British Army - Delusional About Air Power

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by Just This Once...

Having been involved in the planning stage for the capabilities requested/required (Air, Maritime & SF) and how taught they were


[Page 294]

Who did you teach?

Or did you mean the three Services were taut?

[Just This Once...]

I blame Apple's spiel chucker.

[gijoe]

Most of the time it is the RAF Flying Club that is delusional about Air Power...

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by gijoe

Most of the time it is the RAF Flying Club that is delusional about Air Power...

At least the RAF and Navy get to play with their toys every day, not just clean and polish them

[ericferret]

From post 4

"It always amazes me whenever it starts going wrong for LAND that they start exclaiming "Where's bloody Air Force". Dunkirk is a classic example of this. The RAF were taking the Germans on well inside the German lines to try and stop the Luftwaffe from getting to our lines. Just because the RAF weren't visible overhead Dunkirk then their tiny minds told them that they didn't turn up. Indeed, some of those unfortunate to get shot down and survive were excluded by the Navy and Army from being allowed from getting on a boat back to Blighty. It's reported that fighter ace Al Deere, a RAF Boxing Champ, had to chin the boarding officer to get on a boat as they were not letting the RAF board (w-anchors). Deere became a fighter ace in ONE day at Dunkirk and went on to command during the Battle of Britain. As an indicator of the quality of his character he was one RAF Halton's most popular commandants, inspiring young men who went on to serve in the 50s, 60s and 70s. If it wasn't for the RAF then the rescue of so many at Dunkirk just would not have been possible - maybe Sir Nick and his subordinates should remember that..."

Looks like you saw the documentary on TV last week. What struck me was the comment that we were there, but at 20000+ feet so the troops on the ground couldn't see us. Strikes me that if you have Stukas (which were sitting ducks as prooved during the Battle of Britain) dropping bombs down your throat you might expect some attempt to stop them. I suspect that from a fighter pilots perspective going down to tackle the Stuka at low would leave them very vulnerable too the 109'S.

I find the statement "just because the RAF weren't visible overhead Dunkirk then their tiny minds told them that they didn't turn up" deeply offensive. "Tiny minds" god almighty what an an appalling thing to say. The troops on the ground reported what they saw or in this case what they didn't see.

[Blacksheep]

What they saw was what got through the RAF cordon. The RAF's main task was to protect the ships from the bombers (still based in Germany at the time) not to prevent strafing of the beaches. That is a job for ground based anti-aircraft weapons. If the other 240 aircraft had got through most of the ships would have been sunk and Britain may have had to capitulate.

During the nine days from May 26 through June 3, the RAF lost 177 aircraft destroyed or damaged; the Germans lost 240.{63} For much of the Luftwaffe, Dunkirk came as a nasty shock. Fliegerkorps II reported in its war diary that it lost more aircraft on the 27th attacking the evacuation than it had lost in the previous ten days of the campaign.{63}

{63}"Einsatz des II.Fliegerkorps bei Dankirchen am 27.5.40.: Schwerer Tag des II.Fliegerkorps," AFSHRC: K 113 .306-3, v.3.

[JimmAttrill]

[QUOTE=ericferret;9827308]From post 4

"It always amazes me whenever it starts going wrong for LAND that they start exclaiming "Where's bloody Air Force". Dunkirk is a classic example of this. The RAF were taking the Germans on well inside the German lines to try and stop the Luftwaffe from getting to our lines. Just because the RAF weren't visible overhead Dunkirk then their tiny minds told them that they didn't turn up. Indeed, some of those unfortunate to get shot down and survive were excluded by the Navy and Army from being allowed from getting on a boat back to Blighty. It's reported that fighter ace Al Deere, a RAF Boxing Champ, had to chin the boarding officer to get on a boat as they were not letting the RAF board (w-anchors). Deere became a fighter ace in ONE day at Dunkirk and went on to command during the Battle of Britain. As an indicator of the quality of his character he was one RAF Halton's most popular commandants, inspiring young men who went on to serve in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

Al Deere was commandant when I arrived at Halton in 1966 (206th entry). Unfortunately for Al he was a very big guy and we had the poison dwarf for our passing out parade so they got rid of him and found a short Air Commode called Connoly. Nothing against him but he was the right height. Al Deere was commandant when the 203rd entry 'borrowed' the cannons from Sandhurst as a famous entry stunt. He did apologise to the Army after a fashion. The entry were fined I believe but the money went to the RAFBF

[Lima Juliet]

Ericferret

I'm sad to say that there were many reports of poor treatment of light blue by the dark blue and brown jobs at Dunkirk. Here is one from Pilot Officer Tony Bartley of 92 Sqn:

"A fighter pilot I knew was shot down at Dunkirk and went into the sea. He swam out to a boat and he got on board and the Navy chap said; 'Get back! We're not picking you up, you bastards! We're only picking up the soldiers!'."

