Posted on 01/14/2016 6:35:58 AM PST by rktman
Historically not accurate. The '47 act and the Key West Accords, followed by a couple of MOUs recognized that there was a fixed wing role for the army. I thought the original restriction dealt with wing length - I'm still looking for that, but one of the MOUs from the early 50s had a weight limit - 5000 pounds. Clearly artillery spotter planes were permitted (used in Korea and Vietnam (L-19/O-1) and contemplated.
The only reference to Close Air Support that I saw in Key West dealt with Naval support of amphibious landings. http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/ref/collection/p4013coll11/id/729#img_view_text_container
As far as 'organic' goes, Fixed wing aircraft were organic to ground warfare since Pershing went into Mexico through Vietnam. So all we are arguing about is the size of the aircraft and the size of the gun available to the pilot.
They’re gonna come in real handy when the muzzies start taking over Europe.
Tet, Take Two:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3366283/posts
The Army does fly fixed wing aircraft, just not CAS fixed-wing. http://www.army.mil/article/137612/
Excellent source for CAS evolution, from it early concepts through 1987 when another conference was held to coordinate Air Force and Army air assets: http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/093/93-7/cmh_pub_93-7.pdf
This source makers many references to command and control of air assets and provides a line diagram and you can see air assets carved up between corps, therefore not a theater asset. “Eisenhower was becoming convinced that one way to attack the problem of air support was to bring air units under the more centralized control of an air commander.” . . .”Rather, Eisenhower agreed with ground and air commanders that the time was ripe for a centralized air command in the Mediterranean, to coordinate the air forces better.” In other words, the Air Force flew air assets that supported a theater, not dividing air assets to be dedicated (”organic”) to specific Army units. Air assets can be temporarily dedicated to a specific ground push, but that is not a permanent arrangement.
Paths to Heaven is the definitive source for the evolution of air power employment: http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/b_0029_meilinger_paths_of_heaven.pdf
Post 83 also addresses this.
Cheers.
We can split hairs all day, bottom line is the US Army will never employ the A-10 as a weapons platform.
Not splitting hairs when you said the Army does not fly fixed wing. They do, just not CAS.
You are correct, the Army will not fly CAS fixed wing for reasons previously cited.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.