USAAF forever.
- Thread starter lounge60
- Start date
I am uncertain over the end-goal of having the US military follow the Japanese practice of having separate air arms. Military turf wars never promulgated an improved military posture, and exacerbated the problem of running a proper combined operation,when required.
I've never heard of one branch "owning" a weapon exclusively, such as per B-10, and I'm not sure what is meant by a B9B model aircraft.
I've never heard of one branch "owning" a weapon exclusively, such as per B-10, and I'm not sure what is meant by a B9B model aircraft.
The USAF, USN, and US Army have had numerous turf wars IOTL. I'm not sure how they'll be worse ITTL, though certainly such conflicts do tend to reduce military effectiveness.
Prewar, it was fairly common practice for the US military to buy a design and then contract a company to build it without regard for whether that was the same company that designed it. In the particular case of the B-10, the army owned the design and actually limited the rights of the company to build it for export until their own production run was complete.
You'll note that right after the B9B designation it says "OTL B-17".
Anyone else?
The US DID have separate air arms like Japan: USN Aviation Corps (Seaplanes/flying boats, Carrier fleet, and even airships), the USAAF, and even a third arm in USMC Aviation. And Gridley's political battles over bombers is really no different than OTL's battle over the rights to aircraft, or rockets, or even nukes. One of the independent USAF's first big bureaucratic battles was killing the US Army's Redstone rocket program, claiming as they did the full exclusive rights to strategic deterrance. They lost the battle with the navy over SLBM. Then there was/is the massive (and continuous...it's poping up again right now) battle over the USMC, it's size, responsibilities, right to aviation, and indeed very existence.
The one issue I see with the "Gridley plan" so far is that it'll be hard to prevent an independent strategic Air Force popping up out of the Navy corps and basically having an ATL USAF, just one that follows naval rather than army traditions and terminology. I'd think you'd just see the same Douhetist players as OTL pushing for a seperate branch ITTL. Interesting and technically meets the OP, but maybe misses the spirit of the OP in its still having an American independent air force. Maybe the precedent of the USMC keeps it officially a "Corps" in name, but it'd be hard to justify not having an independent service when it keeps growing so exponentially big and independent.
BTW Gridley, if you ever do this TL or find someone willign to take it on, count me in for a resource.
I'm counting on Moffett; one of the few things I've been able to learn about him so far is that he very firmly insisted that USN aviators were Navy first, pilots second. This is in sharp contrast to the USAAC/USAAF IOTL, which even before the war often considered themselves a separate entity.
Now I wouldn't blink if someone wrote a TL starting as I outlined and then had the USNAF split off and become an independent branch ranked with the USN and US Army during the Cold War - it would be a perfectly reasonable development. However, I think it would also be reasonable (though quite probably less likely) to have a markedly smaller air force remain part of the Navy. If I do wind up writing this as a TL, the latter is the route I'd almost certainly take.
Possible, though how small can they be? Assuming WW2 and nuclear development goes roughly as OTL you'll need a huge bomber force to support your nuclear deterrant force, at least until ICBMs are perfected. Plus Moffett alone will have to face a "separatist" coalition within his force (probably the old core of the USAAF strategic bomber faction that probably transfered over, Spaatz, Eaker, etc.), as the principle mind behind strategic bombing, Douhet, made a religion out of the Independent Air Force. It's doable, but after an ugly bureaucratic war of attrition.
Interesting thought: if for some wacky reason Truman's hope to make nuclear weapons a UN Mandate goes through (there's a recent thread hovering around here somewhere on this...I think one about nuclear power) then maybe there's justification for a smaller Navy Air Corps.
I'm trying to remember when SIOP was created. Perhaps with the Navy running the nuke show from the beginning it starts up earlier and thus some of the nuke burden taken on by the USAF IOTL is instead handled by carrier aircraft?
A lot, I think, is going to depend on how long Moffett sticks around. He was already in his mid-60's when he died IOTL; if he retires/dies in the late 1930's he probably won't have had enough cultural influence on the young officers or had time to weed out the older ones. If he can manage to last through the war (anyone know what his health was like? I'm going to have to get his biography if I decide to write this), things look a lot better.
Once ICBMs come along there's no reason they'd be placed under the USNAF ITTL; they might be, of course, but that's one more straw we could plausibly keep off the camel.
