Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
This is How the Navy Freaked Out When the Air Force Was Born
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 жов 2021
- Support Ward's channel using the SUPER THANKS (heart icon with dollar sign above) or by becoming a Patron at / wardcarroll
Buy the PUNK'S TRILOGY, Ward's first three novels about an F-14 Tomcat squadron, at www.usni.org/p.... Use the PUNKYT discount code at checkout for 25% off!
Get official Ward Carroll UA-cam channel gear at my-store-b7f9c...
Ward reviews the events surrounding the end of World War II and the creation of the U.S. Air Force as a third branch of service under the umbrella of the new Department of Defense. The U.S. Navy's reaction at the highest levels of leadership became known as "The Revolt of the Admirals."
So, one day the Secretary of Defense asked the Army, Navy, Marines, & Air Force how they would capture & secure a building.
Army dropped in a Special Forces team using a HALO jump, landing on the roof & repelling down the side.
Navy sent a Seal Team up into the building through the sewer.
Marines did a combined arms assault with Harriers, helos, LCAC hovercraft, armor, & infantry
Air Force signed a 10-year lease with an option to buy.
I'm dying here 🤣
I thought that the Navy did a final fire check and locked the doors before leaving and the Marines just leveled the building.
🤣🤣 What's even funnier is that it's probably true!
@@MikeC-ry1dk Absolutely! That's how I've always heard it. Plus, it's always "Secure that building!" nothing to do with capture.
@@grizwoldphantasia5005 If it's destroyed it's secure.
There was a story about Curtis Lemay being given a briefing comparing US and Russian strengths. The Russian assets were labeled "Enemy." LeMay corrected the officer and said, "The Russians are our adversary, the NAVY is our enemy."
It is very simple. How well did Top Gun do compared to Iron Eagle?
Soviet*
@@NineSeptims True that. But in those days it was all about Rooshuns.
@@spaceranger3728 True they were the main player.
@@realistic.optimist That's because they had a better PR department. It had nothing to do with capabilities.
That picture of a B-29 next to a B-36 looks like the 36 had a baby..
A big baby.
As a former Forrestal electrician in the engineering department, 1973 to 1975, I have an interesting fact. The cancelled USS United States and the USS Forrestal have a big connection. Most of the propulsion, electrical and air handling systems were recycled from the CVA-58 to CVA-59. Most of the ships blowers were marked with a contract number for CVA-58. I would assume Newport News Shipbuilding stored this equipment and rolled it into the new carrier as a cost savings.
Aren't one of the ready room conveyors to the flight deck from another ship (and I can't remember which one) placed on the USS Hancock which is now a museum ship
I have a half shelf of books on this history, but you distilled and made sense of the story to 16 minutes. Well done. And, as a retired pilot, I can only say about the B-36 [engines], "two turning, two burning, two smoking, two choking, and two totally unaccounted for..."
Ha!
Excellent. Old Air Force guy here. That was a very well done and balanced look at how things played out in those days. When I was in college in the 1970s I had a two semester course on US Military History. We really dug deep into the Revolt of the Admirals in the second semester. One thing I took away from the course was that the system that emerged, three separate branches and a rotating Joint Chief Staff, encouraged not only competition, but cooperation.
Be interested in hearing about what you know about Admiral McCann's participation as navy IG. I have been working on an in depth military biography for the last 25 years. McCann was an unknown in military history when I first started, and Carl Lavo used some of my findings in his second book concerning the Admiral. (Naval institute press).
Four separate branches. You forgot the Marine Corps.
It's part of the Navy. @@Outlier999
@@Outlier999 You mean the Navies little brother.
If GEN Mark Milley is any example, the Joint Chiefs have evolved beyond an 'apparatus' to become a bulwark of democracy.
A good presentation of that time but you left out an important part. With the advent of jet aircraft, the Air force wanted to do away with Aircraft Carriers completely because they could not launch large heavy Jets from carriers because the hydraulic catapults on carriers were not powerful enough to launch large heavy jets. The Royal Air Force in Britain was making the same argument. Both Air Forces almost succeeded. It was the Royal Navy that saved the Aircraft carrier with the twin inventions of the steam catapults and the angled deck that. The steam catapults had the power to launch jets and the angled deck allowed fast landing jets to take off again if the pilot missed the arresting cables. This was important because the crash barriers of the day could not stop the fast-landing jets that missed the arresting cables.
it's worth noting that the B-36 was only in service for 11 years, 1948-1959 and, despite being in service during the entire Korean War, it was never used operationally. The plane never dropped a bomb in anger.
It did accidentally drop a nuclear bomb on Albuquerque in 1957, though.
Yes, rather than send out crews in their new toy and find out how vulnerable the B-36 actually was, they sent crews out in WWII B-29s and the upgraded version, the B-50. And they were so focused on the nuclear mission, that if it weren't for a few inventive crewdog modifications for conventional bombs, the B-52 probably would have never seen combat.
@@robertf4540 Great Comment ! Thanks for the bad news... Another bomb blew up (Tested ?) South of Albuquerque in central New Mexico at the Trinity Site that is open twice a year... tjl
@ParaQue-lc2wv The US lost 16 B-29's to all Soviet, uh, I mean North Korean fighters. ALL. Most were MIG-15 kills. Please tell me how 16 shoot-downs is "decimating" the many thousands of B-29's that served in Korea?
