Patton and Air Cav....

[sven]

Hey long time no post. I have a hypothetical question for you all. Hope I get one or two answers.

Would Patton(arguably the US's best Cav general) have been able to adapt to Airmobility? I have always wondered how much more horrible WW2 would have been had it been fought in the late 50's early 60's. Thanks to any respondents.

[troopie]

Can't answer your first question. As for your Second. WW2 would have been much more horrible if fought in the late 50's early 60's. Imagine every soldier with an automatic weapon. Helicopter gunships destroying vehicles, tactical and strategic nukes. It would have been much shorter, but much, much bloodier.

troopie

------------------
Pamwe Chete

[Desert Fox]

Well, late 50s/early 60s would not involve any air cavalry doctrine. That really was not developed until Vietnam. Gunships also were few and far between in the late 50s to early 60s.
As for Patton, well, he was a tanker. He would have been driving armor, not directing helicopter assaults.
Something else to remember about this hypothetical situation is that the technology of the 50s and 60s (nukes, automatics, etc.) were a direct result of WW2. So, if WW2 had happened in the 50s and 60s, its likely that none of these things would have been in service.

[Drex]

I don't know if the War could have been any worse than it was. Weaponry probably wouldn't have been that far advanced since war itself drove the development of carrier warfare and the bomb. Any opinions?

[Randy]

Hi, I think Patton was innovative enough to
have appreciated Air Cav. Remember, Patton was commissioned in the Cavalry, and tanks were still a couple of years away. He saw the possibilities of armor, so I think he would have seen the same for choppers.
To answer your second question, thats a hard one. With no major war between 1918-1950 would the tecnology have advanced so much?
Without the war, there would have been no
real need for the military technology to move so far so fast. Maybe in 1950 they would be fighting with 1930s technology. Sometimes it seems that military technology powers the civilian world. Look at aviation, communications, and medicine w/o a war. I hope this helps. Good questions-food for thought.
Semper Fi
Randy

[Grimm]

I agree with the above statements. Look at where the US was in 1938 compared to 1945 as far as technology advances. In 1938, the navy was fairly modern but the army was still using light tanks and tanketts and the (small) army air force was still largely made up of biplanes. (The B-17 was available but in limited numbers and low production.

[jsaurman]

I think Patton would have seen all air assets (air spotters, gunships, air mobile cavalry) as a valuable adjunct to his main armor force.

He probably would have looked on it like HIS mentor, Pershing, saw tanks: useful in special situations, but no replacement for conventional forces and tactics.


JIM

[hhsohn]

Patton probably would not have wholely embraced the concept. He advocated mobilization, but AirCav isn't very mobile once on the ground. It's really a light infantry with gunship support. Since AirCav's actually an extension of paratroopers, he probably would've treated it as a task force for special circumstances.