Ugh. Only if we can throw all the kleptocrats and dictators out of the UN first, please. :-(
See the PM...also, carrier aircraft will be limited to tactical nukes for a long time to come. Early nukes required MASSIVELY BIG bombers just to carry the damned things. No *B-29 (B10B?
) means no *Hiroshima.PS, on the bomber names, I think the strategic bombers will get an extra letter in their name like with the Torpedo (TB) and Scout (SB) bombers...probably HB for Heavy Bomber, RB for stRategic Bomber, or AB for Assault Bomber, possibly CB/DB/CDB for Coastal Defense? That'd make the *B-17 HB, *B-24 HY, *B-29 H2B, etc.
I was considering PBB for the B-17, actually, with the plane being called the Flying Battleship by its crews and in some media outlets (the official name remaining Flying Fortress).
"PB" being the Patrol Bomber subclass (OTL PBY, PBM, etc), with the "B" for Boeing company indicator.
The B-24 I'd probably just designate as the PB4Y, since that was its OTL designation when in Navy service.
Another thought as I dig into this: what do people feel about the USNAF pushing aerial refueling more than OTL? The sort of long over water operations that the Navy does would benefit greatly from aerial refueling, and after the 150 hour (!) flight of the Question Mark in 1929 it was clear that such things were possible.
Plausible? Probable? Possible?
Plausible? Probable? Possible?
Seems plausible...and yea, duh on the PB. Probably keep that designation since its for "coastal defense", right?
Curiously ITTL we might see the Navy get to keep their cumbersome and confusing nomenclature scheme even up to present day.Fearless Leader
Donor
With the USN having a larger land based aerial contingent. I wonder if they might devise better ways of employing craft such as the *B-17 and others, more effectively against naval targets. Perhaps increased attempts/practice at high altitude bombing of naval vessels pre-war reveals the fact that traditional methods are ridiculously inefficient. Thus something akin to "Skip-bombing" is developed earlier thereby making life that much harder for the Japanese come the 1940's (assuming the Pacific War even happens in OTL). TTL's USNAF does have the ability to develop 2 engined "coastal defense" aircraft (like the B-24) right?
As for aerial refueling, with the longer ranges desired by the Navy and the fact that theoretically the technology is there I don't see it as being outside the realm of possibility. Though I doubt the need is going to be there until WWII, at which time, given the possibility of waging a war over the Atlantic/Pacific without any bases, work on aerial refueling begins rapidly. IMO, OTL's work on extreme long range craft such as the B-36/XB-35 is downplayed in favor of aerial refueling.
As for aerial refueling, with the longer ranges desired by the Navy and the fact that theoretically the technology is there I don't see it as being outside the realm of possibility. Though I doubt the need is going to be there until WWII, at which time, given the possibility of waging a war over the Atlantic/Pacific without any bases, work on aerial refueling begins rapidly. IMO, OTL's work on extreme long range craft such as the B-36/XB-35 is downplayed in favor of aerial refueling.
Seems plausible...and yea, duh on the PB. Probably keep that designation since its for "coastal defense", right?
Hey, it would give the TL a bit of spice... "Here is the Navy's new Tomcat, designation F14F... the Intruder, designation BF... the Viking, designation OSO..."
Hmm. Maybe. Live-fires were fairly rare even in exercises; the USN never did a real test of the Mk14 torpedo, for example. BTW, the B-24 was four-engined. ;-)
That's more or less what I'm thinking; the Doolittle Raid might be made be refueled 4-engine bombers ITTL... still a one-way mission, but if it works it might be repeatable.
Only just started reading this thread and I like it.
I'd make the following observations. From my understanding of interwar aviation and interservice politics, it is entirely possible strategic aviation could have gone to the Navy - for many of the reasons already mentioned.
However, the Navy already had several competing aviation interests (carrier aviation, lighter-than-air, and floatplanes) and I'm not completely sure where land-based strategic bombing would go. The focus of the US navy was historically sea control (protecting US shores and US trade interests), or interdicting enemy trade, not projecting military power far inland. Given this, and the strong surface-ship emphasis in the navy, it's hard for me to believe anything other than carriers would end up getting the lion's share of funding.
I also tend to agree with others that, if a largely separate and land-based "USNAF" developed around multi-engined heavy bombers, this would drive the development of other specialized shore based interceptor aircraft to defend bases, and other tactical aircraft to work in support of Marine detachments that would probably be assigned the main land defense roles. This would increasingly look less and less like "the navy" and more like a separate Air Force...and probably become one eventually.
