Us Army Aircrafts...

[Daryl J.]

Upengined B-25 Mitchells used in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, and possibly Kuwait.    Shaved turrets and concentrated forward firepower.
RB-57's for that high altitude surprise.
F4U-7's




Daryl J.

[Lawman]

The Army having fixed wing CAS assets would change a lot of things - not just which service owns which type, but also which types are developed. A 'quick-fix' might be to copy the US Marine Corps, with aircraft such as the A-4 Skyhawk, OV-10 Bronco, and then either Navy types, or USAF types for the heavier-hitter roles, e.g. A-6 Intruders? C-123s in US Army Troop Carrier Command(?), and AC-123s for night-time support.

Perhaps the USAF would even have moved to have TAC operating an equivalent of the Navy's carrier air wings, with Phantoms, Thuds, and perhaps even re-winged B-47s in the tactical bomber role!

[tinlail]

I think that the real restriction on fixed air, and maybe even helicopters, should be is the air units organic to the army units (brigades?). The army air force came about in WWII because of the realization that splitting ground support mission up under the command of ground units was preventing the concentration of forces need for breakthroughs according to the battle plan. So although there is a fuzzy middle that moves with changes in technology it is clear to me that big missions; nuclear attack, air superiority, belong to the air force, small missions like what is 500 yards ahead, belong to army units.

That seems to me say that jet's aren't likely to be a good deal, because the planes should be based close to the units needing support, speed doesn't seem that important. Cheap operation, v/stol, simple maintance, quick launch is what is needed.

[Geoff]

Hi GeoffP,

I have read about those; they were about the size of escort carriers, but were able to only launch observation and liaison type aircraft, and not land them due to masts and cranes. Rather odd designs, more like airplane transports than carriers.

JoeP

Yes, their role was also to transport planes similar to what the RAF did resupplying Malta from USN carriers with Spitfires.
One of the later Japanese Imperial Army carriers, I forget the name, was supposed to have an airgroup of Ki-44 Tojos, but there was no provision to recover them. They either landed at an IJA airbase or made a "special attack" against an enemy position when their fuel ran out. "Banzi!"

Edit it was the "Yamashiro Maru"

Do you think the search for a common aircraft - like the one that gave us the F-111, might have been used to give a "common" CAS aircraft? I still think the Scooter would have been a good option myself in the 60's. [A-4's  ]

[Lawman]

I think that the real restriction on fixed air, and maybe even helicopters, should be is the air units organic to the army units (brigades?). The army air force came about in WWII because of the realization that splitting ground support mission up under the command of ground units was preventing the concentration of forces need for breakthroughs according to the battle plan. So although there is a fuzzy middle that moves with changes in technology it is clear to me that big missions; nuclear attack, air superiority, belong to the air force, small missions like what is 500 yards ahead, belong to army units.

I agree, though we could simply 'raise the eschelon', i.e. group the aircraft at Corps level, which should be high enough for post-war operations. You would notionally assign aircraft at lower levels, but they would be pooled at Corps level, and able to be massed for specific operations. Each Corps would probably have a pool of OV-10s, A-37s and possibly A-4s. I would argue that A-4s would be appropriate, since they carry the right balance of warload and speed, to allow fast response. USAF Tactical Air Command would still handle interdiction and general strike roles, as well as the normal air-to-air missions. In effect, the Army air units would function similarly to the USMC air units, hence they would focus on direct support missions, rather than the broader conflict, e.g. they would fly most missions in support of a specific ground objective, supporting ground manouver units. The USAF, like the USN, would still be available for CAS, but would fly fewer missions in direct support of ground objectives, and more in support of general war goals. The USAF would still operate types like the F-100, F-4, and other types; later types like the A-7 Corsair might be more of a question mark - there is justification for buying it, but you never know. A-10s would go to the Army, perhaps operating more in a helicopter supporting role, alongside slower Cobra gunships, possibly replacing the OV-10s.

[tinlail]

Replying to Lawman.
I am weak on army organization so the question of what level of unit is appropriate, I can't really debate. I would like to point out that the air force also used the A-10 for scud hunting in the Iraq war, a mission that seems to be appropriate for the air force, so some planes might fly in both services (or all 3 after my folding wing a-10 is done)

However I would also like to suggest a plane type you haven't seemed to ponder yet. Take a EMB-314 extend the wings for more efficient loiter time, hang a sniper-x pod on the centerline and hellfires off the wing. A predator class plane that the air force doesn't control.

[Lawman]

I would, however, argue that the Air Force hasn't had a brilliant record with the A-10, notably in terms of blue-on-blue incidents (USAF pilots misidentifying targets and going in guns blazing), and using the A-10 for roles it isn't well suited to. The USAF would probably just stick with A-7s and strike-roled F-16s, rather than buying a 'low and slow' gunslinger like the A-10. If you are permanently assigned the close support role, more like helo gunships, you are less likely to make mistakes in targetting (because you always know to be careful of friendlies in the area), and more likely to be damned careful to put rounds on target!

As for aircraft like the ALX, I disagree, they are just too vulnerable to MANPADS; they aren't really well suited to higher altitude work either, not without a major redesign. As it is, aircraft like the Predator boast endurances that simply can't be beaten, and allow the operators to sit in safety, not risking a pilot. The US Army are increasingly interested in using UAVs as enduring top cover, something the Air Force haven't been as commited to. A UAV can just sit at 20,000ft for twelve hour shifts, right over Army units (e.g. a convoy or over an operation or a firebase), and be available to drop weapons at a few minutes notice, where a manned fighter can easily take 30-60 minutes to get there. A manned aircraft, on the other hand, can't really sit overhead for more than a couple of hours, without risking major mistakes due to exhaustion.

[Joe C-P]

You might recognize this model; I've posted it before. Just an idea I had about US Army aircraft, and vehicles, and more.



We are a modeling group, after all. 

[Lawman]

Nice model, and I like the Amtracks onboard - they could have been a good option for Army riverine operations, able to move troops and materiel around river bases. I often thought that they had made a minor mistake in WW2 with the 'DD' tanks, by trying to make a Sherman float, when they might have been better using larger numbers of the LVTs (which were capable of mounting plenty of armament), and building a 'LARC' (basically a bigger LVT, capable of carrying heavy loads, up to a tank, and driving ashore) to move the Shermans.

Back on subject, I doubt the Army would push things too far into either the Navy/Marine role, or the USAF's role. We would probably have seen the 1st (Air) Cavalry Division being the hallmark unit, with OV-10s as escorts and airborne artillery for the Huey-borne troops, with Army A-4 Skyhawks providing top-cover. They would probably have hundreds of Hueys, OV-10s, and dozens of A-4s assigned, far more so than any of the other Army units.