Formation of the United-States Air-Force

[KJ_Lesnick]

What factors lead to the United States Air-Force coming into being?  Why was only Army Aviation included and not Naval Aviation?

K.J. Lesnick

[KJ_Lesnick]

Also, why was all the obsession on strategic bombing and virtually nothing on close-air support?  

I have a feeling the obsession with strategic bombing had to do with the success of bombing in WW2 and the, then, new nuclear weapons, but why didn't they place as much emphasis on close-air-support, or even air-superiority work?


BTW:  Yes, these questions I'm asking for an alternative history idea, but I need information to start-up with.

[PR19_Kit]

Also, why was all the obsession on strategic bombing and virtually nothing on close-air support?  

A two word answer, Curtis LeMay.............   

Would YOU argue with him?

[PhaseSpace]

USAF was formed by splitting the United States Army Air Force from the Army and making it an independent service. This was something the Army Air Force had been wanting to do for decades. The United States Navy's aviation arm was quite happy being part of the Navy so there was no impetus to split it. As to the focus on strategic bombing rather than close air support this was for three reasons. The first was that as newly divorced partners USAF and the Army didn't want much to do with each other despite the needs of the children. The second was the atomic bomb which appeared to make close air support redundant. The third was that the mission could be carried out with the huge stocks of surplus WW2 fighters, attack aircraft and pilots so no new developments were needed until these aircraft and aircrew were no longer serviceable.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Phase Space,

USAF was formed by splitting the United States Army Air Force from the Army and making it an independent service. This was something the Army Air Force had been wanting to do for decades.

True, but if you're going to have an Air Force, wouldn't it be more practical to have the bulk of the air assets all under one service?

The United States Navy's aviation arm was quite happy being part of the Navy so there was no impetus to split it.

It could have been more practical to have the bulk of the air-assets under one service's control.  Makes things simpler, at least arguably.  Out of curiousity, if there had been such an attempt to split off the NAF and merge it into the new USAF, what would have happened?

The second was the atomic bomb which appeared to make close air support redundant.

But what's the point of bombing your enemy if you don't plan to take over?  You can produce bomb-shelters and stuff, so at least some people could survive the bombing, and at that point you'd need to put boots on the ground, and you'd need to defend them too.  First of all you'd need to keep them from getting picked off by assets in the air, hence air-superiority.  Aerial warfare can be useful for picking off enemy troops pinning your guys down, which then brings CAS into the equation.

I'm surprised that even back then that wasn't obvious.  Plus until nuclear weapons had miniaturized only a few aircraft could carry those nukes and most could not. 

The third was that the mission could be carried out with the huge stocks of surplus WW2 fighters, attack aircraft and pilots so no new developments were needed until these aircraft and aircrew were no longer serviceable.

With time enemy fighters improve, and they could threaten the old surplus WW2 planes, ground-defenses could improve requiring higher performance planes.


KJ Lesnick

[RLBH]

Phase Space,

USAF was formed by splitting the United States Army Air Force from the Army and making it an independent service. This was something the Army Air Force had been wanting to do for decades.

True, but if you're going to have an Air Force, wouldn't it be more practical to have the bulk of the air assets all under one service?

The United States Navy's aviation arm was quite happy being part of the Navy so there was no impetus to split it.

It could have been more practical to have the bulk of the air-assets under one service's control.  Makes things simpler, at least arguably.  Out of curiousity, if there had been such an attempt to split off the NAF and merge it into the new USAF, what would have happened?

It would have been dismally unsuccessful. Naval aviation is much more closely integrated with naval forces than army aviation with ground forces. It's worth noting that the only nation to have significant naval aviation and an 'everything that flies' air force - the United Kingdom during the 1918-1939 interbellum - returned to a naval air arm under naval control as soon as it looked like it might have to use it.

The same logic leads to 'everything that floats' belonging to the Navy. Including Army bridging boats which never venture further than 100 yards from shore. It's far more sensible, IMHO, to look at functions, and assign forces accordingly. This might well lead to four or five 'armed forces', as the USSR and (I believe) Russia did.

The second was the atomic bomb which appeared to make close air support redundant.

But what's the point of bombing your enemy if you don't plan to take over?  You can produce bomb-shelters and stuff, so at least some people could survive the bombing, and at that point you'd need to put boots on the ground, and you'd need to defend them too.  First of all you'd need to keep them from getting picked off by assets in the air, hence air-superiority.  Aerial warfare can be useful for picking off enemy troops pinning your guys down, which then brings CAS into the equation.

