Fist, the DOH. I forgot to post one last week. 2 dozen lashes. I had left the book at work, then kept forgetting to post it, then things got hetic and I completely spaced out. The mind goes first. Sorry about that folks.

Ok, so now to Chapter 5, Primus in Carthago. Atkinson really goes off on Eisenhower at the begging of this chapter. I'm interested in seeing is people feel this is justfied or not. One thing about this chapter is the change in air superority from what I'm used to reading about in Europe. It's strange to think of the allies NOT having total air superority, and having the Germans controling the air. As far as the armor battles I frankly always thought that at this stage of the war American armor wasn't that far behind German. I guess not. They brewed up as quickly in this period at they later would in France and Germany.

Ok, this was a quick one. Now your turn. What are your thoughts on this chapter?

I'm curious about whether they go into any detail about how the American airpower was employed. I spent three years as a "Ground Liaison Officer" assigned to an Air National Guard Fighter Squadron with a ground support mission. One of the things I studied was how the initial concept of using aircraft to support the ground units engaged in the fighting in North Africa, was to "attach" it in much the same way that one would do with "traditional" fire support such as artillery. The limitation of employing aircraft in this way, given its significantly greater range and flexibility caused considerable problems and led to a great deal of arguement among the ground and air component commanders on the best way to support an army in the field.

Tom

Rodger, Tom:

Right, I'm up here at 5 with you. For some reason, maps dropped off compared to previous chpters and this was another of those "they went here & there" stories with no maps. Army guys like maps, we like terrain, welike little symbols & arrows & etc, we understand that stuff -- show it to us so what you're telling us makes sense .... aaarrgh !!!

I'm still at the quibble mode, not to mention little conflicts where a Major Siglin on one page is a Capt Siglin on another. I also liked the shells leaving guns at "thousands of g's" - NOT ...

I did like the commentray on HQ size, life in Algiers, and even on Ike. I view that as trying to portray that Ike really was inexperienced.

I think you have to read the parts as a negative perspective by Atkinson or as a prelude to showing growth later .... I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and taking the later approach -- which sounds a bit contrary since I'm al over him about the other things ...

Tom, air power other than German gets little coverage. One issue with the USAAF is that they were all way to the west, effectively out of range. british air was coming from further east toward Egypt. The fighting in Tunis was in between and the Allied forces were pretty well left on their own.

OTOH, even if there had been allied air cover available, I doubt we would have found out much about it -- this is a pretty ground focused book.

Also, the further I keep going, the greater my fear that he never will get into lessons learned, changes in equipment, tactics, doctrine, training, etc ....

Anyway, I haven't started 6 yet (had to review a shorter book elsewhere) but will ...

PS: Tom -- you might look for a book "Overlord: Gen Quesada and the Triumph of Tactical Air". I haven't read it, but understand it covers a lot about the development of air-ground support ....

John

A wee bit off topic:
Rodger,
The Subject of this thread caught my eye. I have been reading 'An Army At Dawn' off and on for about 4 months now and gotten as far as Part Four, Chapter 11--Over The Top.

I was not aware Armorama had a 'book club', of sorts, and have a couple of questions if you have the time.

Mainly, what does it take to get involved? Are there any rules?
What is DOH?
Does everyone have to be on the same chapter?
I guess it would be in 'bad form' to give away facts revealed later. (I.e. when, where, and why the key political leaders', and other general's, change their minds about Ike and how they think he is running the war.)

I'm just curious. Don't want to stick my nose in late or where it doesn't belong.

Thanks,

Keith

John, I hadn't heard of Quesada's book but I'll check it out. Sounds like a good one.

I think that the entire concept of close air support is something the Marines do terrifically and it's just second nature to them. It's only partially a joke that all Marine aircraft have bayonet mounts on the nose. :-)


Tom

In one section of the chapter the book mentions allied air support. It focused mostly on the mistakes made by both air and ground forces. One is an attack by P-38s against a company that pretty much wipes the company out. The Air Corps also had an acronym, W.E.F.T. It was supposed to mean Wings, Engine, Fusulage, Tail, to be the order that you would look at planes to see if they were enemy or not. The flyers said as far as the ground forces were concerned it stood for Wrong Every, ah, let's say Freaking, Time.

Mostly though it says, like John says it goes into the lack of air cover.

Keith DOH is from the Simpsons. It meant I had a brain fade and forgot to post chapter four. By all means please join in. You can read ahead, like most of us are doing, but just post comments on the chapter at hand.

This is a first for us, we're seeing if it works out.

Tom:
Slight correction, it is not "Quesada's book" -- the author is named Hughes (sorry I only keep last names in my index & am too lazy (full of beer) to walk downstairs to actually look for the book right now).

Agree on the Marines -- wish the Army could get over the branch insecurities and be a little more combined on a day-to-day basis.

In retrospect, letting the little boys blue go off on their own was best for the real Army -- we again have Army Aviation for ground support -- the struggle for us to get helos is quite a tale. If we could just get the A-10 we'd really be good to go. Let's face it, changing the F-22 to an F/A-22 may fool congress (not a challenge) but doesn't make it a ground support aircraft, nor does it change any mindsets ...

John

It will be interesting to see how that works. The F/A-18 is very effective in either role so there may be some hope.

I mean, if you can turn BOTH the F-15 AND the F-14 into mud movers perhaps the F-22 may work out.

I totally agree on your assessment with the A-10. There has been a lot of discussion about making that an Army aircraft, but it's never going to happen. That's too bad, but the reality is you're NEVER going to become an "ace" no matter HOW many tanks you destroy. The only thing that "matters" is shooting down other aircraft.

And you're dead right about the HUGE stink over the Army getting helicopters in the 50's and when the Army had the NERVE to actually start to mount weapons in one the blue suit boys went crazy! They were already slightly upset about losing the arguement to the Navy over the retention of carriers and the placement of nuclear capable aircraft on them.

Tom

Tom:

And as I'm sure you know, the further our long-range arty goes, the further we can look over the battlefield, and thus the further out we want to influence that battlefiueld, the more the blue people, well, turn blue ...

BTW: I'm glad you asked about the air support in Tunisa -- made me go back & relook/rethink the book & now I tag his failure to discuss the whys & wherefores to be a major shortcoming ... I have noted the book is ground-focused, but at the time, the air was Army & so should be given appropriate treatment ...

John

That is a good point. The AAC was still a part of the Army, although unwillingly I expect.

Perhaps he was planning a "companion" volume, An "Air Force" at Dawn?

Tom