Victory Through Air Power

[Major Major]

Victory Through Air Power (1942), by Russian flying ace and American aircraft entrepeneur Alexander Nikolaievich Prokofiev de Seversky is one of the more famous How-to-Win-the-War books. The book was made into a very popular Disney documentary of the same title (1943). Seversky called for the development of bombers with a range of over 3000 miles and mobilization for an air war, striking directly from the United States at the Axis powers.

He characterized the real-life conduct of the war as "It is though a bow-and-arrow army, having been routed by gunpowder, sought to win back lost ground by throwing in yet more bows and arrows."

So. Suppose the United States adopted his plan. No naval building, no mobilization of ground troops, just concentration on air power, with long-range bombers making strikes from Alaska and Washington state.

How do you think the war would have proceeded?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Miserably.

 

[trurle]

Victory Through Air Power (1942), by Russian flying ace and American aircraft entrepeneur Alexander Nikolaievich Prokofiev de Seversky is one of the more famous How-to-Win-the-War books. The book was made into a very popular Disney documentary of the same title (1943). Seversky called for the development of bombers with a range of over 3000 miles and mobilization for an air war, striking directly from the United States at the Axis powers.

He characterized the real-life conduct of the war as "It is though a bow-and-arrow army, having been routed by gunpowder, sought to win back lost ground by throwing in yet more bows and arrows."

So. Suppose the United States adopted his plan. No naval building, no mobilization of ground troops, just concentration on air power, with long-range bombers making strikes from Alaska and Washington state.

How do you think the war would have proceeded?

The main problem would be scouting. You cannot bomb target you do not know, and aerial photography has its limitations.
Also, with aircraft speed of the era, long-range bombing is going to be less than effective against mobile targets (troops).

Gradually, doctrine will evolve to include more ground troops to address these shortcomings. Also, submarine fleets to catch downed airmen would be necessary. Overall, will be less US casualties, but more German+Japanese civilian killed, plus war will continue longer (may be well into nuclear bombardment phase).

Drawing historical analogies (gunpowder=air power, bows=ground power), gunpowder began to be widely used in warfare in 13th century, but bows were still effective in 17th century, and last mounted archers were phased out of armies only in 1826. Actually i doubt even modern technology (as in 2017) will allow victory by air power alone. We still have a missing tech (survelliance drones with infinite endurance) to perform the function of "ground control" analogous to classical infantry.

 

[TonyA]

Miserably.

LOL, literally...

 

[sloreck]

Yet another "miracle weapon" that will win the war quickly, economically, and with few casualties. From Ugg and Ogg with the club (so much better than the stone in the hand), to "shock and awe" (no need to physically occupy) this sort of promise has been around forever. The "ultimate technological weapon" is still waiting to be invented.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

The main issue with victory through air power in WW II was that atrocious accuracy of bombers. Even with the development of the Norden, hitting anything was more or less a crapshoot... which meant the cost to produce ordinance and cover the attrition of aircraft vs. the amount of damage caused by said bombing attacks was always in the negative. Add that to the fact that innovations to protect against bombing runs (dispersal of industry, shelters, etc.) we're advancing faster than one could reasonably increase accuracy and the cost-to-damage efficiency of the payloads, and what you've done is created a very, very large cash sink.

Granted, you end up with fewer casualties over any period of time... but blood has always been a pretty cheap cost in war. Large aircraft and bombs are EXPENSIVE in terms of total man-hours needed for all the steps.

 

[riggerrob]

Accuracy was atrocious during WW2.

More accurate radio navigation (Gee, ADF, VOR,LORAN, TACAN, inertial navigation, etc.) would help accuracy.
What about having Pathfinders dropping radio beacons just before the main wave arrives?
What about radar bombsights?
Infra red bomb sights?

Would definitely need much better photo-recon ... maybe radar-recon ... maybe infra red recon .... maybe seismic recon?

To improve accuracy, you would need modern Forward Air Controllers. Many modern soldiers believe that the primary function of the leading infantry platoon is moving the FAC to within sight of the enemy.

Casualties among bomber crews were also atrocious! Casualties approached those of WW1 trench-fighters!

For example, my family sent 3 brothers to RAF Bomber Command (Halifaxes and Lancasters) but only one returned home after the war.

More fast bombers (e.g. Mosquito) would reduce both the number of exposed airman and the duration of expisure.