Regarding possible wierd technological mergers, how about these:
Having taken the responsiility for strategic aviation and thereby eliminating competition from the Army, the USN incorporates it into more "naval" 1930's-1940's concepts such as:
(1) large multi-engined floatplane bombers (imagine six-engined B-17's on floats)
(2) larger and more massive carriers capable of handling multi-engined long range bombers(imagine the design "United States" in 1940)
(3) large ZRCV type airships carying multi-engined bombers (couldn't help myself)
I guess I'm not sure the USA would fully embrace the Air Power doctrines of strategic/economic and terror bombing, if the USN took over.
I'd make the following observations. From my understanding of interwar aviation and interservice politics, it is entirely possible strategic aviation could have gone to the Navy - for many of the reasons already mentioned.
However, the Navy already had several competing aviation interests (carrier aviation, lighter-than-air, and floatplanes) and I'm not completely sure where land-based strategic bombing would go. The focus of the US navy was historically sea control (protecting US shores and US trade interests), or interdicting enemy trade, not projecting military power far inland. Given this, and the strong surface-ship emphasis in the navy, it's hard for me to believe anything other than carriers would end up getting the lion's share of funding.
I also tend to agree with others that, if a largely separate and land-based "USNAF" developed around multi-engined heavy bombers, this would drive the development of other specialized shore based interceptor aircraft to defend bases, and other tactical aircraft to work in support of Marine detachments that would probably be assigned the main land defense roles. This would increasingly look less and less like "the navy" and more like a separate Air Force...and probably become one eventually.
Regarding possible wierd technological mergers, how about these:
Having taken the responsiility for strategic aviation and thereby eliminating competition from the Army, the USN incorporates it into more "naval" 1930's-1940's concepts such as:
(1) large multi-engined floatplane bombers (imagine six-engined B-17's on floats)
(2) larger and more massive carriers capable of handling multi-engined long range bombers(imagine the design "United States" in 1940)
(3) large ZRCV type airships carying multi-engined bombers (couldn't help myself)
I guess I'm not sure the USA would fully embrace the Air Power doctrines of strategic/economic and terror bombing, if the USN took over.
Last edited:
Fearless Leader
Donor
Sorry, typo, meant B-25.
I also concur that in all likelihood, with the Navy running the show as far as strategic bombing is concerned, the US is far less likely to adopt economic/terror bombing as a means of war, and probably focus on tactical bombing.
Given the isolationist attitude of the time in which it would be invented, I'd wager the *B-17 would be geared primarily for targeting ships at sea (even moreso than OTL). I would also not be surprised if there was the provision for it to be a long-range torpedo bomber as well.
Though you're right that in OTL the inefficiency of the Norden bombsight to enable high altitude naval bombing was completely unknown prior to the war. The only tests conducted were dry tests under optimal conditions. There's no reason that with different personnel, a different attitude could be adopted leading to an earlier abandonment of attempts at high altitude naval bombing.
Also would it be possible in TTL for Billy Mitchell to draw the ears of those in the Navy? Or is he politically too far gone?
No reason they couldn't, though I doubt they'd have many before the war. They're too big for carriers and too small for long-range patrols.
Certainly unlikely pre-war, though once the Brits start doing so the US will probably follow along to some extent.
From what I know now he's too far gone - Moffett in particular is going to keep him as far away from the USN as possible. Others, of course, might be more willing to listen.
I agree here. Skip bombing as a naval doctrine makes a lot of sense and yes, aerial refueling is a likely thin ITTL.
Nice...I'm assuming models will be different with different proposed roles ITTL by the time these particular craft come around, but good for an illustrative point.
Awesome.
And ironically I'd just forwarded Gridley to your TLs!
Agree carriers will be the big focus items, but ITTL part of the "coup" means that Moffet has brought over new funding sources with the new mission. ITTL money that went to the army bomber program OTL is instead going to the navy. Now before WW2 started it was a relatively small pot, but the start of the war changes that, IMO, and the Navy bureaucracy will bloat severely. Likely this $ goes into the same pot as flying boats (all "PB"), so this could see fewer "Flying Battleships" than OTL and more Martin Mariners and Marses (see below).
