What if the US Air Force was subordinated to the Army?

maverick

Banned
Random thought: What if the United States Army Air Corps had never become independent, or had only become independent from the army many years or even decades later than it did IOTL?

The first idea to get this done is that Major General Oscar Westover, commander of the Army Air Corps and proponent of the US Air Force being subbordinate to the army, does not die in that fateful plane crash in September of 1938. Henceforth he is not replaced by men who supported the idea of an independent air force, in the vein of General Frank Maxwell Andrews or Billy Mitchell.


So, could Westover's continued presence as commander of the Army Air Corps mean that there is no US Air Force ITTL?

How would that affect the development of Aerial doctrine in the United States? Or the development/role of the United States Military in WWII?
 

Japhy

Banned
The Problem with Westover is that unlike say Billy Mitchell, he didn't have 'Staying Power'. That is to say that unlike Mitchell he didn't have Junior Officers who viewed his stances as the absolute truth. Look once he dies the Corps is under the command of Hap Arnold who is one of the leading proponents of the idea of an Independent Air Force, and that "The Bomber will Always Get Through".

To pull this off I would suggest that perhaps, the US Air Force doesn't go with its Pre-War Bomber View. Rather then B-17's have them develop more aircraft like the B-18, or B-25. Short Range tactical aircraft and coastal patrolers along with their Presuit Squadrons to stop the bombers from getting through. When WWII comes they Air Force has to play catchup with the Brits for the Big Bombers (Meaning they follow the Night Bombing Plan) and the Light Bombers and Fighters stay under a tighter relationship with the Army.

Long term the perception issues, if the 8th Air Force is viewed more like the 9th, the USAAF might wind up under the Department of the Army, in a relationship with that service akin to what the Marines have with the Navy.

That said, theres still the issue of the Bombers being the only initial means to transport the Bomb. Once single Air Force Aircraft can wipe out entire cities, the argument for a Separate Air Service grows considerably. Not sure how to put the Department of the Army in a position where they can keep that power in the changing world of the late 40's Early 50's.
 
At least the USAAC oficers would have to be very tactical minded,like the luftwaffe was in WW2,but with the advent of SAC the air force will get it´s independance.
 

maverick

Banned
I might have overestimated Westover's influence, but him staying alive would mean that Hap Arnold doesn't become Head of the Army Air Corps, although I'm not sure about the effects of that development. Perhaps Westover makes different suggestions to Marshal when he asks for plans to reorganize the Air Corps in 1940?

I do like the idea of having alternate bombers and tactics, although I don't know enough about the subject, unfortunately.
 
I'm in Civil Air Patrol, the civilian auxiliary of the USAF. Your history sounds spot on. I have a different take. IOTL, CAP was able to change from being under Civil Defense, then the Army Air Corps to being an independent auxiliary of the USAF. My butterfly idea is this. With the AAC being a part of the Army, perhaps CAP would be an auxiliary of the Army along with the rest of Civil Defense. (IOTL, CD was still active in some form under DoD auspices until at least Carter and FEMA. CAP was still separate.) Would this mean more emergency preparedness in some form?
 

Thande

Donor
I'm confused, wasn't the United States Army Air Force part of and subordinate to the US Army (as the name implies) until 1947? From what I have read, if WW2 had been avoided somehow (or the US's involvement in it) I don't think there would be an independent USAF at all.
 

maverick

Banned
They were part of the army as the Army Air Corps until 1941 (I think), then autonomous as the Army Air Forces until 1947, when it became formally independent as its own branch.
 
IMO, the biggest change comes with nuclear weapons. Will they be set on their own defense structure, or subordinated to another branch? IOTL, the Navy tried hard to get nuclear deployment on surface ships and on their aircraft. Without the USAF to take nuclear weapons under their wing, would we see success for the Navy plans?
 
Actually, I'd say your best shot would be to divide the OTL responsibilities of the USAAF differently.

Have the Department of the Navy given control of strategic bombers, on the grounds that these 'air ships' are more in line with the Navy Department's mission of controlling the sea and projecting power ashore. The War Department keeps the tactical aircraft.

This sounds far out at first, but remember that in the interwar era the Navy Department had carrier aircraft, multi-engine flying boats like the wartime PBY, and the USMC had their own aircraft as well. One of the B-17's original missions was fleet strike. We still address the senior pilot of a commercial aircraft as "captain." Does that title ring any bells?

