WI No USAF

WngMasterD

WI the defense services act of 1947 is never passed. As such there is no DOD, only a department of the Navy and Army (War). The Marines are under the Navy, and the Coasties are somewhere. What we know as the airforce is mostly the Army Aircorps, and some technical stuff is shared with the navy.

Is life any diffrent?
 

Kadyet

Banned
Coasties would still be a part of the Department of Treasury, where they were until the Department of Homeland Security.

If that were the case you'd probably end up seeing the Navy win the fight in the late forties between them and the USAF over the future of the American military. The USAF was saying that they could win wars by themselves, just by nuking people. The USN said that that was ridiculous and wanted a large fleet of supercarriers. USAF won, but USN was right. Odds are that, although the USAAF would still have some large strategic bombers and fighters, they would (thanks to being tied to the Army) be a lot more focused on providing close air support. The Army would probably be at a higher level of training post-WWII and so there would have been usable Army units at the beginning of the Korean War. The Navy would have better funding since they'd still be Cabinet level. Jointness would have been at the same level it was in OTL, that is, non-existent until the 1980s.
 

EmperorNorton

Kadyet said:
Coasties would still be a part of the Department of Treasury, where they were until the Department of Homeland Security.

If that were the case you'd probably end up seeing the Navy win the fight in the late forties between them and the USAF over the future of the American military. The USAF was saying that they could win wars by themselves, just by nuking people. The USN said that that was ridiculous and wanted a large fleet of supercarriers. USAF won, but USN was right. Odds are that, although the USAAF would still have some large strategic bombers and fighters, they would (thanks to being tied to the Army) be a lot more focused on providing close air support. The Army would probably be at a higher level of training post-WWII and so there would have been usable Army units at the beginning of the Korean War. The Navy would have better funding since they'd still be Cabinet level. Jointness would have been at the same level it was in OTL, that is, non-existent until the 1980s.
Click to expand...


What's your take on whether it would have been better for the military as a whole?

I say it would have been better. No disrespect meant to the Air Force or the Marine Corps - my father served in the former and I've got lots of friends in the latter. But the practice of dividing the military into four separate branches (the USMC may be under the Navy technically, but in practice it's independent) always seemed inefficient and counterproductive to me. The cresation of the USAf as a separate branch always seemed predicated on two things to me:

1. As mentioned above, a difference in strategic thought and an overmephasis on nuclear warfare.

2. More Cold War defense spending - three branches doing the work of four is always going to produce fewer weapons systems and contracts than the four.

I think that further unity of command and administration along the lines of Goldwater-Nichols is needed.
 

Kadyet

Banned
What's your take on whether it would have been better for the military as a whole?
Click to expand...

I think it would have been better for the military. The Army would have the fixed wing support it didn't have until the introduction of LGBs in large numbers (A-10 notwithstanding) and we wouldn't have such a large (and imho, idiotic) focus on strategic bombers and ICBMs (and less focus on SSBNs, a lot of the focus was to get money that would have gone to Air Force otherwise). The Navy would have more carriers, but would also have kept a larger amphibious capacity. I could see a mix of 16 CVNs and 16 LHA/LHDs (we have a 12/13 mix so this isn't too radical) plus smaller amphibious craft. Also, the Army would probably have the numbers that it wouldn't need the Marines to do the regular work that it has had to do in GWII and the peacekeeping since then, so the USMC would keep its focus on being an expeditionary force and the Army would keep its focus on being a heavy force with the ability to do occupation work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top