Just how would you defeat ISIS?

[Richard T. Eger]

Dear Nick, John, Ruy, and the rest of the TOCH! membership,

Besides being who shot down who types, which I find an incredibly boring subject, we do have a huge expertise among our members as to good and bad decisions made in the conduct of WW II. As they say, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past and, since we are a group focused on WW II, we have unique expertise in this area.

Thus, squelching discussion along these lines seems to me to be aggressively heavy handed.

Are the attacks on Paris and elsewhere acts of desperation akin to the V1 and V2 programs, distracting from the fact that otherwise things were going quite badly for Germany. The losses suffered today, while attention grabbers, are of the same low order of magnitude. If we acknowledge that we are at war, it changes our perspective. It doesn't take away from our compassion for losses suffered, but it does give us a chance to do more.

What other parallels can we apply to our current situation?

Regards,
Richard

[Paul Thompson]

Dear Richard,

I am afraid that Nick, John and Ruy will shut down this thread, for reasons that they have explained several times before. One alternative to such a thread that I can think of, within the confines of the forum, is the private messaging system. This is because any member "may send a message to up to 5 people at a time". Another alternative would be a multi-member email discussion, but these are disliked by many, for obvious reasons.

As a matter of personal opinion, I think a discussion between members on this subject would be both useful and interesting. However, I do not think having such a discussion in a publicly viewable thread such as this would lead to anything apart from strained feelings and frustration. I would be very happy to participate in a private discussion on this subject if an appropriate mechanism was found. I think that the historical parallels that you suggested, Richard, are hihgly appropriate and can lead to a much more serious understanding of the problems in the present.

I will finish by sorting out an issue which arose in the previous thread and is not in any sense connected to you, Richard.
All fluent users of English will know that the word mulatto is exceptionally offensive, but for those who do not, here is an extract from the Oxford English Dictionary:
"mulatto, n. and adj.
1. A person having one white and one black parent. Freq. more generally: a person of mixed race resembling a mulatto. Cf. metis n. 1, quadroon n.
Now chiefly considered offensive."
The same remark applies to the word quadroon, for equally obvious reasons.

Warm regards,

Paul

[Richard T. Eger]

Dear Paul,

Before tossing in the towel, let's get some feedback from the moderators or Ruy.

I agree Paul that the previous thread diverged into nasty rhetoric. Here I think, if we can all agree, we can focus on the mechanics of what could be done, based on our collective interest in WW II history.

For instance, focus by France has now put a spotlight on oil production and distribution in Raqqa, which is straight out of the WW II playbook. If this is the first such attack, one has to wonder why it wasn't done before. No oil nor fuel means cutting into ISIS' main revenue source as well as immobilizing its ground activity in Syria and Iraq. There are probably considerations as to why this hadn't already been done such as the fact that, once this is all over, we'll likely end up with the tab of rebuilding what has been destroyed.

What other lessons from WW II can we apply?

Regards,
Richard

[Nick Beale]

My view, for what it's worth: if — as Richard seems to be saying — people want to talk about lessons from WW2 for the successful use of air power, then go ahead.

Keep it to the "technical" issues and I don't see a problem; start denouncing the foreign or domestic policies of any nation or nations and I do.

[Paul Thompson]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

My view, for what it's worth: if — as Richard seems to be saying — people want to talk about lessons from WW2 for the successful use of air power, then go ahead.

Hello Nick,

Thank you for your constructive position, I shall keep to the terms of the discussion as you have outlined them.

I will take this opportunity to mention that you have had a private message from me in your inbox for a couple of days. Since the message might require you to make some travel plans, I think you ought to have a look at it

Warm regards,

Paul

[John Beaman]

I agree with Nick. BTW, note that the original thread has not been closed. Just be careful of what you post, as Nick says.

As for defeating ISIS, how about some ARC LIGHT strikes? We have plenty of B-52s doing nothing at the moment.

[Richard T. Eger]

Dear Nick and John,

Thanks for the go ahead. Nick, I think to be complete, we also need to consider ground forces, as well.

John, I had to read up on ARC LIGHT to know what you are suggesting. A question comes to mind. Are there adequate numbers of area targets to make ARC LIGHT operations effective? B-52's, which used to be quite large in numbers, are down to a fleet of about 100 aging aircraft. All told, the U.S. strategic air force only numbers about 300 aircraft. I don't know how many retired B-52's can be resurrected to cover operational losses, these probably mainly from wear and tear.

That said, refineries, oil drilling sites, power plants, and port facilities would be strategic targets in which ARC LIGHT might be productive.

Regards,
Richard

[Paul Thompson]

Originally Posted by John Beaman

As for defeating ISIS, how about some ARC LIGHT strikes? We have plenty of B-52s doing nothing at the moment.

Hello John,

I would say 'plenty' somewhat exaggerates the number of B-52s available. I will try to look up the exact number of B-52s in the PMAI (Primary Mission Aircraft Inventory), but I would imagine it is no more than 50.

As to the state of USAF aircraft strength as a whole, there is a useful presentation by Lt. Gen. Deptula (Ret.) from May this year, see link - http://www.daedalians.org/documents/DD%20Dadaelians%2030%20May%2015.pdf . Note, in particular, page 8 of this document, which shows large declines in the USAF inventory since the beginning of the War on Terror in 2001.

LtG Deptula is a very experienced officer, it is interesting to look through the wider body of his commentary. See his official biography here - http://www.af.mil/DesktopModules/Art...Article=104634 .

Oh and a N.B. from me: you have a private message in your inbox, on Luftwaffe-related issues.

Warm regards,

Paul

[Paul Thompson]

Originally Posted by Richard T. Eger

refineries, oil drilling sites, power plants, and port facilities would be strategic targets in which ARC LIGHT might be productive.

Regards,
Richard

Hello Richard,

Of the targets that you listed, ISIS possesses only oil drilling sites and power plants, and not very many of either. What needs to be emphasised is just how little effort has been expended against ISIS. Even with the current weak state of the USAF and Allied air forces, a much greater effort can easily be made, even without strategic bombers.

Here is the official Department of Defense statistical review of operations in Iraq and Syria - http://www.defense.gov/News/Special-...herent-Resolve . The various air forces involved are conducting air strikes at a rate of slighlty more than one in every seven sorties. That is an appallingly low intensity of operations, which contributes directly to the ineffectiveness of the campaign taken as a whole. Even in cases when strikes are carried out, on average fewer than two targets are destroyed or damaged in a single air strike.

There are more detailed monthly statistical reports, the most recent one is "Combined Forces Air Component Commander 2010-2015 Airpower Statistics – As of 31 October 2015" http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/fea...tober_2015.pdf . This shows that on average 1.8 munitions have been expended for every target destroyed or damaged. The munitions used are very accurate, but the majority of those dropped are small and so the overall effect of air power is distinctly limited. There has been a great reluctance to use more powerful area-effet weapons, even guided ones like the Wind-Corrected Munitions Dispenser, see its description here - http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app5/wcmd.html .

Warm regards,

Paul

[Brian]

Hi guys

What I would like to see:

Europe, USA and Russia and China all pool knowledge and air power - and act as one good force to defeat evil IS. Then perhaps there would be greater unity between West and East, for the good of us all.

And I would like to see the non-terrorist Muslims come out on the streets in Britain and Europe to denounce terrorism.

Then, I believe, we would be getting nearer to enjoying a peaceful world, instead of one heading for self-destruction.

That's my tuppence worth!

Cheers
Brian