whole new turkey shoot.
3) Can you move enough fast enough?
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2
gf0012-aus    RE:Invasion by air   12/26/2003 10:46:57 PM
Need to set variables on the opfor especially. eg are they landlcoked are the neighbours friendly or hostile to ingress force how far away is nearest port will the local airports support heavy reansports (runway length etc) SEAD issues etc etc etc....
 
Quote    Reply

Prometheus Bound    RE:Invasion by air   12/26/2003 11:47:34 PM
I meant for it to be a general discussion of the considerations involved, but the thought came to me when responding to a post on a potential invasion of Canada by a nation other than the US. Clearly, there is no land route and the isolated geography of North America makes an invasion by sea very difficult and would most likely have to be done without surprise. Facing these obstacles, what scenario might you come up with as a military planner to effect an aerial invasion?
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aus    RE:Invasion by air   12/27/2003 3:32:51 AM
refer back to Canada thread.. :) Otherwise I'll be double posting
 
Quote    Reply

bombard    RE:Invasion by air   12/29/2003 10:26:34 AM
Look at Crete: It was heavily defended, with some port infarstructure, and some airfields. It was taken by a specialist Air bourne division, with a mountain division (lighter equipment than an infantry division) and no panzers Strategicly, Air control is paramount. Surprise equally so. The Germans took the airfield, and then expanded quickly before the New Zeelanders could react. So I'd say speed is the last strategic variable.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    Invasion by air   12/30/2003 6:36:56 AM
Okay, here is how you would do it today. Step 1. Jump-in and seize a large airfield with lots of ramp space. Have some ATGM vehicles and tube artillery as part of this package. Push out 360 degrees beyond mortar/light arty range. Step 2. Airland additional infantry, ADA, Arty, engineer and especially scout/attack helicopters. Get air force controllers & cargo handlers in to run the airfield. Step 3. Airland a medium/heavy reaction company of tanks and IFVs. (Somalia taught this lesson to the US the hard way) Make sure you include logistics package (if you didn't seize A LOT of fuel when you took the airfield, you need to set up a bag/tanker farm). Step 4. More lift aircraft and build up of forces sufficient to give you an offensive capability. Once you have that, air assault to the next airport and repeat the process. Step 5. If you are doing this against Canada, surrender (Its too big!) Oh, and if you do not have a STRATEGIC lift capability and can sustain this for months on end, don't bother doing step 1.
 
Quote    Reply

Seeker    RE:Invasion by air   9/30/2004 12:35:03 AM
No one has the resources or strategic deployment to deploy and fight entirely by air. Any such action would have to be done on a wing and a prayer. In 1991 I understand that 95% of all weapons and logistics [ammo fuel food spares etc] were deployed by sea and both USA & UK were forced to rely on foreign ships to deploy the bulk of this force. Only 5% of this force and supplies were sent by air bridge. USA deployed the equivilent of maybe 11 divisional equivillents to Saudi Arabia, so if you extrapolate the best you could expect would be to deploy and support maybe 1/2 a mech division. That would include a slice of maybe 80 jets/planes in support. THis is the main impetus behind the stryker brigades since they require 1/4 of the logistics of a mech brigade.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    Seeker - Never say never   9/30/2004 9:17:10 AM
The US did Afghanistan in 2001-2002 with almost only air...and it was only air until 2002 when we got some rail operations going into Uzbekistan and Tajikastan...but it was still coming by air from there into Afghanistan. In the Gulf War, the US did have to lease a lot of foreign flag shipping. However, the US military sealift capacity more than tripled in the 10 years from 1991 - 2001. No if you look what I said, teh only mechnized force I talked about was a company team. Everything else would be wheeld vehicle. It is doable and sustainable for the US...don't know too many other countries who could, hence my last bullet.
 
Quote    Reply

Seeker    RE:Seeker - Never say never   9/30/2004 3:44:52 PM
Not sure about this.USA strategic deployment has steadly declined since the cold war.At that point they had a theoretical lift/delivery of ~ 30 million tons,of which only 1/2 would be used at one time. By 1991 that was reduced to about 20 million tons . IN 2002/3 the amount of forces deployed was almost 1/3 the size of the force sent to ODS in 1991. The impression I get that the run down through out the 1990s has crippled the USA strategic deployment and Stryker/FCS fiasco is a direct off shoot from this mistake.
 
