✈️ Stealth aircraft
The American F-117 Nighthawk attacked Baghdad on the first night, where the air defences were strongest. Radar could barely detect it, and none was shot down.
Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseThis lesson is part of the Paper 2 Section B breadth study on the changing nature of warfare, 1919-2011. Remember, conventional warfare means armies, navies and air forces fighting with ordinary, non-nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons were not used after 1945, so big wars were still fought this way. The biggest example of these years was the first Gulf War. On 2 August 1990 Iraq invaded its small neighbour Kuwait. A coalition of more than 30 countries, led by the USA, then sent forces to free it.
Key terms:
The war began with about five weeks of air attacks. The aim was to destroy Iraq's air defences, then its command centres, communications and finally its army. The coalition quickly gained control of the air and flew over 100,000 flights.
The American F-117 Nighthawk attacked Baghdad on the first night, where the air defences were strongest. Radar could barely detect it, and none was shot down.
Laser-guided bombs hit bridges, bunkers and headquarters with little waste. Pictures from bomb cameras were shown on television. Only a small share of the bombs were guided, but they were used on the most important targets.
Satellites photographed Iraqi positions and carried communications. GPS receivers told troops exactly where they were in the empty desert, so they could move at night and in sandstorms.
The ground war began on 24 February 1991. Part of the coalition attacked Kuwait head-on, while the rest swung far to the west through the desert to get behind the Iraqi army. Weeks of bombing had left that army cut off from its commanders and short of supplies. American Abrams and British Challenger tanks with thermal sights could hit Iraqi tanks from long range, even at night. The ceasefire came on 28 February, after about 100 hours, and Kuwait was free. Coalition deaths were in the low hundreds, while Iraqi losses were many times higher.
A nuclear-powered submarine can stay underwater for months and is very hard to find, as HMS Conqueror showed in the Falklands. In 1991 submarines were used in a new way: to attack the land. American submarines, such as USS Louisville in the Red Sea, fired Tomahawk cruise missiles at targets in Iraq, along with ships in the Gulf. The missiles flew low for hundreds of miles, and no pilot was put at risk.
What changed: technology allowed attacks from far away with great accuracy. What stayed the same: wars were still won by controlling the air and ground, and guerrilla fighters could still defeat a superpower.
How far did new technology change the way wars were fought in the years 1979-91?
You may use the following in your answer:
You must also use information of your own. [16 marks]
Remember: the USA supplied Stinger missiles to the mujahideen in 1986, and the Soviet Union withdrew in 1989; on 4 May 1982 an Argentine Exocet missile sank HMS Sheffield.
New technology changed warfare a great deal in these years, but it did not decide every war.
In 1991 technology was decisive. On 17 January stealth F-117s attacked Baghdad on the first night of the air campaign and none was shot down. Precision-guided bombs destroyed command centres, and satellites and GPS let coalition tanks cross the desert and swing round the Iraqi army. Nuclear submarines and ships fired Tomahawk cruise missiles at Iraq. Five weeks of bombing left Iraq so weak that the ground war ended in about 100 hours, on 28 February.
Technology also helped weaker forces. The Stinger, supplied to the mujahideen in 1986, shot down Soviet helicopter gunships, which had been the Soviet army's best weapon against guerrillas, and the Soviets withdrew in 1989. In the Falklands in 1982 a cheap Exocet missile sank the modern destroyer HMS Sheffield. Yet technology helped Britain too, as Sea Harriers won control of the air and the nuclear submarine Conqueror sank the General Belgrano on 2 May.
However, much stayed the same. The Soviets had tanks, helicopters and the latest equipment in Afghanistan, but they still lost to guerrillas who knew the mountains and had local support. British troops still had to march across East Falkland and fight for Port Stanley, and in 1991 ground troops were still needed to free Kuwait. Even 'Star Wars', announced in 1983, produced no working defence, and the nuclear arms race was ended by the INF Treaty of 1987, a political agreement rather than a technical one.
Overall, technology changed how wars were fought to a large extent, because it let armies strike accurately from far away. My test is whether it decided the outcome. It did in the Gulf, but in Afghanistan and the Falklands it worked alongside, and sometimes was beaten by, courage, ground forces and local support.
What lifts it to the top level: it covers land, sea and air, uses facts not in the bullets, weighs change against continuity, and reaches a judgement using a stated test.
Name the test for your judgement, such as "did it decide the outcome?", and use it in the conclusion. Include at least one point that is not in the bullets.