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?
Same problem was in the air forces of the Red army. Creation of an independent air army showed itself as a necessarity, just look at the success of Luftwaffe at the beginning of the war...
Interesting though that the independant Luftwaffe was almost entirely subordinated to supporting the land arms. An RAF subordianted to the land generals may have found itself in the same position as the Fleet Air Arm and Coastal Command subordianted to an Air Force devoted to winning a war alone with heavy bombers.
Luftawaffe's coordination with the ground units was a result of cooperation of two independent weapons. Can you imagine Goring obeying some general from OKH?
1932 Geneva Disarmament Conference One of the proposals at this (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?
I would say that, judging by scaling of the other treaties around at the time, America & France would get about the same as Britain, Japan would get between a third and two-thirds, and Germany would get bog-all! I can imagine the responses... :bang: :angry: :evil:
One result, IMHO, is that the Fleet Air Arm would have entered the war with far better aircraft than it actually did. RAF control of *all* aircraft procurement and development ensured that for twenty years the FAA was treated as a poor stepchild, if that good, and that the aircraft types they entered the war with were obsolescent.
No independent air force, no division between tactical and strategical air force. Even though all planes would more directly support the actions of their separate wings of the Armed Forces, overall IMO the impact of planes on the battlefield would be smaller because they weren't effectively organized as a weapon in its own right. And of course the bombing campaign with its impact on the Luftwaffe resources would never have happened.
An interesting point, although I'm not sure I agree with it 100%. Although our hypothetical post-WW1 RFC might well have developed into a British version of the Luftwaffe, dedicated to the tactical role. Still, the USAAF did develop a strategic arm, despite being under the command of the Army, so the same might well have happened in Britain.
Yes, but the American Stategic arm developed from their geographical position. As Simon pointed out in one of the plane quizzes, the Flying Fortress is called that because it was intended to patrol the Atlantic & Pacific and sink any enemy ships it saw. Less of a strategic bomber force, more of a long-range anti-invasion force. It was then adapted to the need of the moment. In Britain, with its huge navy, and Fleet Air Arm, such a force would not have been considered necessary, I would suggest.
It's always been a question where to put new weapons in the old organization. Look at the development of tanks during WW1 and the decades that followed. The key is that a new weapon never fits in an old system, so the system needs to be adapted; this is the best solution for this question also.