@@martykarr7058Don’t tell Grandpa!
The Army was denied it's Air Force and the Navy got to keep it's Air Force. The Navy also got to keep an Army (Marines) who also got to have an Air Force.
You can just tell that Mooch was a great professor at the USNA. Great teacher! Explains topics so well! Love the channel
Wow, a lot of big names in this one. Great lesson in the history of the military as it entered the nuclear age. The Director of the Bureau of the Budget you mentioned, James Webb went on to become administrator of NASA at the bequest of JFK and was their from Mercury through Apollo. Although I love the movie, because it features aircraft, I sometimes get the feeling the Strategic Air Command” with Jimmy Stewart was really a commercial for the American people to fall in love with the B-36. Keep up the great work!
The movie "Strategic Air Command" was definitely an advertisement for SAC and the still fledgling USAF just like Top Gun was for the Navy, but by the time the movie hit theaters in 1955 the B-36 Peacemaker was less than 4 years away from retirement and production of the last few aircraft had already taken place in 1953. SAC started receiving its first B model B-52's that year.
Well, it WAS an ad for SAC.
Ward leans pretty hard on the Navy brass here. The Army and Air force brass were just as wobbly.
@@apolloleader "Bombers B-52" (Karl Malden and others) was the advertisement by the USAF for their brand new B-52s. The rather unlikely plot featured Malden as a crew chief who somehow gained enough knowledge to maintain the B-52 and leave the B-47s behind, which is what the USAF wanted.
Yup, Strategic Air Command was 100% Proper Gander for the consumption of the American Public.
Surprised that you Failed To Mention that Secretary Johnson, after cancelling the USS America, and pushing for the B-36 went to work for Convair, the maker of the B-36 soon after that decision!!! (This move also got Jack Northrop to sue the US Government as a conflict of interest since his planes weren't selected!)
Is that how his Flying Wing got cancelled?
@@KutWrite That's what a LOT of people claimed!!!
There's definitely a lot of shenanigans in these things. There's no shortage of aerospace companies that were pissed because their aircraft were getting the budget ax right and left but the F-111 contract was awarded to General Dynamics. Hell of a coincidence that the F-111 was built in LBJ's back yard of Fort Worth, Texas.
Even with "cool off" and grace period laws, this kind of shit still goes on. When I worked T-38s 15 years ago, a GS-15 over the program office was just giving away the store to Northrop Grumman. Pissed me off so bad. Then he retires from the government and the next Monday morning, I see him in a meeting as a Northrop Grumman program manager. I got counseled for telling him that he should be in prison and the fact that I put up a picture of him in my office right next to a picture of Benedict Arnold. He got fired a year later and I hope the sumbitch is living out of a KFC dumpster today.
@@Skank_and_Gutterboy Good for you!
Great presentation! Remembering that the Air Force said they could supply everything needed in Korea. Navy had to deliver the fuel so Air Force planes could fly out of Korea.
the AF considered nuclear bombs all that needed delivery...
If it'd been up to them the Korean war would have been done in a few days. Just long enough for a fleet of B-36s to fly over, bomb every NorK city into a radioactive puddle, and fly back home again.
That was the entirety of their warfighting doctrine at the time, that and a few token squadrons of air defense fighters for continental air defense and PR displays.
Goering made the same promise to the Wehrmacht at Stalingrad
Watching this video was like a scene from "Pitch Meeting".
Ward: Mentions someone's name.
Me: Points and says, "That's the guy from that class of warship!"
Just about everyone he mentioned got either a ship or class of ships named after them. Even Truman who was no friend of the Navy.
Surprised Gen. Curtis LeMay didn't get a mention. He was one of the father of the Strategic Air Command, and one biggest spanners in the Navy's plans back in the day and coined the quoted "The Soviets are our adversary. Our enemy is the Navy." He had a habit of unannounced base visits and inspections (often in civilian clothes) and his standards were so high he traveled with multiple Colonel aides. Why? So he could fire the base commander on the spot and one could take over right there (The sunset program, applied to enlisted too. You'd be out-processed and kicked off-base the same day of your offense "before the sun set."). Despite this, he was widely loved by the enlisted and junior officers because turning bases into small communities for morale. Gen LeMay is why Air Force bases have golf courses.
Also neat fact: Due to how underpowered the first jet engines were, B-36's could "out-dogfight" early jet fighters at high altitude until the mid fifties when engine technology caught up. Imagine how demotivating it would be trying to intercept a bomber and said bomber is beating you in the rate fight.
LeMay was a very interesting person. He managed to keep SAC at a very high level of readiness, which is NO easy task. The amusing part is that his background was in fighters...he learned overwater navigation in Hawaii, which got him the navigator's job for the interception of the liner Rex in (IIRC) 1937...the Air Corps trying to demonstrate that they could protect the U.S. with their B-17s.
@@Hammerli280 And he also led air raids in the lead aircraft, one of the most dangerous positions in bomber formations. Kind of hard to skirt out a dangerous mission when your boss is leading from the front.
Nice note about the golf courses. Good on him.
@@livingadreamlife1428 General LeMay also started the auto hobby shops on base and was known to help enlisted airman repair their cars. His high standards were demanded on everyone even the cooks in the chow hall.
