Eisenhower Embarks On Military Reform

IOTL Eisenhower on a sensible understanding of the Soviet threat, essentially starved the US military throughout the 1950s in order to give the US consumer economy time to rebuild and adjust to a peaceful existence.

This left military reform to occur under Kennedy and during Viet Nam, with some consequences (i.e. McNamara) and the major problem of sending the US Army into Viet Nam with few people who were actually prepared to fight a war, let alone the kind of war Viet Nam was.


So let's say Eisenhower, in 1957-8 decides to embark on some sort of military reform. What would it look like, as opposed to Kennedy-Johnson reform?
 
Hopefully it would be more towards fighting unconventional warfare, such as the creation of units like the Navy SEALS, Special Forces (Green Berets) and other Special Operations units.

One of the major problems troops had when they first got to Vietnam was they had been trained to fight a set-piece style battle against the USSR in Europe. It's hard to fight against snipers and booby traps when you're not trained for it.
 
To what extent in this early (ish) era of NATO were the US willing to take on board ideas from other member states? I'm afraid I haven't a clue as to the answer.

Now the POD does not, of itself, envisage unconventional or COIN type ops but France and the UK have had plenty of experiance at this point.

Is this a runner?
 
To what extent in this early (ish) era of NATO were the US willing to take on board ideas from other member states? I'm afraid I haven't a clue as to the answer.

Now the POD does not, of itself, envisage unconventional or COIN type ops but France and the UK have had plenty of experiance at this point.

Is this a runner?

A runner?

I think, that if the US was doing the smart thing, that they would look to the UK & the French for COIN training in exchange for… I don't know? Joint development of a fighter plane?

However, the USA has a lot of areas where they need work on: they need a new fighter, a new bomber (the XB-70 might go ahead in this timeline instead of ICBMs), their ground forces need a ton of work, they need officers who were younger than the WWII heavy staff in the USA, and so on.
 
Wasn’t US military thinking all about massive Tank battles in Germany during the cold war? Any change is going to have massive resistance from the military especially armoured.
 
IOTL Eisenhower on a sensible understanding of the Soviet threat, essentially starved the US military throughout the 1950s in order to give the US consumer economy time to rebuild and adjust to a peaceful existence.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

1954: 14% GDP going into defense

1958: 11% GDP going into defense

1962: 11% GDP going into defense

Where's the starvin'?

Eisenhower era produced also much systems which are in use even today, such as super carriers, Minuteman ICBM's, C-130, U-2, spy satellites, smaller nuclear bombs, B-52's, C-135 the list is almost endless. The problem with the US military after Second World War has never been lack of funds; it's the lack of priorization.

However, the USA has a lot of areas where they need work on: they need a new fighter, a new bomber (the XB-70 might go ahead in this timeline instead of ICBMs), their ground forces need a ton of work, they need officers who were younger than the WWII heavy staff in the USA, and so on.

How about following ATL:

In 1953 Eisenhower caps military spending at, say, 4% of GDP. Cut list:

- Axe B-52. It's a transitional system before ICBM's and SLBM's/Cruise missiles
- Axe B-36: It's a joke.
- Axe most of the WW II Navy units fast; they consume money and especially manpower for no sensible gain. Even better: Distribute them to allies which also has the effect of maiming their local defense industries.
- Cut down Army strength dramatically; use the WW II equipment to prop up allies. Aim for quality rather than quantity.
- Prevent USAF from procuring fighter aircraft designs independently, make them buy whatever USN is buying.
- Insist on a clear cap on nuclear arsenal; say, 500 H-bombs for strategic use, 500 tactical weapons. Use the atomic expertise to make US and the West expert
in atomic energy.
- Rip McMahon Act; use nuclear technology as a carrot to make the UK and France to do whatever you want.
 
Last edited:
Wasn’t US military thinking all about massive Tank battles in Germany during the cold war? Any change is going to have massive resistance from the military especially armoured.

