A-10 Warthog Friendly Fire Incident

First my apologies for my abscense over the past week, I have been bedridden with a sinus infection for the majority of the week. I haven't had much time for research or to finish reading the recent NSA publication regarding Pearl Harbor. But to tide you over until my next post (sometime this weekend) I found something interesting today during my more lucid hours.

On 28 March 2003 during the Invasion of Iraq, a so called "blue on blue" (friendly fire) incident occured involving ground attack A-10 Warthogs and British FV107 Scimitar vehicles. The two American A-10 pilots, having received assurances there were no friendlies in the area from the FAC (forward air controller), proceeded to engage a convoy of what they perceived to be Iraqi flatbed trucks. 

In actuality, those trucks were British FV107 Scimitars operating in the area. The element wingman engaged the targets with GAU 30mm cannons, which are capable of destroying even the most heavily armoured tanks in the world through top attack. The incident resulted in five wounded and one British soldier KIA.

Wikisource has a transcript, and both the audio and video recordings of the incident. 

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Transcript_of_the_'friendly_fire'_incident_video_(28_March_2003)

Note just how long it takes to go through proper channels. The American FAC took nearly two minutes to relay that there were friendly vehicles operating in the area, and shortly thereafter ordered an abort of the attack. Unfortunetly by this time the A-10 had already made two strafing runs on the target. This was likely cutting corners, as the official channel which had to go from British ground personnel, to their commanders, to TWINACT, then the AWACS above the battlefield took nearly six minutes. 

The system, however inefficient for this sort of thing, has improved dramatically since WWII. Similar incidents during the war usually saw allied troops taking friendly fire from aircraft until their guns were dry, and rarely was the mistake known to the pilots until they returned to base.

A friend of mine, the former Abrams commander mentioned in my previous posts, experienced this first hand in a live fire exercise with an A-10. The A-10 passed overhead and engaged a target, with the 30mm shells falling directly on top of his humvee. By the time the information was relayed to the pilot to abort, he had already made three passes and their humvee was completely torn apart by the falling shells.

The Satan's Cross is a truly deadly instrument, inspiring fear in its enemies, and sometimes its own troops.

 

The Failure of Strategic Bombing

A recent discussion in the WWII newsgroups piqued my interest in this topic, for which I argued that the Allied strategic bombing campaign was in effect, a failure. When we deal with interpretations and conclusions rather than simply reporting fact the issue is typically broken down into schools of thought, usually initiated by a seminal text on the subject. Often accusations of historical revisionism are thrown about, and it descends into an argument between tweed jackets calling each other fascists. I summarize the strategic bombing campaign in my summary of WWII in Europe post for those that are unfamiliar.

Another Potential Role
The men and resources lost in the strategic bombing, had they been transferred to an interdiction role especially with medium or fighter bombers would have had a much greater effect. My overriding point is that the resources (men, material) involved in the campaign would have been more effective in other roles. This can be debated endlessly and speculatively; but if the stated goal of the strategic campaign was to impair to end the German capability of making war (as per a Clausewitz viewpoint) then this interdiction strategy would have been far more effective and less costly. A wonderful example of the success of such a strategy is the first few weeks of the Barbarossa campaign, where the Luftwaffe (enjoying total air supremacy at this point) could literally reduce the combat effectiveness of a division by fifty percent before it even reached the front.

We see in a few short years after the war the newly minted USAF practicing an interdiction campaign on North Korea rather than one of strictly strategic bombing (again with mixed
results, but they were moving in the right direction). As time passes and successive wars are fought, technological and doctrinal improvements lead to the ubiquity of tactical (close air support) bombing on the battlefield.

I more thoroughly explore the thought process on strategic bombing and the initial development of tactics in my previous post on the Luftwaffe. Before WWII the public at large were largely unfamiliar with the concept of massive aerial bombardment (the classic first example being the bombing of Guernica, inspiring Picasso's famous painting). The populace thought of strategic aerial bombing of cities much the way we think of nuclear warfare today; something that is nigh inconceiveable and very frightening.

