How an ugly, brutally effective warplane won the battle for its future
U.S.-backed Syrian rebels launched an attack late last month on Islamic State militants near the town of Hawl in northern Syria. They regained control of roughly 100 square miles of territory, according to the U.S. Defense Department.
It was a fairly straightforward, conventional offensive operation, Army Colonel Steve Warren told reporters via video conference from Baghdad, where we estimated
several hundred enemy [fighters] were located in that vicinity.
Warren continued his description. There was a substantial friendly force well over 1,000 participated in the offensive part of this operation. And they were able to very deliberately execute the plan that they had made themselves.
Two types of U.S. warplanes, both optimized for precision attacks in close coordination with ground troops, were critical to the Syrian rebels success, Warren revealed. We were able to bring both A-10s and a Spectre gunship to bear, he said,
It can only be described as devastating
. it killed nearly 80 enemy fighters and wounded many more.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/24/how-an-ugly-brutally-effective-warplane-won-the-battle-for-its-future/
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...but the Generals want their new toys, regardless of the impact to combat situations...
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I think it's the money and career-lust that gets them. Just having a good job is not good enough for them.
Jerry442
(1,265 posts)If your mission is beating up on third-world forces without sophisticated anti-aircraft defenses, then there doesn't seem to be any doubt that the A-10 or an aircraft not much different from it should be one of your key weapon systems, but...
It creeps me out that we plan on one of the key roles of our military being beating up on third-world forces. Kind of like giving our cops weapons that can bring down buildings. If they exist, they'll be used.