In the 1950s? They were invisioning the "inevitable" air war. This is why money was being poured into SAC, MAC and TAC in the Air Force. If there were any resistance from Armored units, those voices would have fallen on deaf ears.
 
IOTL Eisenhower on a sensible understanding of the Soviet threat, essentially starved the US military throughout the 1950s in order to give the US consumer economy time to rebuild and adjust to a peaceful existence.

This left military reform to occur under Kennedy and during Viet Nam, with some consequences (i.e. McNamara) and the major problem of sending the US Army into Viet Nam with few people who were actually prepared to fight a war, let alone the kind of war Viet Nam was.


So let's say Eisenhower, in 1957-8 decides to embark on some sort of military reform. What would it look like, as opposed to Kennedy-Johnson reform?

a) Which were the Kennedy/McNamara reforms? Were they really reforms or simply adaption to external changes (surface to air missiles, Vietnam and so on)?

b) Two things that Eisenhower could have done were 1) Explain to the military that nuclear combat with the Soviet Union was the last alternative, and that non-nuclear combat, even with non-Soviets, should get more attention in planning, equipment and training. That should make a fairly big difference in Vietnam. 2) Drop the draft and go all volontary, which would shake up the whole of the military. Very big difference between getting recruits and having to convince them to register and stay.
 
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

1954: 14% GDP going into defense

1958: 11% GDP going into defense

1962: 11% GDP going into defense

Where's the starvin'?

Eisenhower era produced also much systems which are in use even today, such as super carriers, Minuteman ICBM's, C-130, U-2, spy satellites, smaller nuclear bombs, B-52's, C-135 the list is almost endless. The problem with the US military after Second World War has never been lack of funds; it's the lack of priorization.



How about following ATL:

In 1953 Eisenhower caps military spending at, say, 4% of GDP. Cut list:

- Axe B-52. It's a transitional system before ICBM's and SLBM's/Cruise missiles
- Axe B-36: It's a joke.
- Axe most of the WW II Navy units fast; they consume money and especially manpower for no sensible gain. Even better: Distribute them to allies which also has the effect of maiming their local defense industries.
- Cut down Army strength dramatically; use the WW II equipment to prop up allies. Aim for quality rather than quantity.
- Prevent USAF from procuring fighter aircraft designs independently, make them buy whatever USN is buying.
- Insist on a clear cap on nuclear arsenal; say, 500 H-bombs for strategic use, 500 tactical weapons. Use the atomic expertise to make US and the West expert
in atomic energy.
- Rip McMahon Act; use nuclear technology as a carrot to make the UK and France to do whatever you want.

Hmph, yes and no on your points.

B-52 was more than just an aircraft that hauled nuclear weapons. Its the B-52 (the oldest in the AF arsenal) that terrified the enemy. Ack! Don't speak, unless you have seen three B-52s flying over head of you, you have no argument. On another note, the B-52 was a for tactical nuclear bombing, not necessarily just strategic.

B-36, I agree but disagree at the same time. The B-36 was a transition between the B-29 and B-52. Without the B-36, there would be no B-52.

For Navy, that was our second great stick. Whenever there was a crisis, the President asked about his aircraft carriers and boomers. Each craft serves a purpose in support of another. I wouldn't touch it.

Are you kidding about the Army? Yes, dump the WW2 junk and replace it with better equipment. The M-16 for example shouldn't have been tested in a middle of a war, it should have been worked on and tested in the 50's. Although the M-14 was a "good" weapon. its only good because its successor was junk.

This is where I know you know little about strategic militaries. The Air Force and Navy have two different missions. In the 1950s, the Air Force was leaning towards bombers, we learned this lesson during Korea, but since this is 1957, we'll set that aside. The Air Force doesn't need much of the equipment that are specific for Navy aircraft and visa versa for the Navy. Two different missions, two different aircraft.

