Michael Emrys Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Which "modern army" were the Germans launching these mechanized advances at, incidentally? I'd hazard a guess that compared to guerillas in the jungles of Nicaragua, most European armies would seem "modern". Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reincarnated Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Originally posted by Berlichtingen: Nope. The German methods were copied almost entirely from the US Marine Corps who first used CAS in central America between the World Wars [/QB]That's what I used to think as well, but here's why I changed my mind. The origins of CAS are a bit murky and in many cases it is hard to see who did what. In fact, both sides borrowed heavily from each other. The Marine Corps pursued their first dive bombers after seeing the first German attempts, but Ernst Udet fell in love with the result of the Americans efforts (ironically). IMO, it is here that the Germans turned the whole thing into an art form on the scale that we see in Poland and France. Of course this does not exclude the Marine Corps, as their struggle to find acceptance for their doctrine within their respective armed forces is not disimilar to that experienced by Von Richthofen in the early years of WWII and the Spanish Civil War. In other words, I think it was a pretty close race, but the Germans were the first to implement CAS on a wide scale and therefore the first to work out the major problems with logistics, tactics, friendly fire, etc. The Marine Corps followed closely behind, but it is hard to validate their work because they didn't do anything anywhere near the scale of what the Germans attempted. Anyway, it's a point of view. It would be interesting to see what would have happened if the other branches of the US Army had paid attention to the Marines. I think the Americans would have had a much easier time in North Africa. Cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: But did Stukageschwader really fight an integrated battle, in constant communication with the ground forces, in 1939-40? I rather thought they were employed against static targets like airfields, fortified lines, radar stations (in the Battle of Britain), and the like, and not used all that often on targets of a "tactical" nature. Well AFAIK the theory at least was that CAS would function like artillery able to keep up with rapidly advancing Armored columns. Which "modern army" were the Germans launching these mechanized advances at, incidentally? Poland and France, for example. Modern European armies as opposed to Colonial Warfare. For that matter, what do you mean by modern? Motorized? Equipped with machine guns? Laser beams attached to their heads? By modern I mean organized and equipped around par for the course for a European Country of the period with any pretention of being a 'power'. [ October 22, 2003, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: CMplayer ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Originally posted by Reincarnated: The Marine Corps pursued their first dive bombers after seeing the first German attemptsOk, I'm confused by this, and here is why. The first experiments with divebombing, as far as i can find, were conducted by the British in 1918. Not CAS as there was no coordination with ground forces at all... just experiments to improve accuracy of dropped bombs. The first example of this being used in a true CAS role (again that I can find) is the Marines in Nicaragu in 1927. So the part that has me confused, is when did the Marines see German divebombing attempts between 1918 and 1927? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reincarnated Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Originally posted by Berlichtingen: So the part that has me confused, is when did the Marines see German divebombing attempts between 1918 and 1927?Are you asking me on what exact date did a member of the Marine Corps first see a German dive bomber and find himself inspired to attempt to include a similar style aircraft into current projects? I'm sorry, I don't have that information. I wrote a paper on the subject a few years ago. What I remember is that the Marines already were experimenting with CAS in Central America and were so impressed by what they saw from Germany that they immediately ordered there own dive-bombers. I'm a bit hazy on the details, but if your interested you should check the sources I mentioned above. I'm afraid I'm not going to be much help to you. Good luck on your research. Cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Doesn't CAS have to include some sort of communication between the ground forces, command, and the air forces? That said, it would rely on the availability of radio and wireless and wouldn't be available for aeroplanes until the mid 1930s? :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dook Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Okay, here's what a quick search of the web turned up. The Marines were some of the early pioneers (along with the British) in close air support, especially dive bombing. A Marine aviator, Lieutenant (later Brig. Gen.) Lawson H.M. Sanderson, first used the tactic during operations in Haiti in 1919. Dive-bombing was officially adopted by the Navy as a regular part of its operational repertoire in 1928. The first airplane designed specifically as a dive bomber was built by the Curtiss division of the Curtiss-Wright Corporation. In 1928, Curtiss redesigned its F8C-1--a Marine version of the Falcon series of two-seat fighter-bombers--with a more compact and robust airframe, and the new 450-hp Pratt & Whitney R-1340 radial engine. Although that prototype XF8C-2 crashed on December 3, 1928, just days after its first flight, Curtiss built an identical plane that satisfied the Navy enough to achieve production status as the F8C-4. It was the first of three Curtiss designs to be