[PDF] A Historical Look At Close Air Support Cas eBook
A Historical Look At Close Air Support Cas Book in PDF, ePub and Kindle version is available to download in english. Read online anytime anywhere directly from your device. Click on the download button below to get a free pdf file of A Historical Look At Close Air Support Cas book. This book definitely worth reading, it is an incredibly well-written.
Throughout the history of close air support (CAS) there exists a consistent theme of friction and interservice rivalry. There are periods where close coordination and cooperation led to extremely effective CAS. Experiences in North Africa during World War II proved to be a harbinger of CAS throughout the twentieth century. The ineptness of the initial air-to-ground integration evolved by wars end into a synchronized, lethal form of combined arms operations. The troubled relationship between the Army and the Air Force over CAS directly impacts four major areas needed to accomplish effective CAS. Those areas are training, doctrine, trust and dialogue. Because of the troubles experienced in CAS during recent military operations in Afghanistan the Army is once again finding fault with current CAS capabilities. The Air Force admitted that there are problems. They also stress, with much justification, that there is plenty of fault to go around. The conclusion of the thesis is that CAS will continue to be an integral part of joint military operations. The Army and the Air Force must focus on improving training, doctrine, and most importantly, trust before any improvements are realized. The lives of US soldiers may well depend upon the effectiveness of CAS.
Throughout the history of close air support (CAS) there exists a consistent theme of friction and interservice rivalry. There are periods where close coordination and cooperation led to extremely effective CAS. Experiences in North Africa during World War II proved to be a harbinger of CAS throughout the twentieth century. The ineptness of the initial air-to-ground integration evolved by wars end into a synchronized, lethal form of combined arms operations. The troubled relationship between the Army and the Air Force over CAS directly impacts four major areas needed to accomplish effective CAS. Those areas are training, doctrine, trust and dialogue. Because of the troubles experienced in CAS during recent military operations in Afghanistan the Army is once again finding fault with current CAS capabilities. The Air Force admitted that there are problems. They also stress, with much justification, that there is plenty of fault to go around. The conclusion of the thesis is that CAS will continue to be an integral part of joint military operations. The Army and the Air Force must focus on improving training, doctrine, and most importantly, trust before any improvements are realized. The lives of US soldiers may well depend upon the effectiveness of CAS.
Throughout the history of close air support (CAS) there exists a consistent theme of friction and interservice rivalry. There are periods where close coordination and cooperation led to extremely effective CAS. Experiences in North Africa during World War II proved to be a harbinger of CAS throughout the twentieth century. The ineptness of the initial air-to-ground integration evolved by wars end into a synchronized, lethal form of combined arms operations. The troubled relationship between the Army and the Air Force over CAS directly impacts four major areas needed to accomplish effective CAS. Those areas are training, doctrine, trust and dialogue. Because of the troubles experienced in CAS during recent military operations in Afghanistan the Army is once again finding fault with current CAS capabilities. The Air Force admitted that there are problems. They also stress, with much justification, that there is plenty of fault to go around. The conclusion of the thesis is that CAS will continue to be an integral part of joint military operations. The Army and the Air Force must focus on improving training, doctrine, and most importantly, trust before any improvements are realized. The lives of US soldiers may well depend upon the effectiveness of CAS.Among military men, it is commonplace that inter-allied and interservice operations inescapably pose grave difficulties in execution. Differences in equipment, in doctrine, in attitude and outlook stemming from contrasting past experience all inhibit and complicate harmonious interaction. Past successes, however, have shown that these difficulties can be overcome where determination is present and effective procedures have been devised and applied by properly trained troops. Experience also shows that armed forces, not only of the United States but of other nations, have been slow to hammer out the necessary procedures. Often corrective steps have been achieved only after many failures in battle. In no area of interservice operations has this phenomenon been more pronounced than in the matter of CAS.The worth of close air support (CAS) as an effective tactical instrument of warfare is one of the most, if not the most, divisive issue between the US Army and Air Force. Prior to the Second World War the Air Service was a growing branch within the Army. To most army generals the value of an effective air corps lay in its ability to support ground troops, adjust field artillery, and conduct aerial reconnaissance. However, the airpower advocates within the Air Service believed that a properly equipped air force could wage war on a completely different scale than ever thought of before. Massive bomber formations could conduct strategic bombing on political, economic, and military targets, forcing the enemy to surrender. To these officers it was a sheer waste of energy and resources to build an air force to support ground operations when true airpower could render ground combat irrelevant.