To err is human, to forgive is not SAC policy.
Wow, the beginning of the Military Industrial Complex.
... now, in the US where the term originated, sometimes unofficially called the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex (MICC) (Ref: Wikipedia and others.)
i argue there would still be military industrial complex even without privatization. like russia has. russian MIC employs approximately 3.5 million people nationwide and accounts for 20% of all manufacturing jobs in russia, all publicly owned.
usa MIC has 5.743 million workers representing 3.8% of the labor force.
usa has double the population, so equivalent would be 7 million people, if usa had russian equivalent of MIC, 20% bigger.
"The New York Times reported in an article on 13 September 2023, citing US and European officials, that Russia overcomes the international sanctions and its missile production now exceeded pre-war levels.
It was also reported that Russia now produces more ammunitions than the United States and Europe combined and it can manufacture 200 tanks from scratch and two million units of ammunition in a year according to Western sources.[10]
CNN reported on 11 March 2024, citing Western intelligence officials, that Russia currently produces about 250,000 artillery shells a month or about 3 million a year which is nearly three times the quantity the US and Europe produce"
The Russian Ministry of Defense said in its concluding report about the 2023 activities that since February 2022 the production of artillery ammunition has increased by 17,5 times, of tanks by 5,6 times, of IFVs by 3,6 times, APCs by 3,5 times and drones by 16,5 times.[20] The Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed on 2 February 2024 that in the last 18 months the Russian defense industry has created 520,000 new jobs and has also increased the production of body armor by 10 times and uniforms by 2,5 times.[21] The Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin claimed on 3 April 2024 that the manufacturing of automobile and armored vehicles had increased by 3 times in 2023, of destruction means by 7 times and of communications, electronic warfare and reconnaissance equipment by 9 times.[22]
and thats only russia, let alone china.
@@Redmanticorewho the hell cites CNN as a source?
The MIC exists all the way since the Spanish American war. Or do you really think the USS maine blew up on her own?
@@Redmanticore Pakistan is another excellent example of what you're talking about. The Pakistani army not only controls the vast majority of Pakistan's military industry but a large chunk of Pakistan's economy as a whole.
Burke had the added honor of having an entire _class_ of ships after him - and a numerous one at that!
Wow! That was an intriguing bit of history! I would love more content like that.
Me too!
As would I
One story I heard about this. The AF was telling anyone who would listen that the B-36 flew too high for any other aircraft to intercept it. Someone in the Navy challenged them on this, saying existing Navy fighters could match its altitude. Possibly he was referring to the FJ2 Fury, the Navy version of the F-86 Sabre. The AF declined the challenge.
it was the McDonnell F2H Banshee. p136 of the 1948 B-36 hearings, pp152-153 of the 1949 unification and strategy hearings (both held by house armed services committee).
@@rogerhorky7258 When the Navy said they could demonstrate that they can intercept the B-36, SoD Johnson forbid them to do so. This all led to the “Revolt of the Admirals”. SoD Johnson’s plan was to reduce the Navy to a litoral force, and reduce the Marines to a commando unit of the Army. His reductions left the Navy so decimated, we had no real over sea capability when the Korean War broke out. Truman quickly reversed the decision to reduce the Navy. So it could be said that North Korea saved the US Navy!
@@rogerhorky7258Lolol Man I love the comments sometimes… I mean, where the hell else would you come across that little tidbit?
The B-36 at altitude would be able to run away from any fighter that had to both chase it AND climb to altitude. The B-36 also had long range, and the only way the early jets could make speed and altitude was with afterburners, which is rather like having a 4 inch hole in the fuel tank, would cause the fighter to run out of fuel before it could catch up.
@@TR4Ajim That explains part of the quite frankly shitty behavior of the 5th Marine Division to the Army 7th Infantry Division as they approached the Chosen Reservoir.
Thanks, Ward. Feel like I just completed a 101 course on Dirty Politics, Skulldugery, and Military Back Stabbing. Ready for my exam. Just need to review that list of all of the players. Imagine if social media was around back then? Wonder how much the general public knew and how much the press kept this alive and for how long? The cadets at the Naval Academy are lucky and blessed to have you as member of their staff. Another Phantastic episode.
On a Side note Hillary's Dad pushed Forrestal.
Imagine what role social media is playing NOW? Along with a MSM that also seems to be a player in extreme politics.
The B-36 had serious engine problems, and was obsolete as soon as the MiG-15 arrived. The Navy was also right that atomic warfare wouldn't be viable.
First off, the students at the Naval Academy (and Naval ROTC units at various universities) are called Midshipmen, not cadets. Do some looking into the early history of the US Navy and you will find out why. They also have more status than Army and Air Force cadets when out at summer training with the fleet (Army and Air Force equivalents). It would be a very bad day (and not likely to happen), but theoritically a Midshipman could end up as CO of a ship (if they are the senior most surviving member of the wardroom).
Second . I agree with the summary of "Dirty Politics, Skulldugery, and Military Back Stabbing". There is probably some still going on, but the Armed Services are much more "Purple" than they used to be.
No comment about social media.