I'm surprised that even back then that wasn't obvious.  Plus until nuclear weapons had miniaturized only a few aircraft could carry those nukes and most could not.

1950s US doctrine wasn't based on fighting the enemy. It was based on destroying the enemy. Not the wisest doctrine, perhaps, but if you don't plan on occupying enemy territory, there's no need to protect the troops doing it.

[KJ_Lesnick]

RLBH,

1950s US doctrine wasn't based on fighting the enemy. It was based on destroying the enemy. Not the wisest doctrine, perhaps, but if you don't plan on occupying enemy territory, there's no need to protect the troops doing it.

When did the US Doctrine switch from fighting/occupying the enemy to completely and totally obliterating the enemy?  I would assume it would have had to have been after 1945, but exactly how far after 1945?  Like 1945 to 1947?  Or post 1947?

KJ Lesnick

[RLBH]

I would expect some time between the Berlin Crisis and end of the Korean War. Certainly, resources were withheld during the Korean War that would have been very handy (eg. the B-36) as they were required for strategic duties, and Korea wasn't seen as important enough to divert them from that.

[KJ_Lesnick]

RLBH,

I would expect some time between the Berlin Crisis and end of the Korean War.

Fascinating -- I would have thought they would have came up with that idea right at the end of WW2 since that's when the nuclear weapon was employed. 

Didn't the Berlin crisis happen in 1949?  If I recall correctly, didn't the Soviet Union test its first nuclear weapon that year?


Kendra

[KJ_Lesnick]

RLBH,

My question is, if they planned to utterly annihilate the enemy with nuclear weapons, how come they still kept the surplus WW2 aircraft for CAS?  Apparently they were not planning to completely do without CAS.

Additionally, another thing I'm wondering is this.  Once 1949 came and the Soviets developed their own nuclear bomb, and in 1950, when the Korean War came into being at which point troops were in fact, on the ground, why didn't they then realize that they needed aircraft to defend them from enemy planes?

KJ Lesnick

[Brian da Basher]

<snip>

Additionally, another thing I'm wondering is this.  Once 1949 came and the Soviets developed their own nuclear bomb, and in 1950, when the Korean War came into being at which point troops were in fact, on the ground, why didn't they then realize that they needed aircraft to defend them from enemy planes?

KJ Lesnick

If I remember correctly, the U.S. was pretty quick to get forward air controllers into Korea (within the first week or so). The Navy did most close air support initially, but the Air Force stepped in with P-51s and F-80s close behind.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread...

Brian da Basher

[KJ_Lesnick]

Brian 'da Basher,

If I remember correctly, the U.S. was pretty quick to get forward air controllers into Korea (within the first week or so).

That's good

The Navy did most close air support initially, but the Air Force stepped in with P-51s and F-80s close behind.

So the USN believed in CAS more than the USAF?  Why did they believe in doing it more?  They had nuclear weapons (or at least were developing proposals for nuclear weapons delivery the A3D, the P6M)?

[Brian da Basher]

Brian 'da Basher,

<snip>

The Navy did most close air support initially, but the Air Force stepped in with P-51s and F-80s close behind.

So the USN believed in CAS more than the USAF?  Why did they believe in doing it more?  They had nuclear weapons (or at least were developing proposals for nuclear weapons delivery the A3D, the P6M)?

I think it was more a question of expediency, not support for the CAS role. The Navy already had carriers close by and could get more on station quickly, whereas the Air Force had few dedicated assets available in Japan, and what was there was limited by range. There's a very good book and film called God is My Co-Pilot written by a P-51 pilot who flew a lot of CAS missions that's worth a look. The P-51 ws able to do the job, but its inline engine was vulnerable to ground fire.

Brian da Basher

[KJ_Lesnick]

If you had an air-force formed out of both a naval-airforce which operated off carriers and an army-airforce which operated off land, would the air-force to emerge out of all that end up getting rid of carriers, or would the retain them?

Also would CAS have been used more liberally if that was the case?

[Brian da Basher]

In the case of a major power such as the U.S., you'd positively want to keep aircraft carriers so you could project power on a global scale.

Whether to use the Navy or Air Force for CAS usually depends on the location of the targets, availablity of assets and their range and logistics. I don't think any military purposely limits the CAS role but may forced to do with less because of other requirements.

Brian da Basher