This Air Force publication examines the history of close air support. The issue of close air support by the United States Air Force in support of, primarily, the United States Army has been fractious for years. Air commanders have clashed continually with ground leaders over the proper use of aircraft in the support of ground operations. This is perhaps not surprising given the very different outlooks of the two services on what constitutes proper air support. Often this has turned into a competition between the two services for resources to execute and control close air support operations. Although such differences extend well back to the initial use of the airplane as a military weapon, in this book the author looks at the period 1946-1973, a period in which technological advances in the form of jet aircraft, weapons, communications, and other electronic equipment played significant roles. Doctrine, too, evolved and this very important subject is discussed in detail. Close air support remains a critical mission today and the lessons of yesterday should not be ignored. This book makes a notable contribution in seeing that it is not ignored. Chapter 1 - The Birth of Close Air Support * World War I * Between the Wars * World War II * Chapter 2 - Close Air Support Enfeebled 1945-1950 * On the Road to Independence * Independence * Reduction of Tactical Air Command * Congress and Close Air Support * Further Attempts to Improve Air-Ground Operations * Chapter 3 - Close Air Support in Korea * The War in Outline * The Close Air Support System in Korea * The Demand Side: The Air-Ground Operations System * The Supply Side: The Tactical Air Control System * The Joint Operations Center * Tactical Air Control Parties * Mosquitoes * Aircraft Issues * The Bottom Line: Command and Control * Chapter 4 - Close Air Support Under the New Look * The Services, The New Look, and Close Air Support * Further Attempts to Create Joint Air-Ground Doctrine * The Close Air Support Challenge from Organic Army Aviation * Chapter 5 - Close Air Support and Flexible Response: 1960-1965 * Early Stirrings of a Close Air Support Revival, 1961-1963 * The Army Proposes Its Own Airmobile Force: The Howze Board * The Air Force Defends the Existing System: The Disosway Board * A Joint Examination of Close Air Support * Field Testing the Opposing Close Air Support Concepts * Chapter 6 - The Vietnam Era: 1965-1973 * Air Force Close Air Support Validated in Vietnam * Armed Helicopters Also Legitimized * Toward a Specialized Close Air Support Plane * Chapter 7 - Conclusions * Notes * Glossary The size of the close air support zone has also occasionally become a source of dispute as steady advances in military technology have gradually expanded the range of artillery and with it the battle zone. Most differences of opinion, however, centered on the means of conducting close air support. In this regard, controversy has accompanied such issues as the best type of aircraft for close air support (high- or low-performance planes, fixed-wing or rotary vehicles, single-purpose or multipurpose aircraft, or planes stressing survivability or responsiveness), the most effective types and combinations of ordnance, whether those controlling the planes during actual strikes should be airborne or located on the ground, and how best to operate at night and during periods of foul weather.
Except in a few instances, since World War II no American soldier or sailor has been attacked by enemy air power. Conversely, no enemy soldier orsailor has acted in combat without being attacked or at least threatened by American air power. Aviators have brought the air weapon to bear against enemies while denying them the same prerogative. This is the legacy of the U.S. AirForce, purchased at great cost in both human and material resources.More often than not, aerial pioneers had to fight technological ignorance, bureaucratic opposition, public apathy, and disagreement over purpose.Every step in the evolution of air power led into new and untrodden territory, driven by humanitarian impulses; by the search for higher, faster, and farther flight; or by the conviction that the air way was the best way. Warriors have always coveted the high ground. If technology permitted them to reach it, men, women andan air force held and exploited it-from Thomas Selfridge, first among so many who gave that "last full measure of devotion"; to Women's Airforce Service Pilot Ann Baumgartner, who broke social barriers to become the first Americanwoman to pilot a jet; to Benjamin Davis, who broke racial barriers to become the first African American to command a flying group; to Chuck Yeager, a one-time non-commissioned flight officer who was the first to exceed the speed of sound; to John Levitow, who earned the Medal of Honor by throwing himself over a live flare to save his gunship crew; to John Warden, who began a revolution in air power thought and strategy that was put to spectacular use in the Gulf War.Industrialization has brought total war and air power has brought the means to overfly an enemy's defenses and attack its sources of power directly. Americans have perceived air power from the start as a more efficient means of waging war and as a symbol of the nation's commitment to technology to master challenges, minimize casualties, and defeat adversaries.
