Air Support & Dug-in Vehicles

In a message dated 97-06-25 02:50:36 EDT, you write:

<< I can see the tanks with IR. >>

Not even if they've been cranking the engines all night. Perhaps you mean
thermal sights. A warm engine compartment does indeed show up like that.
However, in dug in positions, even that is extremely difficult to spot.

My point really is that in a tactical situation, air support has its greatest
impact when vehicles are moving and easily discernible. The US Army
routinely does NOT allocate tactical air support against dug-in
vehicles.

Now, if the artillery and the ground troops can get the enemy to move out of
those positions, air support is great for nailing vehicles as they try to
displace.

<<Don't underestimate the power of the mark I eyeball. >>

Don't underestimate the power of any detection system, be it ground
surveillance radar (good against moving forces, awful against static
emplacements), satellite imagery, or ground scouts. However, don't expect any
of them to give you the complete picture.

To be fair, I have seen TacAir called in on defensive positions, but only when
the precise position has been identified, elimination of the position is
critical to the success of the attack, and there is an observer who can see
the strike go in.

<<The US and several other nations are working on systems that will locate
targets by looking for the air disturbances caused by their passage through
the air. Also by the emmision of waste products from propulsion. >>

Again, note that these systems are primarily aimed at moving vehicles. I
agree; moving vehicles are not difficult to locate. But the original
question was about using air support against dug-in targets.  Just not
cost effective to do. BTW, I do equip most of my vehicles with stealth; that
makes them difficult to acquire (in terms of achieving target lock-on).
But aircraft have a great deal more difficulty even detecting stationary
vehicles
(dug-in or not), much less locking on.

-- John