As said before, Al Deere and also Hugh Dundas, both with 3 kills on the first day of Op DYNAMO and several more to make them aces at Dunkirk, both had experienced first hand poor treatment by personnel on the RAF's perceived lack of performance at Dunkirk. Nothing could in fact be further from the truth and even Churchill saw fit to mention them later in June 1940 to try and quash the myths coming back from the BEF personnel arriving back to Britain.

So no, small mindedness is not insulting, but in this case shows how sometimes the narrow-minded perceptions of those not aware of the bigger picture and the sacrifices given by others that have gone on to help. Sacrifices by a few (~80) to save the lives of literally hundreds of thousands.

LJ

[Pontius Navigator]

Eric, I think you have been properly informed. To amplify what Blacksheep said, Air Defence is a complex operation. It is necessary to separate fighter aircraft from gun defences. The guns would have had 'guns-free' over the beaches with every Tom, Dick and Harry free to fire rifles and LMG as well. For RAF aircraft to venture into the beach area would have put them at risk from friendly fire or negated the anti-aircraft batteries.

[Blacksheep]

Exactly............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ......................

[KenV]

Originally Posted by Leon Jabachjabicz

I beg to differ old stick. You can win wars immediately with air power, or latterly sea power, alone. You just need the resolve to make the consequences of continuing seem so bleak that your enemy is forced to make unconditional surrender...

We have not lived in the era of total warfare for the better part of a century. If Korea did not prove that, Vietnam certainly did, and two Gulf Wars have confirmed that. And ISIL/ISIS has unequivocally shown that asymmetric threats are very real threats to modern nations and societies. So the bottom line is that modern warfare is limited. Limited war means you must put boots on the ground. Even in the case of Japan which "surrendered unconditionally" under a relentless and devastating air campaign, it took boots on the ground to secure that victory and occupy the nation. There are still US boots on the ground there. Indeed, nearly three quarters of a century after the last (and arguably only) total war ended, there are still US boots on the ground in Germany, Italy, and Japan. The need for boots on the ground has only increased since Japan's unconditional surrender nearly three quarters of a century ago.

[Danny42C]

This is a complex matter. It seems quite understandable that the troops on the Dunkirk beaches would expect their RAF to be overhead swatting the Stukas which were molesting them. In the six months of the "Phoney War", there had been little air combat in daylight over Britain. In early May 1940, Hitler unleashed his mechanised "blitzkrieg", rapidly outflanking the French Maginot Line and charging rapidly through Belgium and Holland towards the Channel Coast. In less than a fortnight he had reached it, cutting off the British army from its French ally in the west.

The air component of the British "expeditionary force" in France fought desperately to slow the advance by destroying the Dutch canal and river bridges, but our Fairey 'Battles' were hopelessly outclassed and the few Hurricane squadrons outnumbered by the 109s. France surrendered in June. It looked as if the entire British, Belgian and Dutch forces would be overrun and swept into captivity in a few more days.

Then a strange thing happened. Hitler ordered his tank commanders, Guderian and Rommel to halt for 48 hours. Why he did so is a matter of dispute to this day, but I (and many others) think that it was deliberate, to allow time for the Dunkirk evacuation to be mounted. Britain was beaten to the wall, he must have reasoned, it must soon sue for an armistice. Why should he bother to feed and house 300,000 prisoners ? They had only small arms with them - all their armour, artillery and transport was lost. Let Britain look after them !

So things stood as the Army waited on the Dunkirk sands for rescue. The Stukas did not seem to make much of an effort to destroy the "Operation Dynamo" fleet (why would they, it was in Hitler's interest that they should get away), but vented their spleen on the ones on the beach. Of course the available RAF fighters were heavily engaged with the Luftwaffe nearer their airfields miles south of the coast. As Blacksheep points out in #46, but for the RAF (which lost 177), the troops on the beach would've had 240 more Stukas and Messerschmitts to bomb and strafe them.

