tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post3719650042270589576..comments2024-03-28T12:29:39.157-07:00Comments on Graphic Firing Table: Commander's Intent III: Now What?FDChiefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-35519293790132426982008-12-11T10:02:00.000-07:002008-12-11T10:02:00.000-07:00"too many people and too much wealth and power rid..."too many people and too much wealth and power ride on continuing the present condition of our Republic"<BR/><BR/>-- a terse indictment of the venality which buoys up the mediocrity which characterizes our modern military endeavors, which can only continue due to hazy commander's intent.Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08839236994990699117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-19800125267674988782008-12-09T13:03:00.000-07:002008-12-09T13:03:00.000-07:00Mike: "I do believe that strategic bombing should ...Mike: <I>"I do believe that strategic bombing should be part of total war, but it should not be an independent arm that pursues its own agenda to the detriment of your commander's intent.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the best summation of ths issue I've ever read, and better stated than I was capable of.<BR/><BR/>IMO one of the hardest tasks of NSA chief Jones and whoever Obama's people tap for CJCS will be to tame the services' relentless quest for pork to the detriment of national security. Who knows whether we really need the F-22/35, the Littoral Combat Ship, the Future Combat System? These systems aren't being sold based on the mission - their salesmen torque the mission to suit the product. And, of course, the boring stuff like foot infantry, tube artillery, close support aircraft and brown-water vessels get the shaft because they have no expensive lobbyists.<BR/><BR/>What a hell of a way to run a military!<BR/><BR/>But you're right - time to kick back a little and enjoy the holidays - Merry Zappadan!FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-67431443406341501212008-12-09T10:31:00.000-07:002008-12-09T10:31:00.000-07:00Chief;I agree with your basic premise on strategic...Chief;<BR/><BR/>I agree with your basic premise on strategic bombing campaigns. They did not stop Luftwaffe attacks at Salerno and Anzio. And they did not stop Japanese kamikazes in the Pacific. As a matter of fact, LeMay decided to stop bombing airfields on the Japanese main islands as the airstrips were repaired faster than he could bomb them. And Iwo Jima was originally planned because LeMay wanted a fighter base close to the home islands in order to protect the B-29s - but that was cancelled when he decided to send the B-29s in at high altitude above the flak as it was too dangerous for low level pin-point missions. 99.99% of their bombs never reached the target. <BR/><BR/>As mentioned previously, the US Navy's submarine wolfpacks had already cut Japan off from he rest of the world and from oil, tin, rubber, and other resources - they were even operating in the Sea of Japan and the Yellow Sea, cutting of maritime traffic from their armies in China and Korea. Halsey's carrier based attack aircraft were striking military facilities on the main islands. And LeMay's B-29s would have never been able to reach Japan without the Marines and navy island hopping to Tinian in the Marianas.<BR/><BR/>I do believe that strategic bombing should be part of total war, but it should not be an independent arm that pursues its own agenda to the detriment of your commander's intent.<BR/><BR/>But no more bickering over minor historical points when I think we agree on the larger issue. Enough about history - especially with US supply lines to Afghanistan possibly now at risk, General Shinseki's resurrection, and our Prez-elect's home state guvnor situation. Not to mention the holidays. But then the holidays are probably the time that Cheney and some Bushistas will try to bamboozle the public while the press is enjoying the brandy-laced eggnog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-56907533415538100172008-12-09T05:09:00.000-07:002008-12-09T05:09:00.000-07:00Sheerah: True, and, sadly, mostly ignored. Washin...Sheerah: True, and, sadly, mostly ignored. Washington's remarks about foreign entanglements should be tattooed on every SecState's forehead. We have an interest in foreign states foreign affairs; their domestic affairs are and should be their concern.<BR/><BR/>Mike: <I>"shipbuilding budgets are approved by partisan politicians who want to see their Party hero glorified."</I> see; banana republic, definition of...<BR/><BR/>Again, I don't want to question that the btrategic bombing campaigns in both Europe and Japan had some effect - they could hardly have avoided having SOME. But my understanding is that the USAF's own postwar analysis showed that the American industrial bobing campaign against Germany was pretty much a wash. It caused the German industrial planners a headache, diverted fighter aircraft and other war materials such as antiaircraft artillery to be held inside Germany rather than be released for the fighting fronts, and in particular crippled the petroleum refining sector. But it was also enormously expensive in men, aircraft and dollars. Only the U.S.'s huge economic superiority vis-a-vis Germany made it do-able, and the effect on German industrial production was much less than either predicted or assessed at the time.<BR/><BR/>Japan, with her inflammable cities and more rudimentary industry was another matter entirely. The B-29s had effectively destroyed the Japanese war industry - hell, its industry, period - by August 1945. Between the air raids and the USN's submarine commerce raiding the Japanese would have been practically reduced to cannibalism by 1947...<BR/><BR/>Aerial bombing as a tool of warfare had an effect on the xourse of WW2, no argument. My question is that we might want to look hard at gains versus costs, since the strategic bombing campaigns are still the primary argument for having a seperate USAF eating up 1/3rd of the DoD budget. Is that a good thing for us, given that Defense, in turn, gets something like 20-30 percent of the federal tax dollar? IT may be. Or not. But it seems like a question that might be profitably asked.FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-91112960090440712162008-12-08T11:05:00.000-07:002008-12-08T11:05:00.000-07:00"We have a perfectly good scheme for naming carrie...