Finally - Ward , I have finally received both of the last books in the Punk's trilogy, will probably start reading today. PUnk's War was pretty interesting.
we had Air Force CADETS that would work with us during their summer months off. Just plain forgot about the Midshipment part. Gave them great experience with us in Aviation Maintenance. I just retired in March of 2021, so it's not that purple as you say. Worked with Navy, Marines, and Army. At the lower levels we typically got along. But at the higher levels they're all still fighting for their own pot of money in the budget. Finished reading Punk's War, and just received Punk's Wing and Punk's Fight. 1st book is a good read. No matter what service you were in certain situations relate to all of them. Retired from an Air National Guard unit, so the good thing is we had people from Navy, Marines, Army and Coast Guard. Got to hear all of their stories.
Thanks, Ward, for showing my beloved A-3 Skywarrior!
“Anonymous Paper” sounds so familiar 🤣
Great history lesson!
Love the Navy, but Go Army!
G'day Ward, Thank you so much for this video. I had read a little about the 'revolt of the Admirals' but never to this level of detail. It reminded me so much of the establishment of my former service, the Royal Australian Air Force, (R.A.A.F.) the second stand-alone air force in the world, after the R.A.F.
It was formed in 1921 and similar to the machinations between your Navy and Air Force, senior members of the Royal Australian Navy and the Australian Army were both convinced that they had a right to 'oversee' this new, apparently, independent service.
Of the two services, it was the Australian Army who thought they had the strongest claim as, previously, the Army established the Australian Flying Corps when our forces began using aircraft in military operations, not long before the beginning of WW1.
The RAN, who also had a small number of aircraft on its capital ships, but no air bases and, of course, no aircraft carriers; therefore had the weakest claim to be the 'administrator' of the R.A.A.F.
After long delays and interservice squabbling, the Prime Minister set up a small committee of representatives from the two services plus a chairman, General Sir Thomas Albert Blamey, later to become Australia’s senior soldier during WW2 and Australia’s first and only Field Marshal.
It might seem a little lopsided to have an Army General chairing this committee.
However, the PM selected General Blamey because he knew that Blamey was a tough, unwavering and above all honest officer; not universally liked but admired even by his ‘enemies’ for being a ‘straight shooter’. His only son was to later join the R.A.A.F. and was killed in an aircraft training accident in 1936.
I have spent many years studying the extraordinary life and career of Thomas Blamey and I have seen documents that prove, beyond doubt, that General Blamey had no conflict of interest as the chair of this important committee.
Their meetings swiftly degenerated into passionate, savage arguments and Blamey’s diaries note that he felt like he was back in his previous, teenage career as an assistant school teacher, breaking up schoolyard bullies.
One of the senior Army delegates to this committee was a gentleman called Richard Williams. He was Army through and through and he had been the first man to be trained as a pilot in the Army Air Corps. He went on to command Australian and British squadrons during WW1.
When the climax of the meetings almost erupted into physical blows being exchanged, General Blamey declared a halt and said he had made up his mind and he was going, immediately to the Prime Minister to give him his recommendations.
Williams was later summoned to Blamey’s H.Q. and told that he, as the Army’s foremost pilot, would be promoted to Air Marshal and placed in charge of the, totally independent, R.A.A.F. on the proviso he was to have no administrative contact whatsoever with the Australian Army or the Royal Australian Navy and that he was to administer the R.A.A.F. through an eventually created Air Staff and Air Board, answerable to the War Department and the Prime Minister.
Historically, the only downside of this was that it took our three services a long time to come to a point where they enthusiastically worked together, however, by the time WW2 came around this situation was beginning to improve.
So, as of today Air Marshal Sir Richard Williams KBE, CB, DSO is known as ‘the father of the R.A.A.F.’ Personally, I feel that title, or at least much more credit, should have gone to General Thomas Blamey as it was his dynamic decision that led to the R.A.A.F. becoming a truly independent branch of Australia’s armed forces that has distinguished itself in all its actions since 1921.
Well, Ward, I hope you liked my brief history of our three services as much as I enjoyed your video. Cheers, BH
G'day Bill, are you the same Bill Halliwell that was in the movie Romper Stomper? Interesting that you say Blamey should be considered the Father of the RAAF over Williams, when I enlisted into the RAAF there was no mention at all about Blamey's role when they taught us the history of the RAAF. A whitewash?
@david white G'day David, Yes, I was in 'Romper Stomper'. I did several different jobs after the air force before I became a military historian. Many years ago I and my co-writer began a study of Sir Thomas Blamey with a totally open mind because I used to know one of General Blamey’s senior aides, Norman Carlyon. He gave me his book on Blamey. It was an eye opener.
Perhaps, like you, David, unless you went to Staff College, when I was in the RAAF our 'history' of the service consisted of a few of mornings of generalised, public relations speak. Totally useless.
Our interest was researching a TV documentary on Australia’s only Field Marshal, Thomas Blamey and we worked with Professor David Horner, who had written the, then, definitive tome on Blamey’s military career for Army History Archives.
On reflection, I think Williams and Blamey should have shared equal credit for the, eventually smooth transition from the Australian Flying Corps to the RAAF.
Was it a whitewash? This is a very good question, David.
Oddly, Blamey was chosen to lead the 2nd A.I.F. by Prime Minister John Curtin, a Labor leader who was a man that struggled with alcoholism but remained sober for all the years of the war. It was Curtin, Blamey’s absolute opposite, who knew Blamey would report to him with total honesty. He, personally, loathed Blamey’s extremely social drinking and rumours of his womanising (the latter, an issue we totally debunked during our research).