From memory, heavily backed up by Wikipedia and EyeWitness to History.com

(Will be interesting to see how the forthcoming film depicts it).

Danny.

[Lima Juliet]

KenV

There are still US boots on the ground there. Indeed, nearly three quarters of a century after the last (and arguably only) total war ended

The Japanese were allowed their own sovereignty just 5 years later in 1951. The reason why the US Forces remain under a SOFA is to stabalise the whole Pacific region - nothing to do with Japanese threats. They found the bases in Japan very useful for their wars in Korea and Vietnam. As for US troops in Italy and Getmany, again, they are there as regional forces as part of NATO. Nothing to do with subduing German or Italian agression - they are all allies and so-called "boots on the ground" against a common foe!!!

LJ

[Pontius Navigator]

Ken's point may be that boots on the ground were initially necessary but then provide a stabilising influence in contrast to post-WW1.

[KenV]

Originally Posted by Leon Jabachjabicz

KenV.
The Japanese were allowed their own sovereignty just 5 years later in 1951. The reason why the US Forces remain under a SOFA is to stabalise the whole Pacific region - nothing to do with Japanese threats. They found the bases in Japan very useful for their wars in Korea and Vietnam. As for US troops in Italy and Getmany, again, they are there as regional forces as part of NATO. Nothing to do with subduing German or Italian agression - they are all allies and so-called "boots on the ground" against a common foe!!! LJ

You completely missed my point. The last (and arguably only) total war was WW2, and even the victory over Japan obtained by air and naval power alone had to be secured by boots on the ground. Those boots have remained in Japan, Germany, Italy, (and in the UK, Korea, Kuwait and elsewhere) because boots on the ground are required in any limited war. And all wars after WW2 have been limited wars and will remain so for the foreseeable future. One (of many) of Obama's big failures was in not understanding the importance of boots on the ground when he decided to withdraw from Iraq even with the advent of high tech armed drones.

[West Coast]

nothing else racedo, an entire generation of Afghanis have achieved a full education without too much interference of the Taliban.

Para makes a good point, freedoms/rights that have come to be expected lay a strong foundation for a future. Can anyone reasonably see the Chinese population going back to the Mao days as compared to what they have now simply because the party takes a new direction?

A few months or years of progress might be able to be wiped out, decades long, especially with a youthful population, not so easy.

[Herod]

I'm Soooo glad that the American "boots on the ground" are a stabilising influence here in the UK. I guess we would be a bunch of rabid war-mongers without them.

[Lima Juliet]

Herod, exactly

KenV

Those boots have remained in Japan, Germany, Italy, (and in the UK, Korea, Kuwait and elsewhere)

No, you completely miss the point. The boots in Japan, Germany and Italy do not remain because of World War 2. They remain because of new threats from Russian (earlier Soviet), Chinese and N Korean threats after World War 2.

Also, hypothetically, there were no boots on the ground required in Japan after World War 2 because if the population and its leadership did not behave then a third, fourth, fifth, etc... bucket of sunshine could have been dropped - they had no defence against it. If boots had been committed to try and take all of the Japanese islands then it would have been utter carnage for both sides. Strategic airpower finished it and could have continued to finish it without the need for so called boots.

As for total war, don't be so sure. It doesn't take much for things to deteriorate into such carnage between allied states and/or religions. 72 years is a relatively short time in human history and our past history does not indicate to me that we should complacent that limited skirmishes are all we will ever face in the future.

LJ

[FOG]

Leon,

A few minor points. Boots on the ground were required on Japanese land prior to the instant sunshine; Iwo Jima, Okinawa most definitely and a majority would include Guam, Saipan, and Tinian.

Get a copy of Kogun by Saburo Hayashi on the perspective that U.S. boots were (not) required in the home islands.

S/F, FOG

[West Coast]

The reason why the US Forces remain under a SOFA is to stabalise the whole Pacific region -

SOFA isn't the same as security agreements. SOFA lays out the protocols, in this case of US personnel living in Japan. Considerations such as what happens if a service member has an automobile accident or something a little a little darker in nature.