I agree with your cap, no need to destroy the world ten times over. You only need to be able to do it once. Rather than shotgunning it and spending money in more missiles and bombs, I would focus on targetting systems.

Again, I agree.

Face it, you want a kick ass military? You focus more on your strategic and tactical air assets, invest your money money for more a more specific surgical styled Army and Marines. Like how it is now.
 
B-52 was more than just an aircraft that hauled nuclear weapons. Its the B-52 (the oldest in the AF arsenal) that terrified the enemy.

While the aircraft itself is an impressive piece of engineering, it's not crucially important. B-47's could have well fit the job of dumping ordnance upon enemy.

B-36, I agree but disagree at the same time. The B-36 was a transition between the B-29 and B-52. Without the B-36, there would be no B-52.

By 1953 B-47 was coming online and smaller nuclear weapons were in sight. Thus the need to operate B-36's had gone. B-36 was extemely costly aircraft to operate.

For Navy, that was our second great stick. Whenever there was a crisis, the President asked about his aircraft carriers and boomers. Each craft serves a purpose in support of another. I wouldn't touch it.

During Eisenhower and Kennedy periods USN was operating a massive number of older, unmodernized aircraft carriers and cruisers which had no real substantial mission. Modernized Essex-carriers, and CVB's were superb, the rest were not really necessary. Soviet sub threat was massively inflated, especially as the USN had RN as it's ally.

This is where I know you know little about strategic militaries. The Air Force and Navy have two different missions. In the 1950s, the Air Force was leaning towards bombers, we learned this lesson during Korea, but since this is 1957, we'll set that aside. The Air Force doesn't need much of the equipment that are specific for Navy aircraft and visa versa for the Navy. Two different missions, two different aircraft.

The Eisenhower era began in 1952. There's no need for all the specific types of aircraft of OTL, one can do more with less types. Land-based air forces have always done well with carrier aircraft, especially as those carrier aircrafts are very sturdy and can be adepted to difficult field conditions as well.

I'm not convinced that an USAF of late 1950's which would have, say, F3H as ADC workhorse, F-8's, A-4's and A-3's for TAC would be less capable than USAF of OTL...

What kind of condition the USA would be in if half of the spending poured upon defense was used either for tax breaks or various other investment conditions? Maybe the Cold War would be over far more quickly.
 
While the aircraft itself is an impressive piece of engineering, it's not crucially important. B-47's could have well fit the job of dumping ordnance upon enemy.



By 1953 B-47 was coming online and smaller nuclear weapons were in sight. Thus the need to operate B-36's had gone. B-36 was extemely costly aircraft to operate.

I firmly disagree! The B-52 could fly higher, faster and had longer range and endurance.

During Eisenhower and Kennedy periods USN was operating a massive number of older, unmodernized aircraft carriers and cruisers which had no real substantial mission. Modernized Essex-carriers, and CVB's were superb, the rest were not really necessary. Soviet sub threat was massively inflated, especially as the USN had RN as it's ally.

The Navy of the 1950s went through a lull, much like the Air Force did in the 1960s and 1980s. I believe that if Ike would have thought strategically and put the money in submarines and aircraft carriers, there would have been a better show of force. You cannot beat SLBMs. Rather than the 30 minute wait for the missiles to come, it was I believe 5-10 minutes.

The Eisenhower era began in 1952. There's no need for all the specific types of aircraft of OTL, one can do more with less types. Land-based air forces have always done well with carrier aircraft, especially as those carrier aircrafts are very sturdy and can be adepted to difficult field conditions as well.

I'm not convinced that an USAF of late 1950's which would have, say, F3H as ADC workhorse, F-8's, A-4's and A-3's for TAC would be less capable than USAF of OTL...

I see where you are thinking with this one, similar to that of how the Air Force and Navy are now producing the F-35. If you would like a compromise, I think it would have been better if none of those aircraft were built and instead a joint fighter was built in the 1950s. Then you would have a basic package and the Air Force and Navy could have added their own packages.