Lady Olga Blamey accompanied Sir Thomas on almost all his overseas deployments as she was 2 i.C. of the Australian Red Cross. They were devoted to each other. They both worked tirelessly to ensure Australian losses were kept to a minimum, as much as was possible.
What was worse than the ignorance of Sir Thomas within the RAAF, was his gradual ‘erasure’ from a once famous and internationally known wartime leader. Blamey was, in fact, onboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay and signed the Japanese surrender document on behalf of Australia.
After PM Curtin’s sad and sudden death, the new PM, Ben Chifley who had a total detestation of Sir Thomas; and with the war over, plotted to sack and then retire General Blamey as soon as he could.
Blamey recommended several of his senior staff officers for awards and promotions; he never asked for any accolades or decorations for himself.
All he asked of Chifley was permission to purchase his favourite staff car from the Commonwealth for the sum of 400 pounds.
Chifley flatly refused some of the staff promotions and awards also telling Blamey, in a childish, petty act, that he could not even buy his old, well used, staff car.
When General Blamey was seriously ill in hospital, the new PM Robert Menzies, petitioned the King to have Blamey made Field Marshal, as a fitting reward for his successes against the Germans, Italians and the Japanese, plus for a lifetime of service going back to his post as Sir John Monash’s Chief of Staff during WW1. Monash said of Blamey on many occasions that what he and Australian troops achieved on the Western Front would have been impossible without the expert strategic and logistical planning that Blamey brought to the table.
When Field Marshal Sir Thomas Blamey died in 1951, approximately 20 to 30 RSL members, former soldiers volunteered to march in is funeral procession, one of the biggest in the history of Australia. This, by the way, also disproved the myth that the rank and file Australian soldier did not like or have respect for Thomas Blamey.
I’ve gone on way to long in my reply to you. I urge you and others to take some time to read all about Field Marshal Blamey on our website for our proposed TV documentary series on his life.
Sadly, after all those years of work, the pandemic has put a halt on our production. We have many key interviews ‘in the can’ but we are unable to form film crews, support vehicles and aircraft to complete the shoot at present.
You can find out much more about Sir Thomas at:
www.TheBlameyEnigma.com.au
Cheers, David and thank you for your question and interest. All the best. Bill Halliwell & Bernie McDonald.
FASCINATING ❗️… very sage way of dealing with that boiling pot !
‘Thanks’ for that !
Another great history episode. I knew the major points of the "Admiral's Revolt" but learned a number addition details I had not heard - a lot packed into a 16 minute lesson. Keep up your great channel!!
Ward, maybe you could do a similar briefing on the political battle the USMC had to fight to preserve its existence in the 1950s.
Congress passed a law in 1949 making it illegal to disband the USMC and that there would always be at least three USMC divisions, even when the US Army was cut back massively under the Truman and then the Eisenhower Administrations and even now, when the US Army maintains an equivalent of only ten combat divisions.
@@michaelsnyder3871 Yes, I know all that. I would like to hear Ward talk about it, since this is his channel and all.
Ward- that was a fascinating sliver of military history; I've fwd it on to my 92yr. dad, who did 28 in the USAF. He joined up in 1951, so this history is something he experienced. GREAT channel dude; I feel like I'm in a lecture hall w/ a distinguished professor.... Fantastic presentation skills and deft editing= a great end product.
Ward is a distinguished professor from the Naval Academy.
An outstanding presentation, aka Revolt of the Admirals. As a retired USAF guy, I found this story and many others you produce, fascinating.
As a side note, the most vocal supporters of a separate USAF we're Generals Marshall, Eisenhower and Bradley. They and other senior Army officers realized if the Army Air Force was not split off that the Army Chief of Staff would be a pilot and all major budgetary and R&D functions in the Army would be controlled by pilots. Therefore the Army would be to the Air Force what the Marines are to the Navy.
Except, of course, that unlike the U.S. Army Air Force being part of the U.S. Army, the U.S. Marine Corps is not part of the U.S. Navy.
@@qtrfoillol, yes it is. It even says Department of the Navy on the patch. 😂
@@WhydoIsuddenlyhaveahandle I wrote "not part of the U.S. Navy." You wrote "Department of the Navy." Those are not the same things. 🤣
The U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Navy are co-equal military Services. The Commandant of the Marine Corps, a General, and the Chief of Naval Operations, an Admiral, both work for the civilian Secretary of the Navy. Neither works for the other. Similarly, the U.S. Space Force and the U.S. Air Force are both separate military Services in the Department of the Air Force.
@@qtrfoil You got your history lessons from watching netflix didn't you?
@@Dave-ty2qp Well, I got most of it from actually serving in the Department of the Navy every day since July 7th, 1981, in both the U.S. Navy and in the U.S. Marine Corps. To include today - just coming from my job in the Pentagon, working for an Assistant Secretary of the Navy. It's a really big internet, all kinds of people here. But, hey, that's only 43 years, based on your additional experience you probably know some things I haven't learned yet, right? And no Netflix, but I do have both Peacock and Paramount+, so I'm good. Those imported Canadian TV shows, like "Flashpoint?" Amazing.