The Navy Department might well form some sort of Air/Bomber/Strike Command at the same level as the USMC, but they'd still be under the Navy.

Postwar, some of the wilder (and more wasteful) ideas of the USAF would be checked, but the Navy Department would hang onto its bombers, and probably try to pull all nuclear weapons under its control.

Instead of the land/air/sea divide that theoretically splits today's US Army, USAF, and USN, you'd get a strategic/battlefield divide between the Navy Department (USN, USMC, USBC, and in wartime USCG) and the War Department (US Army, with an Aviation Branch equal to the Infantry, Artillery, Engineers, etc., or possibly a specialist corp like the Medical or Signal Corps).
 
I understand that some agreement was reached between the Army and Air Force, whereby only the latter can operate fixed-wing aircraft, at least in combat roles. This has lead to the development of helicopters for those situations where the Army really needs organic air support. We see that the Marines, who are freer to use whatever organic air support they like, use fixed-wing aircraft more.

The Air Force, I think, would prefer to not have to worry about the ground support role, but they are always forced to come back to it. A continued USAAF would likely operate more aircraft like the A-10, and maybe pick up some Harriers as well.

For the Navy, and the developments of their aviation, things are more interesting, in my opinion. We'd see the further development of the F-14 type of big, long-legged, interceptor/bomb/missile-truck systems. No F/A-18, I think, unless it were developed first by the USAAF, but I'm no expert.
 
I understand that some agreement was reached between the Army and Air Force, whereby only the latter can operate fixed-wing aircraft, at least in combat roles. This has lead to the development of helicopters for those situations where the Army really needs organic air support. We see that the Marines, who are freer to use whatever organic air support they like, use fixed-wing aircraft more.

The Air Force, I think, would prefer to not have to worry about the ground support role, but they are always forced to come back to it. A continued USAAF would likely operate more aircraft like the A-10, and maybe pick up some Harriers as well.

This is my understanding as well. The Air Force likes "zoomies and boomies" and doesn't care much about the air-to-mud missions the Army wants. IIRC, the Air Force made at least one attempt to grab helicopters as well, but didn't get far. Also IIRC, right before Desert Storm the USAF was planning to get rid of the A-10 fleet entirely.

The Marine's example is also stronger than you think: remember that the Marines have to expect that most of their air support will be flying off a USN carrier (one of the reasons they operate so many carrier-type aircraft) or a USN Amphibious Assault ship... which can only carry V/STOL aircraft and helicopters. Since they can't really depend on the former (not all CVG's have Marine squadrons), it would be reasonable for them to focus on the latter (i.e. lots of attack helicopters). That they don't says something about how much they value fixed-wing CAS.
 
If we had the division of the Air Forces duties between two, or two and a half if we want to make a SAC equivalent, then we can lump all the zoomy and boomy stuff in one, and all the rough and ready ground pounding in the other. The Navy, or SAC, is the best fit for the more high-tech stuff.

I actually think we would see more advances in this timeline, in both directions. The current Air Force is being stretched between the two basic missions, the high and fast, and the low and slow. And it's their own fault, really, since they fought so effectively to be in charge of everything that flies. If we had one high and fast, the Navy or SAC, and one low and slow, the Army, we'd have effective aircraft in both places. Not that the Air Force did a bad job, but then the USA has always had obscene amounts of resources to pour on any project they like, even if it leads nowhere or is sub-optimal.

Also, while helicopters like the Apache are very effective for what they do, I don't think they'd exist in this timeline. We'd have more Bronco's, more Warthogs, and even more Hind/Huey/Pave Low equivalents, sure. I don't know if the A-10 would exist either, something more like the Su-25.
 
Also, while helicopters like the Apache are very effective for what they do, I don't think they'd exist in this timeline. We'd have more Bronco's, more Warthogs, and even more Hind/Huey/Pave Low equivalents, sure. I don't know if the A-10 would exist either, something more like the Su-25.

We'd have some, though probably not as many as OTL. At the US Army's peak there was a helicopter battalion in every division, in the process of expanding to two, and more at Corps and higher. They were there because helicopters can do some things fixed-wing can't.

I think the A-10 would be a perfect aircraft for Army Aviation - it can rip through ground targets, take a beating and keep flying, and land on fairly rough strips.

What you'd probably lose would be multi-role aircraft. The F-15E, perhaps the F-16, etc. They'd be the new "joint strike fighter" program which would never quite work as intended.
 
Top