Winning conflicts without air superiority

Let’s look at these 4 conflicts
Iran Iraq war
South Vietnam invasion by north
Yom Kippur war
Indo Pakistan conflict 1971

could they have gone differently if let’s say the side that lost had air superiority?
for Iran Iraq let’s assume Iran as loser since it was a draw
 
Last edited:
It's pretty hard to imagine the Syrians/Egyptians losing if they had air supremacy in Yom Kippur. They came pretty close to winning being on the wrong side of air superiority.
 
Depends on the degree too I.e superiority vs supremacy
Since they said complete air superiority, I take it they mean supremacy. Where their forces don't have to worry about CAS or supply interdiction by air and their opponents have to worry about all of the above.
 
could they have gone differently if let’s say the side that lost had complete air superiority?

Trouble is 'air superiority' is completely different to 'air supremacy'

The UK won the Falklands War with air superiority . . . . but not air supremacy.

As for your question . . .

Personnel opinions

Iran Iraq war

The Iranians had to much manpower for Iraq to use it effectively even if they had a decent air force so I'd say no. Now if Iran had a decent air force
. . . . Mmmmm?

South Vietnam invasion by North

Uummm, no, I'm thinking that would be meat and drink to the South and USA like the Tet Offensive even if the NVAF had the aircraft they wanted for that offensive.

Yom Kippur war

Missiles did the damage, not enemy aircraft so in this conflict I'm predicting no.

Indo Pakistan conflict 1971 - like the Iran/Iraq conflict, both sides had too many grounds troops for air campaigns to be effective.

Thing is I'm not up on facts regarding this so I stand corrected if wrong.

Would love to see the other posters responses.

Much obliged!
 
Since they said complete air superiority, I take it they mean supremacy. Where their forces don't have to worry about CAS or supply interdiction by air and their opponents have to worry about all of the above.
Sorry my bad
I meant superiority not supremacy
Consider Britain in Falklands war like situation not desert storm
 
Trouble is 'air superiority' is completely different to 'air supremacy'

The UK won the Falklands War with air superiority . . . . but not air supremacy.

As for your question . . .

Personnel opinions

Iran Iraq war

The Iranians had to much manpower for Iraq to use it effectively even if they had a decent air force so I'd say no. Now if Iran had a decent air force
. . . . Mmmmm?

South Vietnam invasion by North

Uummm, no, I'm thinking that would be meat and drink to the South and USA like the Tet Offensive even if the NVAF had the aircraft they wanted for that offensive.

Yom Kippur war

Missiles did the damage, not enemy aircraft so in this conflict I'm predicting no.

Indo Pakistan conflict 1971 - like the Iran/Iraq conflict, both sides had too many grounds troops for air campaigns to be effective.

Thing is I'm not up on facts regarding this so I stand corrected if wrong.

Would love to see the other posters responses.

Much obliged!
Thanks I was looking for such responses

Trying to look at air superiority from a non-American perspective, post desert storm I think we are used to thinking AirPower is omnipotent in all modern conflicts
 
Top