Nice piece of history! The only personality missing is Gen Curtis Lemay who did his level best, up to and including his stint in the JCs, to advance the cause of the Air Force as the most important war fighter of all the branches.
LeMay, is spelt with a capital M .
@T.J. Kong Honestly nobody wanted to do the right thing which was use SSBN's, which are pretty much the end all be all of nuclear weapons employment.
@@koc988
They established the nuclear triad. SLBM, ICBM, and bombers. Nukes for Navy, USAF and the Army got tactical nukes.
@@koc988
They didn't have the range to hit all of the USSR and China.
@T.J. Kong Another cronic stubbornness episode, this time regarding Rickover idea of nuclear sub.
Fancy Dans, those are fighting words. The Navy's reputation is born. Much respect to naval Naval aviators submariners, and cooks, U.S. Army (ret).
He's just mad "our guys" just "got wet" when we fought, not filthy dirty; ate good hot meals to our fill (Thanks Cooks & Supply Guys!), not C-Rats; and slept in warm bunks, not holes in the mud. As a cold war sailor, my cover is off to these legends. They truly were The Greatest Generation. So were OUR Marines & the Soldiers of course, and hella respect to the Red Army too!
Lots of questions still surround Forrestals "suicide".
As post-WWII 'heat' dissipated, persistent deterrence became the imperative. ADM Hyman Rickover's contribution toward Naval Strategic Relevance cannot be overstated.
Actually the cia was under oreders to control Bitain France and Russia. Likely what inspired Stalin to destroy his own army and sign peace treaties with Adolph Hitler. I would guess Andrew Torba is a plant. one of cia's useful idiots.
Anyone here thinking that Forrestal's "leap" out of the window was a little suspicious?
Noooo. It was A LOT suspicious
Prolly not what it appeared to be anyway!
He was about to say something public about Operation High jump. So, they had to silence him.
There is a rumor that the Roswell incident revealed the existence of ETs and Nimitz was uncomfortable with his Christian belief system and this revelation which he wanted revealed. He was also being treated for a mental condition .
You brakes in by the whole alien UFO scam is seriously deranged. None of it adds up until you look at all the fancy stuff bring designed out there.
" B-36 Peacemaker" - still my favorite name for a first strike capable atomic weapon bomber. Great video - interesting history here. Thanks!
Little bit of history…… Colt Manufacturing coined the term “Peacemaker” for a weapon when they developed The Colt Single Action Army (also known as the SAA, Model P, Peacemaker, or M1873), a single-action revolver handgun. It was designed for the U.S. government service revolver trials of 1872 by Colt and was adopted as the standard-issued pistol of the U.S. Army from 1873 to 1892.
Corrupt politicians? Nooooooo! Say it ain't so...
The Forrestal story is an interesting one, not everyone believes the company line that he committed suicide. And the way he was summarily isolated even from his family raises questions.
Forrestal didn't kill himself...doesn't have the same ring as Epstein.
Especially given that the window he allegedly jumped from was secure with bars but he somehow managed to pry them loose enough to fit through if I remember correctly.
As was his involvement w/ MJ-12, Magestic12. Possibly because.....he knew too much.
My first wife and I rented an apartment in the former Forestall home in Old Westbury , LI, NY. I was about 24 at the time and the landlord’s son was 22. He and his wife had an apartment adjacent to ours which happened to have a bricked up fireplace. One Friday night, after we consumed a significant amount of Rum and cokes, we came to the conclusion that old man Forrestal had hidden secret papers in the bricked up fireplace. You guessed it, Nelson and I took a sledgehammer to that fireplace while our wives watched and wondered what we were up to. Bottom line, there were no secret papers 😊. Nelson’s dad was not happy
Hi Ward - As usual, a great presentation. A quick correction, if I may.
I believe 5,000 miles was the Combat Radius of the B-36, not the range.
You should do a follow-up episode on Admiral Rickover, the father of the nuclear Navy, he was quite a character and had no problems whatsoever telling anyone including President's what was on his mind.
Agreed, but he was outside the scope of naval aviation.
There is a documentary about Rickover on Amazon Prime video. It is very good.
HEAR HEAR
As usual great stuff.
You constantly open info on the childish antics of fleet and general officers.
The immediate post-war period in the US was... odd. Typically, at the end of any major war the US had fought we essentially disbanded our military. The rush to demobilize the US military after WWII led to General Marshall describing it by saying: "It's not a demobilization, it's a rout." "Bring the boys home" was the priority. And the military budgets weren't just being cut they were being gutted.
At the same time, the US had The Bomb. This was seen as being the ultimate weapon and the thing that would take the place of any and all large scale conventional military forces. We wouldn't need a large army or naval fleet as but a single Atom Bomb could do far more damage to an enemy far faster and far less expensively. The strategists of the day - or at least those who had the ear of Truman - envisioned there being only two types of military conflicts the US would now ever face; utterly insignificant things which but a company or two of Marines could handle, or; another total war in which the enemy had to be wiped off the face of the Earth. There was nothing in between. And thus there was no need for a military of a size capable of handling anything in between.
So, combine the two and you've the conditions we saw in the late 1940s. Truman was not a particularly insightful man. And if he had men around him who were insightful they all seemed to have been blinded by the power of The Bomb. Thus they failed to properly advise him and he failed to see past The Bomb as well.
