Rudel’s book was required reading for everyone on its design team, and the only argument was whether he directly consulted in the program or not.
The A-10 is not a direct descendant or a cross breed. Some say it was designed around its cannon, but a better analysis is that it is a plane designed for CAS *pilots*, what they want, not what the engineers wanted.
The Germans started the war with CAS, the British had none, and the Americans were obsessed with strategic bombing. “USAAF doctrinal priorities for tactical aviation were, in order, air superiority, isolation of the battlefield via supply interdiction, and thirdly, close air support.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_air_support#RAF_and_USAAF
“Rudel’s book was required reading for everyone on its design team, and the only argument was whether he directly consulted in the program or not.”
None that I knew read that book, and I met several, and just asked a couple that I still keep in touch with, as I was an A-10 fighter pilot and we know the history of CAS and where the requirements came from.
“Some say it was designed around its cannon, but a better analysis is that it is a plane designed for CAS *pilots*, what they want, not what the engineers wanted.”
Requirements are pushed up from the users (in this case CAS fighter pilots). Engineers do not establish requirements. . .ever. Be it CAS, strategic bombers, recce platforms, whatever, it is the user not the engineer that defines requirements.
CAS fighter pilots pushed for a jet that was survivable and able to bring an excellent anti-armor gun (provides versatility with multiple passes. . .lesson from the Vietnam experience). The gun was central to the design as the gun was envisioned as THE weapon. The platform was designed around a gun that could perform the anti—armor mission, so yes, it was designed around the gun, and CAS pilots sat in the development and helped and worked with the engineers.
“The Germans started the war with CAS,”
Not exclusively, as they did also appreciate strategic bombing. And they learned CAS from the French, as the French had CAS as one of their primary missions starting in WWI, derived from Mecozzi’s ideas as opposed to Douhets strategic mission theory.
And something to consider regarding German CAS: “As the war commenced, however, some serious failings in German airpower theory and doctrine came to light. First, enthusiasm for the technique of dive-bombing set the development of German bomber technology back several years. Gen Ernst Udet, who took over air force technical development in 1936, insisted that in the future, all bombers be designed as dive-bombers. This necessitated the redesign of excellent aircraft like the Ju-88 and resulted in production delays.” The Paths to Heaven: http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/b_0029_meilinger_paths_of_heaven.pdf (Note, this source is a scholarly source, a well researched source, a product of extensive study and not some blurb on, ahem, wiki).
“the British had none,”
Too busy fighting the battle of Britain.
“and the Americans were obsessed with strategic bombing.”
Daylight strategic bombing to be precise, and fighters were necessary to provide escort to the bombers. The ground attack role, the CAS role was there so when D-Day happened, we had CAS fighters.. .Again, The Paths to Heaven is a much better source than some wiki thing. Download it and enjoy: http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/b_0029_meilinger_paths_of_heaven.pdf
“USAAF doctrinal priorities for tactical aviation were, in order, air superiority, isolation of the battlefield via supply interdiction, and thirdly, close air support.”
So? The best thing about airpower is that it can accomplish many missions at the same time, and strategic bombing was emphasized because we knew it was going to be a long war and we needed to hit COGs to affect the ability of the Germans to sustain their ops tempo and fielded forces, but at the same time we have CAS fighters doing their mission as well.
Again, The Paths to heaven for a compelling read that you will find informative, as it is a scholarly source, not some blurb on wiki.