<I>"We have a perfectly good scheme for naming carriers (famous battles and historic warships). Why not stick to it?"</I><BR/><BR/>Because sadly, shipbuilding budgets are approved by partisan politicians who want to see their Party hero glorified. Follow the money!<BR/><BR/><BR/>Please do not take my comments on LeMay's B-29s to mean that I disparage the Army Air Corps in the Pacific. I should have mentioned that Army air was critical in the forward basing island hopping campaign that Nimitz pursued. Land based bombers were key in the neutralization and bypassing of major Japanese bases at Rabaul, Truk and Yap. Midway based Army air participated in that battle. And it was Army P-38s that ambushed Admiral Yamamoto. But they were under the command of ComAirPac, which came under Nimitz as CincPAC and CincPOA. And I would assume they were critical for MacArthur's effort in the SW Pacific and the Phillipines. <BR/><BR/>As far as LeMay and the B-29s, they were an independent command, not under Nimitz. Apparently their firebombing of Tokyo was so admired by Hap Arnold that he directed it use in Europe - hence Dresden. There are many that claim that the air campaign in Europe was the straw that broke Germany's back and was much more influential than B-29s in the Pacific - except for <I>'Bock's Car'</I> and perhaps the <I>'Enola Gay'</I>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-25285505034230538992008-12-08T09:35:00.000-07:002008-12-08T09:35:00.000-07:00"If you cannot rule your own country we have no in..."If you cannot rule your own country we have no interest in doing it for you."<BR/><BR/>May I humbly suggest that you make a poster of this. <BR/>Perhaps in the manner of a despair.com poster?<BR/>I'm sure someone creative can forge a word that summates the above quote so that the whole thing is pithy, and yet sweetly poignant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-37121007830565966042008-12-08T06:02:00.000-07:002008-12-08T06:02:00.000-07:00Ael: Smallish only in that they won't be the "Batt...Ael: Smallish only in that they won't be the "Battle of the Fulda Gap" that we planned our WW3 land battle on. As you point out, on a regional scale they could be quite large indeed - I'm just doubting whether we will see a genuine peer foe of the Soviet sort in a generation or more.<BR/><BR/>That's assuming that economic distress doesn't reduce us to a much lower "hyperpower" level in the meantime...<BR/><BR/>mike: Completely agree on LeMay and the bombing of Japan. My point was and is that all the OTHER "strategic" bombing campaigns manifestly did not work as advertised, from the Blitz in 1940 all the way to "shock and awe" over Iraq. The bomber jocks have only one POSSIBLE case, and that's the B-29 raids over Japan, and as you quite correctly point out that's highly arguable.<BR/><BR/>Bottom line: modern war has and will inclde aerial bombing. But the biggest single case for having a unique and seperate AF has almost always been nontactical theatre-level or higher bombing, and I'm argueing that that's a pretty thin reed.<BR/><BR/>And I don't mean to pick on either TR, Harry or any other U.S. PResident, other that to argue that the entire precedent is silly and potentially dangerous. Our country was founded on the idea that the Constitution and the People are soverign. To idolize political leaders, to me, reeks of banana republicanism. That said, there ARE a handful of leaders in the "pantheon of heroes" category. Not all of them are Presidents - in fact, most are not. Once we get beyond Lincoln, Washington and possibly Adams (glossing over the Alien and Sedition Acts) and Jefferson, though, you start getting into arguable territory. TR was, IMO, a terrific president and an admirable man - but he has his detractors and they have valid arguments. Likewise FDR. Likewise Ike, Harry Truman, JFK, Lyndon Johnson...and by the time you're done you get to the real hacks, the Poppy Bushes and his ilk.<BR/><BR/>Let's stick to naming high schools after these guys. We have a perfectly good scheme for naming carriers (famous battles and historic warships). Why not stick to it?FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-40997515465597002072008-12-07T23:13:00.000-07:002008-12-07T23:13:00.000-07:00Your former battery commander, Captain Lee, had a ...Your former battery commander, Captain Lee, had a lot of wisdom. <BR/><BR/>But what have you got against Teddy: Asst SecNav (he actually ran the dept as his boss was a loafer), founder of the Great White Fleet, war hero, explorer, outdoorsman, naturalist, youngest US President ever, and the first Progressive President long before the Democrats ever heard of the word.<BR/><BR/>The Navy would be derelict if the did not name a capitol ship after him.<BR/><BR/>Also, sorry to be a kibitzer, but Le May's strategic bombing did not bring Japan to the surrender table. They were already beaten and were suing for peace. Yes, I know, I know, they were quibbling about the word "unconditional", but that was just to protect the emperor who ended up staying in power anyway. The war in the Pacific was won by aircraft carriers, forward basing, and by submarine warfare. Japan was completely isolated - what Hitler tried to do to Britain but couldn't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-894617128133906972008-12-07T22:50:00.000-07:002008-12-07T22:50:00.000-07:001) I am not so sure that the next 50 years will br...1) I am not so sure that the next 50 years will bring "smallish" wars. If global warming is real, we are likely in for some changes in our ability to grow food. Hungry people have different priorities than well fed folk. They will also take much larger risks.<BR/><BR/>2) The modern world took shape on Harry Truman's watch. I think you sell him short.Aelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10788190394672505925noreply@blogger.com