Thus the overwhelming desire and political necessity of demobilizing our military, the severe budget pressures requiring wholescale reductions in Federal spending, and the belief that the Atom Bomb had rendered large scale conventional warfare obsolete all combined to make the Navy seem obsolete as well. This, even with it's shiny new aircraft carriers. As such, it's actually pretty surprising the US Navy had anything much left at hand to deal with Korea at the decade's turn.
Ward: "So now there's three branches: Army, Navy, Airforce"
Marines and Coasties: Am I a joke to you?
:)
Yes.
Air Force is coast guard for earth and deep space operations left to navy. Navy Runs this shit. (Edited for clarity)
Space Force: Am I a joke to you?
@@MaximGhost Definitely Yes
the marines will tell you they are the only infantry unit that has it's own navy😉
Great history lesson Ward! On a Navair side note; the genius of Ed Heinemann, lead designer at Douglas Aircraft, was to design the Skywarrior at the lower range of the required specs for the United States Class carriers, and within the upper range of specs for carriers in use at the time, and in the future. When the United States Class was cancelled as Heinemann thought it might be, the Navy chose the big, beautiful, Mighty Whale as their strategic, carrier based, nuclear bomber. And the rest is history.
Excellent. As another old Air Force guy, really appreciate your well balanced story. Even in the Air Force, there were those who doubted the effectiveness of strategic bombing.
Fascinating story! Thank you, Ward, for preparing. Very interesting how politics invades the corridors of military power just like any. (Hello btw from Liverpool, couldn’t help but notice the background! :) )
With all these viewers I guess somebody had to be in Liverpool at some point. But it’s cool just the same. Ive often pondered the background and Ward’s Beatles fandom. Also cool.
I love your videos about the highly rank Admirals. I am a retired e6 in a disablished rate, TD, I had a uncle who was a retired USMC Major General from wwII. At one time I often thought the military should unify to the point that all personal could be swapped back and for between sea, air, and land forces dictated by there training. After all these years watching the missions of the services I don't think that would have worked as I envisioned. I also had a brother who served and was wounded in Korea and 100% disabled Vet. I think each of the services did have diverse missions. MY Uncle did enlist in wwi, and rose to flag rank. Those were the days.
A glimpse into how the sausage is made. Somehow the US succeeds despite it's best efforts to undermine itself. Miraculous
The B-36 had 360 spark plugs that needed to be changed after every mission.
I've heard bits of this story before, but this is the first time I could follow all the threads. Well done.
One has to get a chuckle from the inter-service rivalries.
Great Comment ! Yes, they do fight among themselves to see who will WIN the War ! tjl
Thanks, Mooch for the great history lesson.. As you named all the players I immediately connect them to ships and airports around the country... Always great to get the straight skinny on the scuttlebutt... Love watching your videos!!!
Nice, but brief review of the Revolt of the Admirals. Very well done! Thank you very much.
Wow, good history lesson, Ward! Very fair and even analysis.
Great video Ward. Lots of information. Clearly shows how politics can either help or hinder our Military.
Mooch, you are one great story-teller! You have the ability to condense all of that into 16 minutes and in a way that it's easy to follow. Thank you!
What a great history lesson! GEN. Omar Bradley knew how to put things into perspective and shut that Navy bilge down.
Thanks for sharing these stories and you experiences in the Navy. They are very interesting.
Thank you for providing so much interesting history in a very concise manner. So many names that i have heard but didnt know thier significance.
Man this was interesting, and what a full days work this must have been. Nice work putting it all together for us. The more things change…. Ike warned us though, gotta give him that.
Thanks for a great history lesson
Air Force Veteran here, great content, appreciate your viewpoints!
Great video, as always. And kudos for bringing out one of the Navy's not-so-stellar moments. You did briefly allude to it near the end, but I think a little bit more explicit "connect-the-dots" could've been made here, something along the lines of "the Navy essentially lost this 'Revolt' at least in the immediate term, but carrier aviation re-proved its worth (and obtw arguably the USMC as well) during the Korean War. It turned out that the days of non-nuclear conventional warfare were not over after all."
Navy's less than stellar moments could be pretty much summed up by their weapons procurement
@@IgnoredAdviceProductions Can't disagree. Somewhere around 1990-ish (the A-12 program comes to mind), Navy transitioned from a long series of home runs (Aegis CG/DDGs, Spruance DDs, A-6/F-14/F-18/etc aircraft, Nimitz carriers, LA SSNs, etc etc, just to name a few), to what has now become a long series of rather expensive flops.
@@cragnamorra I wouldn't call the F-14 a home run but the others are doing well. It's gotten so bad that their "next destroyer" is being replaced by ships that it was meant to replace, it would be funny if we weren't paying for all these things...
I think you should do a collab with Drachinifels :)
Hey, Mooch, very enlightening piece on interservice squabbling in the aftermath of the National Defense Act. I was vaguely aware of some of this stuff, but you have revealed a lot that is not taught in US military history classes in ROTC, the academies, or advanced professional military education syllabi at the command and staff, and war College levels. Good job.