Losses and Limited Results

The US Army Air Corps suffered the highest losses per capita of all branches except the Merchant Marines. It was not until late 1944 when the Luftwaffe had been essentially marginalized that the limited successes of the campaign were seen, allowing bombers to strike virtually at will. The development of the new planes that could escort the bombers all the way to target and back using droptanks also contributed significantly to the success. But from conception the tactic was flawed; many targets were chosen on incomplete or simply erroneous data and assumptions, as well as the supporting doctrine not being perfected until late in the war.

Conditions for Successful Strategic Bombing

In order to conduct a successful strategic bombing campaign on a large scale two conditions must be present: technological maturity and air supremacy. The latter was present in late 1944 and 1945, but the former was not. Even though great advances were made in navigational techniques and bombsights, the simple fact is that unguided weaponry was simply not up to the task, requiring important areas to be carpeted rather than efficiently struck. We see a predilection towards the terror tactics of "destroying the enemies' will to fight" by the massive area bombardment of major cities by men like Bomber Harris rather than an emphasis on military-industrial targets. Several days of firebombing in Tokyo in 1945 by conventional weapons cost more lives than both the atomic weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The campaign did impair Germany's war making capability to an extent, but the major effect was forcing the Wehrmacht to redeploy resources such as artillery and fighters to protect their homeland, rather than at the front. In the analysis of the effect, we must ask exactly how high were the costs of the campaign, and were they justified in bringing about the original stated goal. My answer is conclusively, no.

The Most Powerful Luftwaffe

In February 1935 Hitler openly acknowledged the existence of the new German Luftwaffe (air force), in direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles that limited German military development. Under the direction of two former fighter ace comrades of the Red Baron, Ernst Udet and Hermann Goering, the Luftwaffe flourished into what could be considered the most technologically and tactically advanced air force in Europe.

In 1936 two well respected members of the Royal Air Force, Squadron Leader Herbert Rowley and Flight Lieutenant Dick Atcherley, made an unofficial visit to the German capital. Their report to the British Government was left unread and information discarded by the whole. Through intermediaries they were able to communicate with Winston Churchill, then a "back-seat" member of the parliament, and their information along with other RAF sources won him a seat on the prestigious Air Defense Research subcommittee.

During the thirties there were numerous intelligence committees and organizations dedicated to supplying valuable information regarding a possible war with Germany, although they were largely ignored by the political machinery of the nation. With Anglo-German relations in good shape during the mid thirties there was little reason to tarnish this tenuous fantasy, and not to be alarmed by the rapid buildup of the German Luftwaffe. Even the German involvement in the Spanish civil war was seen as forces of Western Christianity defending against the spread of nihilistic Bolshevism.

Rowley believed the anti-Bolshevism was a lip service policy of the Nazi propaganda machine, but returned from the trip realizing for the German populace at large it was "real and very intense". They also were told by many Germans that 1914 was a great mistake and would never be repeated again. They were treated very cordially and were impressed by the German state. It is no surprise that Hitler in 1940 wished to make a peace with Britain believing they were "not natural enemies".

The British in the inter-war period thought of aerial warfare much as we think of nuclear warfare today. During the 1930s it was already assumed that through a campaign of strategic bombing the Germans would seek to break the morale of the British people and bring about surrender. But by 1935 there were already doubts of the practical success of a strategic bombing campaign (this information being largely ignored during the war with the joint U.S./U.K. bombing of Germany).

Hugh Trenchard, a very influential guru of air power during the interwar period, taught that the key to future wars was the value of the bomber, in particular the strategic power of bombing. This was believed through most of the war and took significant trial to overcome. Many of the OKL (Luftwaffe High Command), on the other hand, believed that it was paramount to closely support and coordinate with the ground forces (close air support). In this they were correct and Britain would not see the errors in its ways until late in the war.

The lessons learned from the first world war varied country to country, especially regarding the effective use of airpower. During the war the British were on the receiving end of mainly German strategic bombing, practices of interdiction and prevention of supply. The Germans on the other hand felt the sting of British tactical CAS attacks, and it is not difficult to see why the two nations took such differing views into the next war.

