Is it true that airplanes have determined the outcome of

>>2945694
No.

>>2945700

Then how come the side with the better planes always ends up winning?

Modern warfare consists primarily of sand nigger militias shooting at each other with half a century old slavshit because no industrialized society is willing to risk their citizens lives.

>>2945694
WW1 probably not, but WW2 removing Germany's industry helped the Allies a lot

>>2945694
Maybe starting with the Spanish Civil War. Planes were pretty marginal in WWI.

>>2945706
It doesn't.

>>2945706
because if ur a stronger country, u prob have better planes as well as better everything else

>>2945712

It usually does, more often than not. This is undeniable.

>>2945694
No. Just like how having better guns doesn't mean you'll win a war. Basically the main things that determine whether a war is won are willingness to fight, and industrial capacity.

>>2945706
>the side with the better planes
The fuck? Not only can you not just objectively decide which planes are the best, but how do you compare planes for different roles?

>>2945721
>It usually does, more often than not. This is undeniable.
Correlation =/= causation. The Allies still would have won even with shitty planes.

>>2945721
>usually does=/=always
Pick a goalpost already.

File: Fokker_D_VII_2.jpg (25KB, 475x355px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 475x355px

>>2945706
>Then how come the side with the better planes always ends up winning?
Anon what

>>2945694
>Is it true that airplanes have determined the outcome of every modern war?
No. Aircraft definitely make an impact, but they really only act as a force multiplier for ground troops, especially in the World Wars.

The reason it seems like the winners always seem to have the best aircraft is thanks to the fact that the winners generally have more resources available to devote to aircraft development. Even so, it's not always the case. The Soviets could have rolled over the Germans with the VVS still flying I-16s.

>>2945706
This is honestly one of the most retarded things I've seen in a while

>>2945706
The viet Cong would like a word with you.

File: ww1.jpg (527KB, 1200x1766px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 1200x1766px

They did not alter the outcome of the Sino-Indian war because neither side used their airforce (for some reason)

>>2945694
Nope artillery and armor has otherwise the Japanese would've won against the Americans in WW2. Also the Germans were winning till America invented the Sherman.

File: 12390u7985732.png (102KB, 746x717px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 746x717px

>>2945908

File: Ashes for the Anglo.png (2MB, 1569x1231px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1569x1231px

>>2945706
ROLLLLLLLLINGGGGG THUUUUNNNDERRRRR

>>2945694
Nope. Vietnam war is an example.

Air superiority is still very important though

>Iraq 2.0
>Afghanistan
>ISIS
Fucking Afghan government wants to have peace talks with the taliban.

Effective use of combined arms is what determines the victor, of which airplanes are an important but only one factor. As we have seen time and again, airplanes alone cannot give you victory. You still need troopers to hold land.