Did the Korean War save the US Navy?

I’ve been reading about the “Revolt of the Admirals”, that occurred in 1949 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_of_the_Admirals).
In short, as part of the Truman administrations defence budget cuts, Secretary of Defence Johnson and Secretary of the Navy Matthews proposed drastic cuts in not only the Navy’s equipment, but in their role as a service. The prevailing thought was that the USAF, via the B-36 and atomic bombs, would be sufficient to defend the US (it was thought that the B-36 flew too high to be intercepted). When the Navy wanted to demonstrate that the F2H Banshee could intercept the B-36, they were strictly forbidden to do so by Johnson (who had been a member of the Convair board).
Not only was the super carrier “United States” cancelled, but the whole mission of the Navy was put into question (no aircraft for the Navy or Marines, no amphibious operations, etc). These views were widely held, even by military men like General Bradley. Many high ranking Naval officers strongly objected, and were “retired” or demoted for their views.
Then the Korean War started, and the Navy performed a significant role. As a result Johnson was dismissed, and things quickly turned around for the Navy.

So...... what if the Korean War didn’t happen, or happened a year or two later? Would the Navy have been gutted, and reduced to significantly lessened role (no carriers, no planes, no large Marine force, etc)? What would have been the political and military implications for the US and NATO?

Ric350
 
There are a lot of Navy men in Congress and the federal bureaucracy. Their influence would probably keep the cuts from going too far, kind of like the USMC's alumnus body in high places has managed to consistently defeat efforts to fold it into a different service or downsize it to the level of, say, the Royal Marines.
 
IIRC the USMC shrunk from 6 divisions and 4 air wings to a mere 70,000 men and amphibious shipping had to be scrounged from various sources.

After Korea the Congress legislated that the USMC must have 3 divisions and 3 air wings, a strength it has maintained to today.

I don't know if the USN received similar legislative protection but certainly the USS Forrestal was laid down in mid 1951, not long after the USS US was cancelled as it wasn't required.
 
nukes and bombers made navies obsolete
Is it idiotic or just failing to anticipate the unwillingness to use the Bombs?
If you are willing to go under any circumstances to full SIOP then they really do replace the majority of the navy tasks and army ones as well, especially if you have a significant nuclear near monopoly as the US did for most of the 50s.
 
One of the many flaws in this “bomber” doctrine was that the B-36 was invulnerable to attack. The Navy knew this was false, yet were forbidden to prove it. The MiG-15 would have given the B-36 a very tough time.

I also wonder if this anti-Navy policy continued, would Rickover have lost funding to build Nautilus, and the US nuclear sub force would have been stillborn.

Ric350
 
Eisenhower as president would have brought better balance to defense. Which of course depends on him becoming president. Still there would have been serious damage to the Navy. Putting more carriers on the retired list, cutting the air wings, reducing the Marines to their prewar strength of a couple brigades, & in general a Navy with the capability of 1939 or earlier.
 
One of the many flaws in this “bomber” doctrine was that the B-36 was invulnerable to attack. The Navy knew this was false, yet were forbidden to prove it. The MiG-15 would have given the B-36 a very tough time.

I also wonder if this anti-Navy policy continued, would Rickover have lost funding to build Nautilus, and the US nuclear sub force would have been stillborn.

Ric350

You mean the bomber doesn't always get through?
 
You mean the bomber doesn't always get through?
If they are carrying nuclear weapons I don't think it matters, even the Schweinfurt raid only lost 16% with similar results in WWIII that means that over 80% of the SAC bombers might hit Russian cities. I would suggest this simply changes the cost v reward so much that they will always get through sufficiently considering the USAF number of B47s in the 50s.

Even the Battles lose rate attacking bridges at Sedan would work with them dropping Nukes....
 
Top