The American forces in particular did not revise their manuals on close air support until after the North African campaign in 1943, where by trial and error they eventually adopted the strategy of the British Air forces in the desert. The German experiences in close air support during the battle for Europe was years ahead of tactical development in the other Western air forces, garnering the support of avant-garde airmen in future enemies. Colonel Donald Wilson, an instructor at the Army Air Corps Tactical School, wrote "Hitler is our greatest booster - without so much as a request from us he has voluntarily undertaken the job of demonstrating our theories".

The vast scope of the German air industry was not lost on Rowley, as an American military attache remarked to him: "The whole American aviation industry could be lost inside the Junkers organization." The Luftwaffe did have a singular damning weakness, that of the paralysis of its leadership by personal egos and power games. Despite the genius of the designs and the efficiency of the aviation industry, most of the decisions were lost in the high level dealings of Goering, Udet and OKL leading to great inefficiencies and lost potential in terms of superior aircraft. For example the BF-110 being chosen over the HE-100, due to a personal grievance of Ernst Udet.

It would have behooved the British Air Ministry and the people as a whole to heed Rowley's report, which remains in the British National Archives to this day. To quote the historian Vincent Orange, "It seemed to Rowley in 1936 that Britain was not only vulnerable to Europe's most powerful air force, but also unable to hit back. The RAF did not have 'a single aeroplane in service today which has the slightest chance of reaching Germany, dropping bombs and getting home again.'"

It is clear to us now that the very concept of strategic bombing during that time was both impractical and misunderstood, and there was very little hope of bringing England to its knees. The Luftwaffe, a fundamentally tactical fighting force was not particular well suited to a campaign of strategic bombing, nor was German industry geared to a sufficient level to absorb the necessary losses to such a level that was suffered during the Allied strategic bombing campaign of the mid-war period. It is from the German Luftwaffe that we realized the lessons of the absolute necessity for tactical air support, of a single unified command dedicated to the support of the combined arms offensives - lessons that continue through the modern day.

References and Further Reading:
The German Air Force Is Already "The Most Powerful in Europe": Two Royal Air Force
Officers Report on a Visit to Germany, 6-15 October 1936
Author: Vincent Orange
Source: The Journal of Military History, Vol. 70, No. 4 (Oct., 2006), pp. 1011-1028

A Question of Success: Tactical Air Doctrine and Practice in North Africa, 1942-43
Author: B. Michael Bechthold
Source: The Journal of Military History, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Jul., 2004), pp. 821-851

AC-130 Spectre Gunship

I would like to have been in the room when this concept was devised - hey how about putting air to ground artillery on these old transport planes we have lying around? The AC-130's first incarnation was the AC-47 in Vietnam, weaponry mounted on the fuselage of the old C-47 transport aircraft used in WWII. Capable of flying faster than helicopters and at high altitudes with excellent loiter time, the use of the pylon turn allowed the AC-47 to deliver continuous accurate fire to a single point on the ground. The first few designs were armed with 20mm cannons and 40mm Bofors and were used primarily as interdiction of supply along the Ho-Chi Min trail. With extended loiter time and constantly upgraded targeting and avionic systems the AC-47 became an absolutely devastating weapon, so much that a large bounty was levied on the head of any crewmember captured or killed.

In 1968 the C-130 Hercules airframe was selected as the upgrade for the AC-47, with the new designation of AC-130. At this point the 7.62mm MG was dropped in favour of 20mm Gatling guns and 40mm Bofors, allowing the AC-130 to fly at greater altitudes above NVA anti-aircraft fire. Over its history it has had many callsigns, including Spooky, Suprise Package and Thor. The current AC-130 versions mount a 105mm howitzer makes it absolutely unique among aircraft, and it is the largest gun mounted on any production aircraft in history. It is probably the most devastating and cost effective aircraft in the U.S. arsenal, and will be flying over many battlefields of the future.