“America had a secret weapon,” writes Steve Call of the period immediately following September 11, 2001, as planners contemplated the invasion of Afghanistan. This weapon consisted of small teams of Special Forces operatives trained in close air support (CAS) who, in cooperation with the loose federation of Afghan rebels opposed to the Taliban regime, soon began achieving impressive—and unexpected—military victories over Taliban forces and the al-Qaeda terrorists they had sponsored. The astounding success of CAS tactics coupled with ground operations in Afghanistan soon drew the attention of military decision makers and would eventually factor into the planning for another campaign: Operation Iraqi Freedom. But who, exactly, are these air power experts and what is the function of the TACPs (Tactical Air Control Parties) in which they operate? Danger Close provides a fascinating look at a dedicated, courageous, innovative, and often misunderstood and misused group of military professionals. Drawing on the gripping first-hand accounts of their battlefield experiences, Steve Call allows the TACPs to speak for themselves. He accompanies their narratives with informed analysis of the development of CAS strategy, including potentially controversial aspects of the interservice rivalries between the air force and the army which have at times complicated and even obstructed the optimal employment of TACP assets. Danger Close makes clear, however, that the systematic coordination of air power and ground forces played an invaluable supporting role in the initial military victories in both Afghanistan and Iraq. This first-ever examination of the intense, life-and-death world of the close air support specialist will introduce readers to a crucial but little-known aspect of contemporary warfare and add a needed chapter in American military history studies.
As the United States Third Army's tanks moved through Avranches, no one, not even the Third Army's commander, Lieutenant General George S. Patton, could have foreseen that it was the start of one of the most successful offensives of World War II--an offensive that received a great deal of help from the air. As Patton later wrote to the chief of the Army Air Forces, "For about 250 miles I have seen the calling cards of the fighter-bombers, which are bullet marks in the pavement and burned tanks and trucks in the ditches." This book covers the units in the Ninth Air Force, which gave close air support to the Third Army, and the Third Army's campaign in France from August to November 1944, with special emphasis on how support from the air helped the Third Army continue pushing toward the German border. The difficult logistics of the operation are discussed in detail: Both the Ninth Air Force and the Third Army were hurt by a lack of materiel, especially gasoline, and this affected the offensive.