Yea, it'll be really hard to avoid a "third service" post-war, particularly with nukes. Culturally, though, things will be interesting since you're looking at "Air Force Admirals" and Airmen talking about bells and bulkheads and skuttlebutt. Interestingly, the uniforms would probably more resemble the "McPeak Uniform" of the 90's or possibly Pan Am uniforms. Pan Am, BTW, was thoroghly "naval" in culture and nomenclature in the Boeing Clipper days...part of Juan's attempt to make people comfortable with air travel by harkening back to ocean liners.
Cool, but impractical. I'd assume they'd just focus on large flying boat patrol bombers like the Martin Mariner and Mars for that role. Interestingly, the Mars was a JRM rather than PB2M...Gridley pay heed. We may need to research why the designation shift, as this may hint at what designation land-based bombers would get. EDIT: JR = "Utility Transport", so scrap that. The Mars will be PB2M ITTL since it'll focus on the bomber side of things. see this page: http://niehorster.orbat.com/013_usa/_aircraft_usn_usmc.htm
And FL makes a great point on long-range torpedo bombers. The US experimented briefly in the 30s but abandoned them. Perhaps ITTL we see them. They'd fire full-sized torps, BTW.
Another "cool but impractical". The DoD might look into one pre- or post-war, but I doubt it gets off the drawing board as there'd be a real immediate need for traditional carriers during the war and plenty of air strips around the world post-war. Plus finding port facilities capable of handling that behemoth would be a nightmare. Perhaps we see one ITTL.
Airship carriers? That's required by AH law, innit?
That's a million dollar question there. A lot depends on who from the Mitchell School gets pulled over and how much sway they have. OTL the B-17 and the like were bought as "coastal defense", though everyone in the DoD knew that was window dressing for a Douhetist Air Force. Hard to say if navy control would change this, though skip bombing could divert much of this focus. The big Q is once the war starts and Douhetist principles are being enacted over Europe if the US still jumps into daylight precision bombing with both feet. If not, there's a major effect on the war effort.
Assuming the focus remains "naval" and the US at least partly opts out of OTL's daytime bombing effort in favor of skip bombers and patrol flying boat bombers this changes the scope of the war a lot. This is very bad for the Kriegsmarine and IJN, but notably better for the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht, who can now send more fighters to the eastern front, which is bad for the USSR. Yes there will still be the RAF efforts, but night defense calls for different aircraft (mostly twin-engined heavy fighters) and unique skill sets, plus this means no "two-shift Luftwaffe" in the west, freeing up much-needed manpower. Considering OTL's daylight bomber campaign was a serious drain on Luftwaffe front line fighters and skilled pilots, this also affects *D-Day, as air superiority was absolutely necessity for landing. They'll have to wait until the eastern front attrition pulls over more and more day fighters, which could delay any invasion further. Russia's in for a harder go ITTL.
Of course Japan's probably going down sooner ITTL with the added hell skip bombing *Mitchells and Mars Bombers are playing on shipping. Huge Q now on if the US is going to try for *Downfall or simply leave the home islands besieged while they deal with Germany.
Last edited:
Certainly possible, though IIRC 4-engine bombers were less than ideal for skip bombing.
True, that was more for amusement value.
Yeah, that's where I was headed. I figure the Navy will have half a dozen or so wings of B-17/FBB organized in the same fashion as the Patrol Wings of OTL (four squadrons of 12 aircraft each plus a few spares), with a wing command being a Captain's (O-6) billet. They'll fall under the same org umbrella as the OTL Patrol Wings (Scouting Force in the Pacific, Patrol Wings in the Atlantic).
I'm going to try, though.
The image of B-17/FBB's making a torpedo run is pretty awesome. Not sure how practical it would be, but I bet someone would try it. Sadly, they'd almost certainly be stuck with the OTL torpedoes given the bureaucracy involved there.
Airship carriers? That's required by AH law, innit?
Then I'm going to be breaking the law. This TL only works if Moffett turns his attention away from airships. Sorry, no airship carriers.
It is indeed, and one I haven't answered yet. I'm sure the strategic bombing effort will be less than OTL just because of the different starting baseline and the fact that I'll be splitting up the Bomber Barons between the Navy and the Army. It is possible, however, that we'll see more tactical/operational bombing than OTL; the US Army may be flying a lot more twin-engine bombers in the ETO. That would still drain the Luftwaffe's fighters to allow air supremacy on D-Day.