called Helldiver. Navy and Marine pilots demonstrated the dive-bombing technique at airshows throughout the country during the 1930s. German World War I ace and director of the Luftwaffe’s Technical Office Ernst Udet witnessed one of those public dive-bombing demonstrations at the Cleveland air show in the early 1930s (sources differ as to the exact year). In 1934, he persuaded the German air ministry to purchase two Curtiss Hawk II fighter-dive bombers for evaluation by the Luftwaffe. Udet later persuaded his superiors to produce a limited number of close support dive-bombers patterned after the U.S. Navy's Curtiss Helldiver. The resulting JU-87 Stuka dive-bombers equipped four of the five ground-attack groups during 1939. Sources: Maj. Gary L. Thomas, “USMC Air-Ground Integration in the Pacific Theater, ” (1999); Capt. Jonathan M. House, “Towards Combined Arms Warfare: A Survey of Tactics, Doctrine, and Organization in the 20th Century;” Lt. Col. Earle Lund, “The Battle of Britain: A German Perspective,” Robert Guttman, Aviation History Magazine (July 2000) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Originally posted by Reincarnated: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Berlichtingen: So the part that has me confused, is when did the Marines see German divebombing attempts between 1918 and 1927?Are you asking me on what exact date did a member of the Marine Corps first see a German dive bomber and find himself inspired to attempt to include a similar style aircraft into current projects? I'm sorry, I don't have that information. I wrote a paper on the subject a few years ago. What I remember is that the Marines already were experimenting with CAS in Central America and were so impressed by what they saw from Germany that they immediately ordered there own dive-bombers. I'm a bit hazy on the details, but if your interested you should check the sources I mentioned above. I'm afraid I'm not going to be much help to you. Good luck on your research. Cheers </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reincarnated Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Given that the German Air Force consisted of gliders between 1918 and 1927, I have a hard time understanding why you would think the USMC learned from the Germans. The armed forces were still limited to 100,000 men at that time, also.I'm sorry, did I give the impression that was my argument? Oh well, another failed attempt at expressing myself in writing. Sorry guys, you'll have to check out what the experts have to say on the subject. Cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Given that the German Air Force consisted of gliders between 1918 and 1927, I have a hard time understanding why you would think the USMC learned from the Germans. I wouldn't put it past the Germans to have been secretly experimenting with aircraft to try to circumvent the restrictions. After all, they did that with tanks, making mock-ups to practice infantry/armor coordination. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 They were, they called it Lufthansa. Like their tank projects their tactical air projects were carried out with Russian help. Again not very helpful to the U.S. Marines. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Originally posted by CMplayer: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Given that the German Air Force consisted of gliders between 1918 and 1927, I have a hard time understanding why you would think the USMC learned from the Germans. I wouldn't put it past the Germans to have been secretly experimenting with aircraft to try to circumvent the restrictions. After all, they did that with tanks, making mock-ups to practice infantry/armor coordination. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Radley Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by CMplayer: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Given that the German Air Force consisted of gliders between 1918 and 1927, I have a hard time understanding why you would think the USMC learned from the Germans. I wouldn't put it past the Germans to have been secretly experimenting with aircraft to try to circumvent the restrictions. After all, they did that with tanks, making mock-ups to practice infantry/armor coordination. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dook Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 I can perhaps shed some light on what Reincarnated was talking about regarding the Marines drawing inspiration from the Germans. The Germans were forced to surrender some of their excellent Fokker D-7 fighters by the Treaty of Versailles. A few Marines flew the D-7s, were impressed, and pushed for the development of a similar, American-made plane. The result was the Lewis and Vought VE-7 series and the Curtis Hawk series. Source: Peter B. Mersky, U.S. Marine Corps Aviation, 1912 to the Present, 3rd ed. (Baltimore, 1997). So, the Marines did draw on end of WWI German aircraft designs. They almost certainly did not draw on subsequent German developments in CAS, partly because those developments came very late - mid to late 1930s. “The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 successfully removed aircraft from the German inventory of weapons for the next fourteen years. Admittedly, there was some experimentation in Russian between the military of the Weimar Republic and the Soviet Union. Moreover, Hans von Seeckt, creator of the postwar German Army, insured that a small but significant number of officers with flying experienced remained in the tiny postwar officer corps. These factors could, however, only mitigate a situation in which most officers had virtually no experience with aircraft.” The Luftwaffe published its doctrinal manual, Die Luftkriegfuhrung (the Conduct of the Air War) in 1936. The manual argued that the Luftwaffe could and should aid the ground forces. Still, CAS was treated as subsidiary to interdiction, air superiority, and, in some cases, strategic bombing. Industrial priorities with respect to aircraft were: 1) establish a strategic bomber force; 2) create an air superiority fighter force; 3) develop an AAA capability to defend German industry against enemy bombing. Little was done in the early rearmament years to prepare the Luftwaffe for a close air support mission. German participation in the Spanish Civil War played the critical role in the development of close air support doctrine in Germany. Source: Williamson Murray, “The Luftwaffe Experience, 1939-1941” in Case Studies in the Development of Close Air Support (Washington, 1990) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 You keep that up, Dook, we may just keep you on board. Mighty fine work. You gotta do something about that name though!