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.
 
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
 
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
 
Interesting scenario, like trying to figure out how to get to the desired result.

Israel- perhaps a worse Liberty incident makes it much more difficult for them to get all those F-4s and A-4s from US? Perhaps they will only get some F-5As and only some old Phantoms like say 36 F-4Cs like Spain, smaller numbers of A-4s, no Nickel Grass etc. Also maybe those Neshers, really just clandestinely delivered Mirage-5s, find another buyer, so IAF would be significantly weaker in 1973. Faced with the arab SAMs they would be even more crippled in the first few days. Without air superiority there is no Canal crossing and perhaps no retaking of Golan (let's assume the superpowers intervene to stop it getting nuclear). Conversely, perhaps saudi Lightnings and morroccan F-5s get to fight against Israel, also iirc Iraq was planning to buy 54 Mirages in 1968, if that happens a good chunk of those would be depolyed in Syria or Egypt in 1973.

Iran - could they get more clandestine support? Apparently there were plans to get F-4s and A-4s from Israel. Perhaps Saddam does something stupid to anger the West and/or the soviets (apparently the soviets were trying to court Iran), or maybe a coup gets rid of Khomeini and someone more moderate takes over, so Iran gets more support to cover most of their losses, spares especially but airframes too, say they get say 100 F-4, F-5 and A-4s from the west, and/or 100-120 or so MiG-23/25/Su-22 from USSR, and some 80 J-7s from China with western avionics, maybe even some french Mirages. Conversely Iraq might get less than what they received OTL. But the west would still not want Iran to outright win, they might end up the war still having a sizable chunk of iraqi territory though.

Vietnam- I know SV wanted Phantoms and A-4s or A-7s, lets suppose the US are more willing to prop them up so they gets to replace all their quite large numbers of old and/or unsuitable planes (A-1, A-37 etc.) with large numbers of more modern ones from US stocks, though even so i think due to NV tactics some kind of overt US intervention is still required to avoid the SV collapse.

Pakistan- Again looks to be a matter of more US support, if so iirc they wanted F-5s so they can get significant numbers before 1971, maybe more F-104s and more Mirages too, apparently PAF was short of planned strength, so more planes could remedy that and even increase it. This will make it significanly harder for the indians (and it will be one hell of an even fight between MiG-21 and F-5A/F-104A/Mirages), but i don't know enough about this particular conflict to say what could happen in East Pakistan for instance.
 
Last edited:
Can 1980s tech SAM be a game changer and provide enough deterrence against superior AirPower to allow ground forces to complete their objectives?
 
Top