What kind of condition the USA would be in if half of the spending poured upon defense was used either for tax breaks or various other investment conditions? Maybe the Cold War would be over far more quickly.

I am not sure how the cold war would have been over sooner if the United States put more money in domestic issues. I think if this were to happen, the cold war would have been in the Soviet's favor. The United States would have looked like a push over and its possible the Soviets could have done more aggressive acts with the attitude of "I am adding this nation as a satellite and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it."
 
I wonder if a WWII guy like Ike would try to repeat what worked back then and do things like they did back then.

2) Drop the draft and go all volontary, which would shake up the whole of the military. Very big difference between getting recruits and having to convince them to register and stay.

It sounds like a good idea.
 
Few points to remember, Militant One. The first boomer went active only a few months before Eisenhower left office. I agree on some of the old warships, but as others point out, the military's focus was for when a nuclear war with the Russians happened. That left them in rough shape for when they needed conventional force - proven in Vietnam.
 
While the aircraft itself is an impressive piece of engineering, it's not crucially important. B-47's could have well fit the job of dumping ordnance upon enemy.
Wasn't the B-47 too specialized as a nuke-deliverer to be useful in a conventional war?

In addition it was badly underpowered and needed to use RATO. Perhaps for a later tactical variant the J47 engines could have been replaced with J57 engines (increasing thrust by 55%)?
 
I firmly disagree! The B-52 could fly higher, faster and had longer range and endurance.

Sure, but all in all, this was worth almost nothing. By mid-1950's USAF had a large aerial tanker force capable of negating these effects, and by ca. 1965 the bomber had lost it's strategic importance.

The Navy of the 1950s went through a lull, much like the Air Force did in the 1960s and 1980s.

The USN did not went by a lull but during 1950's embarked upon massive construction and modernization programs. The problem was that much of the ships USN was operating were irrelevant to the strategic situation and also very expensive to operate. For example, WW II Gearing-class destroyer had about the same number of crew as a newer Forrest Sherman -class destroyer. But even modernized, Gearing-class destroyer wasn't anywhere near the operational value of the newer ship.

USN was operating, for example, CVE's to mid 1950's even when those ships had almost zero additional value for USN. On the other hand, if USN ships were delivered to US allies they would have much beneficial political effects.

I see where you are thinking with this one, similar to that of how the Air Force and Navy are now producing the F-35.

No, I'm not thinking about a joint program but USAF buying USN planes. More cooks, worse soup, as they say.

I am not sure how the cold war would have been over sooner if the United States put more money in domestic issues. I think if this were to happen, the cold war would have been in the Soviet's favor. The United States would have looked like a push over and its possible the Soviets could have done more aggressive acts with the attitude of "I am adding this nation as a satellite and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it."

The Cold War wasn't about shooting up the adversary but the West gaining so large hedge in living standards that people of Eastern Europe and USSR realized they had been cheated by Communism. TV commercials across the Iron Curtain showing shops overflowing with food and other goods had more effect than the fact that was there one extra armored division or not.

By using the money on domestic issues, international aid etc. it would not have been necessary for the USA to operate with shady Third World dictators, and thus endangering the moral high ground important in Cold War politics.
 
The Cold War wasn't about shooting up the adversary but the West gaining so large hedge in living standards that people of Eastern Europe and USSR realized they had been cheated by Communism. TV commercials across the Iron Curtain showing shops overflowing with food and other goods had more effect than the fact that was there one extra armored division or not.

By using the money on domestic issues, international aid etc. it would not have been necessary for the USA to operate with shady Third World dictators, and thus endangering the moral high ground important in Cold War politics.

True enough, but all of this requires time. Time for a mass media to develop that is near impossible for the Soviet Bloc to censor. Time for the communist system to show its weaknesses and time for a generation of people to become disillusioned with communism. This time would not be available if the U.S. was so weak that the soviets could drive its influence back to the Americas.
 
Top