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Originally posted by Soddball: Doesn't CAS have to include some sort of communication between the ground forces, command, and the air forces? That said, it would rely on the availability of radio and wireless and wouldn't be available for aeroplanes until the mid 1930s? :confused: You can pull it off without radios or wire communications. You pre-arrange for the plane(s) to be in the area. That can be done by courier/runner. The ground forces then mark their own location (air recognition panels seems common) and the target (smoke is a favorite). There you have it... CAS without a radio 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Originally posted by Dook: I can perhaps shed some light on what Reincarnated was talking about regarding the Marines drawing inspiration from the Germans. The Germans were forced to surrender some of their excellent Fokker D-7 fighters by the Treaty of Versailles. A few Marines flew the D-7s, were impressed, and pushed for the development of a similar, American-made plane. The result was the Lewis and Vought VE-7 series and the Curtis Hawk series.That makes perfect sense. I had heard that the D-7 was an amazing plane for its time 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: You keep that up, Dook, we may just keep you on board. Mighty fine work. You gotta do something about that name though!! Michael, I quite agree. Dooks posts have been interesting, but they cannot be accepted as having anything to contribute to a discussion of Close Air Support until he can learn to make broad, sweeping unsupported statements, waffle and dither when he's called on them, and get into the regular habit of attempting to disguise the fact that he was stating opinion as fact by using arrogance disguised as self-deprecation, along with the regular use of the expressions 'I read it once somewhere', 'I have a hazy memory of', 'I can't cite exactly when', 'It was in a seminal work the name of which escapes me right now', 'I wrote a paper about it, but apparently have no access to the sources I used', etc. etc. etc. Mr. Dooks, I foresee an interesting career ahead of you on this Forum. But you will never be taken seriously in any discussion of CAS until you can master a certain disparaging and haphazard stance of opinionated arrogance. Failing that, I recommend combativeness and psychosis. They're much more amusing, in any case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Continue with your very interesting discussion, gentlemen, but I must away to the Peng Challenge Thread that I love so well! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Originally posted by Seanachai: I must away to the Peng Challenge Thread that I love so well! Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 This is were the Germans really got their inspiration for CAS & dive bombers: Gyrene 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by CMplayer: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Given that the German Air Force consisted of gliders between 1918 and 1927, I have a hard time understanding why you would think the USMC learned from the Germans. I wouldn't put it past the Germans to have been secretly experimenting with aircraft to try to circumvent the restrictions. After all, they did that with tanks, making mock-ups to practice infantry/armor coordination. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Originally posted by Seanachai: Dooks posts have been interesting, but they cannot be accepted as having anything to contribute to a discussion of Close Air Support until he can learn to make broad, sweeping unsupported statements, waffle and dither when he's called on them, and get into the regular habit of attempting to disguise the fact that he was stating opinion as fact by using arrogance disguised as self-deprecation,I think you're being unfair. What makes a discussion like this interesting is precisely the contact between geek amateurs with their speculation, and real historians like Dook seems to be. The amateurs learn something, and the Dooks do too, since they're stimulated to go check something out and write it up. Here's to geeks and Dooks everywhere! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Originally posted by CMplayer: Well, they invited British observers to see their tank trials. There could have been informal military contacts with US Marines. I'm just speculating, but it would have been entirely within the spirit of the times. I am a bit surprised to hear that. which tank trials do you mean? The ones in the Soviet Union in the 20s? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Originally posted by Andreas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by CMplayer: Well, they invited British observers to see their tank trials. There could have been informal military contacts with US Marines. I'm just speculating, but it would have been entirely within the spirit of the times. I am a bit surprised to hear that. which tank trials do you mean? The ones in the Soviet Union in the 20s? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.