Quote    Reply

k3n-54n    Re: Invasion by Air   9/30/2004 5:50:53 PM
It will depend hevily on how far you need to travel by air. If the target is, say, San Marcos, and you can't use France or Spain, but you can use UK, Ireland, Italy, Africa, then fighters could fly in support, bombers could remain on station for a long time, etc. If the target is Canada and you can't use the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean or the United States, you can only use, say, Greece, then you are very limited in what can be brought by air, both in terms of logistics and air power. If all you C-17s get shot down, it hardly mattes what they can carry. If they fly for 12 hours to get to their destination, then they aren't going to make many trips.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:Seeker    10/1/2004 9:40:09 AM
I don't understand what you meant by "Not sure about this." What I wrote about Afghanistan is not supposition...it happened. I agree the number of airframes are fewer in 2004 than 1991, but the availability rate for C-17 aircraft is higher than C-141....and they are a much more capable aicraft. We need more but we can do okay with what we have and leasing commercial to carry troops. And as for shipping capabilities....we have 3 times the amount of US flag ocean deployment vessels than we did in 1991. We have expanded greatly this area. As for Stryker "debacle"...I take the view (which is what the Army said from Day 1) that Stryker is an interim to FCS or whatever we end up with as the medium force. What a lot of people forget is that the SBCTs were originally IBCTs, where the I stood for Interim.
 
Quote    Reply

Seeker    RE:Seeker    10/1/2004 10:41:27 AM
I'm not disputing Afgan war, what I'm saying is that real combat capability is deployed by sea and this has declined in the last 15 years. USA deployed only 1/3 as many forces as in 1991. USA strategic capability is declining and new tech bells and whistles will not alter that much.
 
Quote    Reply

Seeker    AlbanyRifles   10/1/2004 1:07:33 PM
you said that USA has increased its flag merchant marine force. Can you provide any details cause Ive heard Clinton let it run down massively?
 
Quote    Reply

Sentinel    RE:Invasion by air   11/17/2004 3:29:50 PM
I think it can be done. There are many variables, outside of the political, that could make it un-do-able or much more risky. They would be: The number and quality of enemy armored forces. Your initial airborne or helo assualt would involve nothing more than light infantry perhaps a small number of IFVs, and close air support from fighter aircraft. Air defense capabilities (Particularly mobile defenses, and Manpads) These would not only hamper your initial assualt, you would probably not be able to sweep the country side free of these with a limited number of light infantry forces that would comprise the initial assualt. Proximity of friendly airbases for staging. How long will it take for follow on forces to arrive, this is key.
 
Quote    Reply

rikopotomous    RE rikopotomous: Invasion by Air   11/27/2004 2:58:19 AM
k3n-54n's point is the mosth important. If you're not within 300 miles of where youre going to be operating then you cant do it. as for Seeker and Albany...You guys are quibbling over stats and numerics. The United States is still the biggest baddest dog on the block and no country is gonna attack us. If they do we'll hit em so fast and so hard theyll wished they'd kept their mouths shut. The only action the U.S. military has forseeable future is going into protect some cities and the capital of a country some place in the South Pacific where al qaeda is organized as guerilla outfits out in the jungle coming in to do whatever and then leaving. u get the picture. This is how I'd run it: capture a decent sized air field with air assault with plenty of close air support, destroy any hostiles b4 u send the first men in. set up defensive positions, probe out 2-3 miles and land LAV's then move out and hold 2-3 mile perimeter. build a battalion up and then run operations out into the jungle to clear these camps theyre in after we bomb them
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    Rikopotomous    11/30/2004 7:42:51 PM
This is why the old axioms apply Take your pick "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics." or "Chiefs of Staff Propose, logisiticians dispose." You can do all of the hand waving, HOOHAH hugging US almighty you want, but your little deal will only work with solid logistics. As a logistician, if you do not ensure the LOCs are in place and get the right things to the right place, you have failed miserably no matter how well the killers overcome your failings. Seeker, I hope I did not mislead you...it is not the US merchant fleet, but the USNS fleet which has been expanded 3 fold under the Clinton Administration.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy