Could a country with sufficient airpower get away with not having any significant ground forces? That means no tanks or ground-based artillery.
Short answer: no.
Long answer: noooooooo
>>27917137
>I see you have a traffic fine.
>Hesitation to pay will result in orbital strike on your car.
>>27917163
Police don't count as ground units. As long as they aren't driving around in tanks or armored vehicles, they're okay. Let's say anything more armored than an MRAP is too much, unless it is a plane. Any gun bigger than 20mm is too big, unless mounted on a plane.
>>27917137
Belka plz leave, nuking your own territory to defend yourself from any ground force is not a win.
>>27917205
No, nuke the other country instead.
You need ground forces to defend the airfields.
>>27917137
Certainly, it depends on the topography of their country and the composition of their expected opposition. An island nation that is mostly mountains or jungle for example wouldn't need such a hard kicking armored landforce. It depends what your expected enemy is slinging too. If the most they can muster is infantry with a few cold war ifvs and tanks a smaller ground force with a primary emphasis on airpower can be totally doable depending on how deep the enemy can initially strike and other factors. That being said while ground forces don't have to be preeminent they are needed. Given the associated costs with an airforce if a land army can fill your military needs it doesn't break the bank as much and being fundamentally more resilient with a broader a[[application. Eh, this is just a very vague general rambling with not much care to back it up, so take it with a pinch of salt.
>>27917233
>You need ground forces to defend the airfields.
You can have that without breaking the requirements outlined here. >>27917198
>Let's say anything more armored than an MRAP is too much, unless it is a plane. Any gun bigger than 20mm is too big, unless mounted on a plane.
For heavier situations, just use AC-130.
>>27917137
I mean, if you had infinite money, infinite fuel, gigantic industrial capacity, are content to do things like leveling towns instead of engaging in combat within them, have a perfect supply system that can provide you with guided missiles at very affordable costs.
The other guy, in that situation, is going to focus entirely on SAMs and other AA. Honestly all other things being equal you'd probably lose that fight, a super-fancy jet fighter is a hell of a lot more versatile than a SAM battery, but the SAM battery, dollar for dollar is going to be kill more jet fighters.
I guess what I'm saying is that it is theoretically possible, but the balance of power would have to be so horribly mismatched already that it's a one sided fight no matter what. I mean the US could probably conquer Lichtenstein using only aircraft and police in unarmored units, but they'd struggle to conquer Switzerland that way.
Unless you're willing to use Nukes, then you know, pic related.
>>27917137
No. All they would have to do is get a couple division of troops in one of your cities and then you would have no way of expelling them besides destroying your own city.
>>27917323
>All they would have to do is get a couple division of troops in one of your cities.
How would they do that if you're constantly bombing them?
>>27917233
If they're in a remote area with minimal vegetation I think a shitload of attack helicopters might be sufficient.
>>27917137
Consider the idea that an armored vehicle that idles in place for weeks and months at a time consumes less fuel and has much lower maintaince costs compared to the fueling and maintenance cost of running a single series of sorties of a modern jet aircraft, you quickly understand why nations that can afford to have a modern air force will often also have ground forces too.
Because trucks and armor is dirt fucking cheap compared to aircraft.
Not in the slightest
It is in fact very easy to hide from aerial/satellite forces
Just a few years ago they dropped a shitton of bombs on serbia, and hit almost nothing
Eventually all your 100 million dollar fighters and 500 million dollar bombers run out of spare parts, munitions, or flight hours
>>27917336
modern AAA rapes attack helicopters
>>27917328
Disguise em as refugees.
>>27917458
SHITLOADS of attack helicopters. Bury the enemy in burnt aluminum if you have to.
>>27917137
Defensively? Sure, but you have to be an Island, and you need to have a Navy to go with it.
See: modern day Taiwan, UK 1939-1935
>>27917251
MRAPs can be dealt with by dismounted infantry very easily, and are (relatively) hard to spot.
If they could anywhere near your airfields you would be fucked.
If they could operate MANPAD teams anywhere near your airfields you would be fucked. Hell, a DshK near an airfield would be a problem and that can be carried by two men plus an ammobearer.
>>27917137
No, a country can't exclusively use general granger for their military
>>27917137
No.
It isn't yours unless you have a person to plant a flag on it.
Consider the following:
The United States has the best air armada ever. The largest air forces belong to the USAF and USN respectively as I recall, and they are certainly the most capable. They have been used to pound the ever loving shit out of foreign governments over the years. In each case a significant ground force was required to enact significant change.
The Kosovo bombings were incredibly one-sided, yet troops had to be deployed.
Iraq was bombed a lot, but troops had to be deployed. Hell we are bombing isis to shit yet they still run around.
For destroying shit yeah you can have a huge Air Force, but to actually enact a meaningful change in circumstance it is better to deploy.
And for a small country, consider the sheer cost of having a strong Air Force. Soldiers and tanks are universally cheaper than jets (consider the cost of an F-16 to an M1 Abrams).
>>27919786
There were no troops deployed in Kosovo untill the Serbian army pulled out (after a UN peace treaty), except for the Albanian armed forces (Witch were a joke) failling to make a break trough, and the UCK terrorists pulling diversionary actions in Kosovo (Witch never got any ground). ,The army was never beaten, but politicians signed a peace treaty after months of bombings on all major cities in Serbia.
Also the bombings were terribly ineffective on anything that was not civilian, and if you get your sources from anywhere but wikipedia, it would also be quite easy to see that the Air campaign was trading campaign with the Serbian army.
>>27917137
Depends on how many peaceful neighbors they have, the quality of their Air Force, the ability to resupply/manufacture, and the numbers of an opposing army.
If for example, Greece were to go to war with Lebanon they could use the geography and air dominance to their advantage.
TL;DR: It depends.
>>27917137
What aboutt a nation that is a collection of islands? like the Bahamas (not specifically them) but with a larger population
>>27921563
So like Greece?
