In the post World War one world, airforces were the new big thing.
Inexpensive, by conventional navy and army standards,the airmen offered a way to conduct war on the cheap. Cheap to set up. Cheap to maintain. Cheap in casualties sustained by the attacker.
At the end of WW1, he RAF had managed to free itself from the clutches of the army, and was the envy of other army controlled airforce throughout the world. In order to continue their operation as a separate service, with all the extra admin and senior officer costs that brought, the airman began promising great things to the politicians. Victory through airpower.
This theory was tested rather widely during the second world war. And despite huge expense in all resources, the results of independent air action remained , at best, inconclusive.
The most credible claim that air power could conquer a nation came from the USA, whose bombing of Japan did result in that countries surrender. Without a single combat soldier setting foot on its soil.
Its likely that the combination of the air and naval campaign, particularly the submarine war, would have forced japan's surrender without the A Bomb. But it would have taken longer.
In Korea air forces were crucial in preventing the collapse of South Korea and in the ability of the UN to recapture half the country. But without dropping the big bomb, airpower couldn't end or even escalate that war.
The Rolling Thunder operations in Vietnam were possibly the last real attempt by one country to force another to surrender by airpower alone. And even with the entire might of the US army and navy airforce available, it was not possible to defeat even tiny North Vietnam.
With the advent of advanced precision munitions, aircraft were able to target key installations successfully, with greatly reduced casualties. The mission statement moved from war winning .. to war containing.
And in this the western airforces have been very successful The Balkans break up...Gulf War One {resounding success for the airforces as indeed it was for all services..A fantastic operation that doesn't get the recognition it deserves as a skillful campaign, largely because it was so successful its imagined the awesome victory was inevitable.} The Gulf invasion II and Libya.
Libya was particularly impressive for airpower. The rebels were at their last gasp. Retreating into Benghazi. They had been outfought by the Colonel's forces and were almost finished. The French and British aircraft began blunting the advance and then just wiped out the Libyan army.
I remember seeing a Sky news report that showed a burnt out T-72 tank. Its turret blown a good 50 meters away. The reporter explaining that coalition aircraft had done for this steel terror. Then the camera pulled back and the road behind had twenty more destroyed tanks. And armoured personnel carriers. And supply trucks.And AA guns and missiles. Miles and miles of them burnt out as during Desert Storm.
Mr Drew commented here a long while ago about how once Nato aircraft were committed against ISIL, that would end their terrain taking offensives, which it mostly was.
Heavy weapons cannot be used without air superiority, which ISIL will never have. So they are left as militia in an insurgency war.
Many are now saying over the bombing Syria debate, "Bombing won't stop the terrorists."
True.
Bombing from the air won't stop Isis. It won't stop Euro/world terrorist attacks either.
But it will pave the way for the inevitable ground war that must follow, if, as demonstrated above, a successful conclusion to the war is sought. Because air power alone, cannot do it.
Unless that really, really big bomb is used.
