PDA

View Full Version : In The 1930s, The US Conducted A Fake War Over The New York Skyline



FrankBooth0
05-18-2010, 10:24 AM
122430 122431



Sham WAR Demonstrates New Air Attack Strategy (Jul, 1931) by CAPT. T. R. PHILLIPS, U. S. Army


Immense fleets of fighting planes directed in battle by radioed orders from a flying general—deadly new attack planes carrying a quarter ton of bombs and capable of firing 3000 shots a minute—these are a few of the latest developments in aerial warfare demonstrated in an amazing sham air war. Don’t fail to read this authoritative article if you take pride in keeping informed on Uncle Sam’s defense system.
STAGING the most amazing sham air war in all history, 672 fighting planes of the U. S. Air Corps, assembled from all corners of the country, recently engaged in mimic battle over the skyscrapers of New York, dropping dummy bombs on the financial district, laying smoke screens, attacking in formations, and otherwise demonstrating the latest developments in air attack strategy which will be used in the next war, if and when it comes.


New York is not the only city to witness this impressive demonstration. Even as you read these lines, the First Air Division will be repeating its performances over most of the large cities of the nation. In fact, before the planes return to their home bases it is estimated that 70,000,000 people will have witnessed their maneuvers. More than 2,-000,000 miles will be flown and half a million gallons of gasoline consumed.


What is the purpose of this vast concentration of fighting planes? It is not just an impressive aerial parade—it marks the end of that glamorous fighting era of the World War in which the flying heroes were the Rickenbackers, Guynemers, and Bishops, famous aces of individual combat. Those days are gone forever. The aerial heroes of future wars will be flying generals who direct thousands of plane units under their command with the skill of a Pershing or a Foch.


The First Air Corps demonstration is in reality a test of the new fighting strategy—¦ the most severe test to which planes can be subjected outside of actual combat with an enemy. It will test the ability of flyers to work together in large numbers; it will test the feasibility of controlling an air fleet by radio; it will determine how well an armada of the skies can be serviced with gasoline and oil, and whether ground crews can keep the ships in good operating condition. Full Article: http://tinyurl.com/2baxujx

Panchito12
05-18-2010, 04:16 PM
I swear when I saw the thread title this is the first thing that crossed my mind:

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/8544/kingkongj.jpg (http://img153.imageshack.us/i/kingkongj.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

TheKiwi
05-18-2010, 09:44 PM
And from this they learned that bombers could operate over enemy territory with out the need for escorts.

bababooey
05-19-2010, 07:46 AM
And from this they learned that bombers could operate over enemy territory with out the need for escorts.

Nothing like winning a controlled chaos situation to make one feel smug. Reminds me of the air force general who, back in that time, was constrained in bombing an obsolete warship. He flouted the rules and made the top brass look like d1cks.

nemowork
05-19-2010, 08:51 AM
t marks the end of that glamorous fighting era of the World War in which the flying heroes were the Rickenbackers, Guynemers, and Bishops, famous aces of individual combat. Those days are gone forever. The aerial heroes of future wars will be flying generals who direct thousands of plane units under their command with the skill of a Pershing or a Foch.

So right and yet oh so wrong. :D

Anti-Panzer
05-19-2010, 09:26 AM
Nothing like winning a controlled chaos situation to make one feel smug. Reminds me of the air force general who, back in that time, was constrained in bombing an obsolete warship. He flouted the rules and made the top brass look like d1cks.

Billy Mitchell, father of the U.S.Airforce (In the Army during his time ofc). Afterwards, mainly due to his strong opinions and fighting with the Army and Navy leadership, he was kicked down to a colonel and resigned shortly after.

TheKiwi
05-19-2010, 03:22 PM
Ah yes, Billy Mitchell's infamous warship bombings in which he "proved" that bombers could sink battleships. Ships that were stationary. Ships that were stationary and had no AA. Ships that were stationary, had no AA, and had no damage control. I can see why the navy was pissed at him to be honest.

Elbs
05-19-2010, 03:27 PM
The Prince of Wales and Repulse still proved him right to an extent though, as the Japanese used G3Ms to send them to the bottom.

TheKiwi
05-19-2010, 03:42 PM
Yes, but it wasn't easy, and interestingly enough when British fighters from Singapore turned up, the Japanese bombers fled, even though it wasn't 100% sure that the Repulse was going to sink at that point.

Elbs
05-19-2010, 03:47 PM
True true. And in any case, it was an act of desperation by the RN to send two capital ships without air cover.

Maj C
05-19-2010, 10:49 PM
ah yes, the days of douhet and seversky. command of the air and victory through air power when the unstoppable battle planes would get through regardless of fighters and aaa. wings over the world from "things to come" when bombers would drop poison gas over entire cities.

sorry i just finished my coercive airpower class...

[WDW]Megaraptor
05-20-2010, 08:06 AM
True true. And in any case, it was an act of desperation by the RN to send two capital ships without air cover.

It wasn't an act of desperation, it's just that British intelligence underestimated the G3M's range, which turned out to be double the British estimate.