No independant RAF

[PMN1]

If an independent RAF had not been formed and aircraft had remained under control of the RN and the Army, would there have been any difference in the types of aircraft developed and built and the strategies behind their use?

[GregP]

No difference in the aircraft developed, but WAY different in employment strategy. I am not confident the Royal Navy would have beaten the Germans since they were primarily interested in maintining the supreamcy of the Navy, not the air arm.

Aircraft would never have made an impression.

Same in the U.S.A.

If the Navy had run it, the air corps would never have gotten beyond scouting for the ships.

Not to denegrate the Navies. Just the political realities of the times.

[Ricky]

Agreed - the air forces would have been basically Army observation / support aircraft and a few torpedo bombers. Plus a small number of fighters to protect said aircraft.

No stategic bomber force, of course.

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

No stategic bomber force, of course.





Why no strategic bomber force - control by the army didn't stop the B-17 from being built plus there was the Douglas XB-19A/XBLR-2 which stemmed from a 1934 proposal first flying around June 1941.

Powerplant - 4 2,600hp Alison V-3420-11

Empty weight around 83,000lb
Max TO around 164,000lb

Wingspan - 212ft, length 132ft, height 42ft, wing area 4,492 square feet.

Max speed 209mph, cruising speed 186mph, ceiling 22,000ft, max range 7,750miles

Armament - two 37mm cannon, five 0.5" MG, six 0.303" MG and up to 36,000lb bombs

Boeing replied with the samller Model 294 (XB-15/XBLR-1)

[Ricky]

Well, the only reason the RAF managed to stay seperate was by hyping the 'bomber threat' and by advocating a 'deterrance' force of bombers - not unlike having nukes to stop someone nuking you.
Had the RAF been absorbed back into the Army / Navy, there would have been no need to bang on so much about strategic bombers, so it is unlikely that they would have got any funding.

[B-24WillowRun]

I would agree that the bomber force would have been a lot smaller. That Douglas proposal was interesting and the USAAC would have still had the big supporters for the stratigic bombers, but the force would have been small. No 1000 plane formasions to crush all who opose me stuff.

The Navy may have still been strong at least the USN, but again not that massice crushing force of carriers that you saw by 1945. I think the air war would have looked a lot like what you saw on the Eastern frount and North Africa.

The big question is if we take out all the time and effort going to the big bombers are we able to get the same or better fighters? Would the Spitfire or Hurricane, or P-40 still be developed the same? For that matter what would be the German responce? Would there Navy be any stronger? Or would the Bf 109 program be changed at all? [B)] Some nugests to think on.

[amigojeff]

Long range bomber forces were somewhat inspired by Douhet theory,even if no independent RAF was formed there would still be a strategic bomber fleet(maybe smaller in size) in Army air corps.FAA would be much stronger without the planes and personel given away to RAF.

Let's discuss the opposite side of the question.For example,if Italy hadn't an independent Regia Aeronautica,would the Regia Marina have its own aircraft carrier before entering WW2?

[Ricky]

Now that is an interesting idea...

Mind you, Mussolini did love showing off his Air Force - especially as in the 1930s it was the best around, and provided loads of propaganda opportunities with all the record-breaking planes they produced (all of which were dismal failures as military aircraft...). It does seem unlikely that he would have passed up on the opportunity to shout about Italy's greatness.

Plus, of course, would an Italian carrier have made all that much difference? Given the size of the Med and the location of Italy, I think they did not really need one. Plus, given the Italian fleet's reluctance to engage in battle, and the proven superiority of the RN in night engagements etc (they had radar, don't forget), I'm not sure how/if it would really have been used.

[andyo2000]

I think we're overlooking one small thing. GregP mentioned it: It would probably be similar to our own forces. An air force under control of the Army and Navy is exactly what we had up until 1948? Or about then. They would have had less overall planes, and the planes they would have would probably be outdated and less equipped. Our air force had hardly any fighters in the late 30s, just reconaissance and observation planes because they were so basic.

The non-independent RAF would probably be a little better off because they were a bit closer to Germany and its threat, and they would have started arming for war a few years earlier.

[PMN1]

Without the backing of a full service behind him, would the views of Trenchard and others pushing for 'heavy' bombers have got such a hearing or would they have been swallowed up by others?

[B-24WillowRun]

If you want to look at the issue from the point of Italian Navy over airforce then It would be a good thought that the Navy might have been a little more prepared for war then they were. They were truely not ready when they jumped into things. Probable would have had 4 or 5 big battle ships ready and the carrier Aquila posible to say another carrier, but that would be pushing it. I think that the carrier would have been used for fleet deffence and would have been able to station say west of Malta and might have been able to provide fighter cover for the P.108 raides on Gebrolter, that is if the P.108 is developed.

Who is to say the Italian Air Force was poor! Yes they were small but mostly to the lack of engines. The MC 205V or the Ra 2001 were very good, just a lack of a home grown engine was the big problum. [|)]

[GregP]

I think the Italian fighters were generally excellent in design and execution. There were almost NO fighters that were better on the same installed power ... perhaps Sweden's FFVS J-22 was one.

However, the above post is correct ... they needed a good engine. The DB series of engines were very good and the Fiat G.55, and the Macchi 202/205, and Reggianne Re.2005 were wonderful planes (once the weak tail in the 2005 got fixed, that is). The Re.2005 was perhaps the ultimate development of the Seversky P-35 and could more than hold its own against almost any opposition.

The Italian Navy sufered from poor leadership and limited capital ships. If they had simply changed leaders, it might well have been a different story.

I would offer the following observation about pilots. They are all the same, no matter the nationality. Given similar equipment and training, they are about equally effective in war. The difference is really:

1) Does any side in a conflict really have vastly superior hardware (aircraft in our case)?

2) Does any side have demonstrable better training and/or flight hours in realistic combat situations?

3) Does any side have innovative leaders with initiative who can adapt to changing requirements as the enemy evolves and adapts, too?

Any one of the three "Yes" answers can mean an advantage. Any two can mean air (or Naval) superiority. All three probably means you will win no matter what happens, unless your air force is 8 planes and the enemy is 250 planes.

[Ricky]

quote:Who is to say the Italian Air Force was poor!
Not quite sure where this came from...
It might have been from my comment here:
quote:the record-breaking planes they produced (all of which were dismal failures as military aircraft...)

Which was a reference to all the 2-engined bombers (like the Ba.88 Lynx) that had startling performance until military equpment was added.

Sorry for any confusion!
[B)]

[PMN1]

At the 1932 Geneva Disarmament Conference one of the proposals(Article 25) was that all powers be allocated a single aircraft quota.

Now this wouldn’t have been a problem for countries without a naval air arm but I imagine it would have caused serious interservice problems for those with one and probably more so for the UK with its naval air component being under the control of the RAF.

What was the reaction of the US and Japananese to this proposal?

According to Geoffrey Till, Air Power and the Royal Navy 1914-1945, 1,300 was the figure being suggested, what were the figures for the other powers?

[B-24WillowRun]

I think that the independent Air arm is very important to the ability of a navy to protect its self. Would it have been so dominant if the USN air arm was under others control? The RAF could have given the Navy a better set of aircraft, but well it did work out. But the RN did only have a few aircraft that were truely designed for the Navy and carriers.:(