Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MigBuster

Debunking The Close Air Support Myths

Recommended Posts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an interesting seed of a thesis. I just wish he used more than one source and would have integrated the idea of the COIN aircraft development (which lead to the OV-10) and how that fit into his idea that CAS is a mission not a platform. Also it would have been interesting to see him talk more about the development of Army and USAAF interoperation doctrine beyond a few paragraphs. It would have also been interesting to have seen the author attempt to compare and contrast how the other two services view the mission role and how their airpower and doctrine evolved. Also, it appears to be heavily biased against the army and this "poisoned pen" approach will instantly turn anyone else off from reading this all the way through. He seriously needs to work on this to sell the idea better. Now that he doesn't have an interesting idea, but it is weakly supported, depending on one other source for historical research, and appears to use anecdotal evidence instead of hard factual evidence to support his points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..