 

[spkaca]

To improve accuracy, you would need modern Forward Air Controllers. Many modern soldiers believe that the primary function of the leading infantry platoon is moving the FAC to within sight of the enemy.

Related: I think it was Col. Trevor Dupuy who said something to the effect that, on reflection, the work of field commanders in WW2 had been protecting the artillery spotters as they advanced from Normandy to the Rhine.

 

[eltf177]

Add to poor accuracy the fact that bombers tended to destroy the building but NOT the machinery within. Crews removed the rubble and rebuilt the building around the machinery which was already back in action.

You really need Tallboy's or Grand Slam's to completely wreck the building slab and smash the machinery. And of course much production was being put into caves in 1944-45, making it less vulnerable...

 

[Major Major]

The main problem would be scouting. You cannot bomb target you do not know, and aerial photography has its limitations.
Also, with aircraft speed of the era, long-range bombing is going to be less than effective against mobile targets (troops).

Gradually, doctrine will evolve to include more ground troops to address these shortcomings. Also, submarine fleets to catch downed airmen would be necessary. Overall, will be less US casualties, but more German+Japanese civilian killed, plus war will continue longer (may be well into nuclear bombardment phase).

Drawing historical analogies (gunpowder=air power, bows=ground power), gunpowder began to be widely used in warfare in 13th century, but bows were still effective in 17th century, and last mounted archers were phased out of armies only in 1826. Actually i doubt even modern technology (as in 2017) will allow victory by air power alone. We still have a missing tech (survelliance drones with infinite endurance) to perform the function of "ground control" analogous to classical infantry.

As I recall, Seversky didn't mention reconnaissance. Just high-altitude bombing from super-bombers. Apparently the Axis would be unable to develop advanced air defenses.

And, again, he saw no place whatsoever for land troops or ships. All the fighting would be done by air, by advanced long-range bombers.

(I am reminded of Robert Heinlein's "world-saving" articles on nuclear war, where for some reason he completely ignored the delivery of these super nuclear weapons. Again, land troops and ships were obsolete, and air defenses useless.)

As Sloreck said:

Yet another "miracle weapon" that will win the war quickly, economically, and with few casualties. From Ugg and Ogg with the club (so much better than the stone in the hand), to "shock and awe" (no need to physically occupy) this sort of promise has been around forever. The "ultimate technological weapon" is still waiting to be invented.

 

[Bob in Pittsburgh]

Reliance on “strategic” bombing almost cost the Allies their ultimate victory as the u-boats came close to crippling Great Britain operating in the so called air gap. It was only through Roosevelt’s direct intervention that sufficient B-24s were allocated to convoy defense. The US considered the bombing accurate if ¼ of the bombs landed within ½ mile of the target. The official history claims great results but if you read a little closer you will see that about half of the results were raids in 1945 when Germany was clearly kaput.

At the end of the day in non-nuclear you still need troops on the ground capturing the objective. That clearly occurred in Europe. In the case of Japan the leadership was more worried about the Red Army entering the war than they were about bombing; although I will concede that the bombing of Japan was much more effective than it was in Europe. Both the IJN and IJA needed to be convinced that they were beaten and bombing alone would not have accomplished that.

 

[eltf177]

In the case of Japan the combination of bombing and mining might have done the job, but it would have taken time and there are still doubts the militarists would have surrendered if not ordered too...

 

[TonyA]

In the case of Japan the combination of bombing and mining might have done the job, but it would have taken time and there are still doubts the militarists would have surrendered if not ordered too...

So, we're still stirring a nuke or three into the pot for these guys. In the meantime, I'd imagine their fleet could make itself really obnoxious if all it had to worry about was land based bombers...

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

In the case of Japan the combination of bombing and mining might have done the job, but it would have taken time and there are still doubts the militarists would have surrendered if not ordered too...

AFTER the land forces had been defeated everywhere in the Pacific that the US cared to bother with. Which took Army and Marines, and lots of them.

Also, the blockade would have required lots and lots of ships around the Home Islands, in addition to just aircraft.

 

[eltf177]

AFTER the land forces had been defeated everywhere in the Pacific that the US cared to bother with. Which took Army and Marines, and lots of them.

Also, the blockade would have required lots and lots of ships around the Home Islands, in addition to just aircraft.

Agreed about the Army, those islands had to be taken and aircraft alone couldn't do it.

Agreed that lots of ships would be needed, and would be subjected to kamikaze attacks around the clock...