Since the United States Army acquired its first Wright flyer and integrated the airplane into battle, the role of airpower has been a constant source of friction between ground and air forces. Army and Air Force cultures, doctrines, shared experiences, and fratricide involving close air support (CAS) have all helped shape the tenuous relationship between the two Services. Since the end of the 1991 Gulf War, there have been 13 CAS fratricide events, killing or injuring 197 people. In all but one instance, training was a causal factor. Yet, there is no formal requirement for joint CAS training. In the early 1980's with the establishment of the U.S. Army ground combat training centers and the corresponding U.S. Air Force Air Warrior training programs, the Services began habitual close air support training. However, with the shift from medium intensity conflict to counter-insurgency and stability operations, pre-deployment CAS training at the CTC's has nearly ceased. While there has not been an increase in fratricide corresponding to this decrease in training, the integration of CAS has decreased and the potential for a fratricide event has increased. The Army and the Air Force must increase their focus on improving joint CAS training as the lives of U.S. soldiers may well depend upon the effectiveness of CAS to hit the correct targets while supporting their operations.Since the introduction of the airplane into military operations, airpower has played an important role in the conduct of war, both in its ability to attack in depth and in its support of friendly ground forces. The initial growth of airpower as a weapon of war was in direct support of ground forces during World War I. Shortly thereafter, early air power theorists such as Giulio Douhet and Billy Mitchell changed the emphasis away from support to ground troops, envisioning vast air armadas that could avoid stalemates on the ground and strike an enemy's political and military centers with strategic bombardment. While ground and air forces have worked together in all major conflicts since World War I, the US Army and US Air Force have continuously disagreed on how airpower best supports ground forces.Prior to the Second World War, most Army generals believed the best use of airpower was to support ground troops by adjusting field artillery, conducting reconnaissance, providing real time intelligence, and providing close combat support. Airpower enthusiasts believed that after achieving air superiority, air forces should concentrate their efforts and use strategic bombing to attack the enemy's centers of gravity; thereby, destroying their ability and desire to wage war. Current US close air support doctrine can trace its foundations to North Africa during World War II.Years of neglect and intra-service rivalry left US forces unprepared for integrated air-ground operations in the deserts of North Africa. Initial integration efforts were disorderly and were most successful at increasing tensions between ground and air commanders.
Military historians have thoroughly documented the longstanding debate between American airmen and ground forces over Close Air Support (CAS). Discord between services, particularly during inter-war periods, has repeatedly resulted in poor CAS preparation and therefore poor performance in the early stages of America's conflicts. Measuring this CAS relationship both before and through conflict in terms of doctrine, training, and personal relationships reveals an additional trend. During World War II, the Korean War, and Operation Enduring Freedom, personal relationships improved and shared objectives emerged as a result of daily interaction between airmen and ground forces. The changes enabled those involved to rebuild the CAS relationship and improve performance in the later years of these conflicts. Regrettably, subsequent declines in the CAS relationship during interwar periods have created a consistent cycle of ineffectiveness and inefficiency. Both services must break this cycle of ebb and flow so that the U.S. military arrives at its next conflict with a properly maintained CAS relationship. CAS performance is inextricably linked to integration, making relationships the essential foundation of combat results. Restoring the CAS relationship can be as simple as airmen and ground forces occupying the same mess tent, in training as well as in combat. Contents: 1. Introduction 2. World War II 3. The Korean War 4. Vietnam and the Gulf War 5. The War in Afghanistan 6. Cross Case Analysis 7. Conclusion From World War I to the present day, American ground forces and airmen have argued over the ideal employment of scarce resources in training, equipment, and sorties. Their debate has often centered on one particularly contentious issue: Close Air Support (CAS). A series of formal agreements and doctrine revisions tells a familiar narrative of begrudging compromise between airmen searching for the most effective use of airpower across a range of mission types and troops who needed fixed wing CAS to maneuver-or even survive. Most commentators echo Major Patrick Gallogy's sentiment that "This rancorous debate and discourse regarding CAS has pervaded most of its history." However, on closer examination, a definable ebb and flow emerged in the CAS relationship that exists between airmen and the ground troops that they support from the sky. American airmen and ground forces made great strides in CAS capability in World War II, only to forget these lessons until they struggled to relearn them during the Korean War. Similar CAS struggles at the start of the Vietnam War and Operation Enduring freedom reveal the cyclical nature of this recurring fluctuation. During times of war, troops in contact with the enemy required CAS, and both parties sought to improve the CAS relationship as they strove toward common goals. Close personal relationships between air and ground leaders often spurred this improvement in the CAS relationship. Between wars, however, resource constraints, internal service concerns, complacency, and physical separation caused the priorities of airmen and ground forces to diverge. They planned separately with their own worst-case scenarios and service priorities for an uncertain future. This usually resulted in a lack of teamwork and low prioritization by Army and Air Force leaders for joint endeavors like CAS; evidenced by failures in doctrine, training, and personal relationships. As a result, the CAS relationship between airmen and ground troops fractured, forcing and both parties to waste time, money, and lives rebuilding that relationship during the next conflict. Unfortunately, that cycle persists today.