When I was a Marine lieutenant going through Air Force Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) at Laredo AFB, Texas in 1969, Admiral Tom Davies' son, Tom III, was one of my classmates. He was a member of the New Jersey ANG and headed to F-105 "Thuds" after completion of UPT. As Marine and Guardsman, guaranteed tactical jets which most of our USAF contemporaries wanted, but had virtually no shot at, Tom and I were fellow pariahs, and as such became friends. His dad, then a two star, would occasionally drop into Laredo in his tricked out A-3 Skywarrior VIP transport to vist Tom. What a contrast between father and son, the admiral in his perfect dress blues, and Tom in his characteristic off-duty blue denim civvies and, even by Air Force standards, way out of limits long hair!
Admiral Davies was well known in Naval Aviation for his role in the development of the angle of attack indicator, which he used for fuel economy cruise control during his record-breaking non-stop flight from Perth, Western Australia to Norfolk NAS, VA in his P-2V Neptune, "The Truculent Turtle" in 1946. His record was not broken until a P-3 did it out of Atsugi NAS, Japan in 1972!
When we graduated from UPT, Admiral Davies was the guest of honor and commencement speaker. He pinned on my silver Air Force wings. Years later, after his retirement, among other accomplishments, he was appointed by the National Geographic Society to lead an investigation into the controversy surrounding Admiral Perry and Matthew Henson's claims to being the first men to stand at the North Pole. Using photographs taken at the pole and using the sun's shadow cast by their American flag pole, the investigative committee certified that Perry and Henson had indeed reached the northern tip of the earth's rotational axis! The first known men at the pole.
I was surprised to learn of his alleged involvement in the Navy's attempts to sabotage the Air Force's claim to atomic weapons primacy within the DOD with their B-36 Peacemaker. Fascinating historical stuff, Mooch! Bravo Zulu. Bear out.
Awesome history lesson!
The US Army Air Force and later the USAF were wedded to the belief that the bomber bomber will always get through despite reports from their own testing that this was not the case.
15:19 and lets not forget the Carl Vinson CVN 70.
Outstanding, interesting and intriguing history, thanks! As a vet of similar age as you I found it particularly interesting.
Good informational story! 👍 My dad enlisted in the newly formed Air Force, and served during Korea.
I guess Eisenhower was right warning about the military industrial complex. I had no idea.
its ironic that the guy that murdered a kid named eddie slovik warned about the military getting out of hand
Interesting. Hadn't read about this guy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Slovik
@@4stringmanagmaildcom yeah, the story of eddies murder by the military doesnt fit the big glory picture so they dont mention him much. IKE had him shot for refusing front line duty just a few months before the end of the war. He could have sent him home or had him load trucks in france or britain, but no, ike wouldnt give the word.
@@spacecatboy2962 Well, to be fair, according to the story, lots of people approved of the sentance and were involved from end to end. And desertion was a significant issue at the time. Eddie calculated, and he calculated wrong, as many with criminal histories do.
Awesome. That's some History Guy or Mark Felton level stuff right there.
I hate to sound like a Karen but did you mean Tom Fenton? Judicial Watch?
@@edotis3389 ua-cam.com/video/zOWCFGTyJac/v-deo.html
Great channel!
@@edotis3389 No, he meant Mark Felton, from the Mark Felton Productions UA-cam channel. He's a respected British historian and author too.
@@nunopereira6092 I love all history. Thanks. Look into Tom Fenton.
Great presentation, thank you.
Great one Ward. Thank you!
I’ve often read of the “revolt of the admirals”, but it was always high level and summary. Thanks for your comprehensive clarification of a pretty dramatic story.
Also an eye opener regarding the death of James Forrestal. Much more to it than the stress and overwork that seems to have been the official line.
Thank you!
EXCELLENT recap of a ‘forgotten’ bit of post war history. I was always confused by these events as they unfolded in the early fifties (I was entering my teens and my dad was a B-47 bomber pilot). Thank you far clarification of the political intrigue the Navy started. I watched my father navigate the political minefield of the Air Force during the height of the Cold War. I see now that it was far worse and more far spread than I ever realized.
Bravo from a retired AF guy. Excellent channel.
Well done sir! I am a student of Navy history and normally don't see new info in these sorts of videos. However you brought up a lot of new (to me) info for this one.
Great stuff as always. So did Forrestal really jump or was he helped out the window as many suspect? See the book, “The Unseen Hand”, available online for free download.
OP23 sounds like something that would have happened between the Japanese Army and Navy back in the late 30's or early 40's...
With only one dead, this time.
Much cleaner. No swordplay.
This was a great Naval, and Air Force history rundown of events and persons that shaped it.
Excellent, Mooch. I got the feeling that you blew the dust of of one of your lesson plans on Naval History from your days at the Academy and put it to use again for the benefit of your viewers. Thanks!
Never taught history. 😀
@@WardCarroll You may have missed your calling. I’ve watched all your recent historical presentations, and they have been excellent! Keep up the great lessons. Thanks!
A Naval Aviator once told me, "Have you ever wondered why we haven't won a war since 1948?"
One might suggest that the first Gulf War was a win. Certainly the Iraqis thought it was.
@@DonMeaker ... the ones who were left.
The advent of nuclear weapons (and their use to decisively end WW II) changed so many facets of strategic and tactical thinking, planning and considerations of the “how, when, where, and why” wars would be fought. It’s also worth noting that, coincidentally, the number of deaths worldwide from all “wars” dropped tremendously after 1945.
The aim is not to win the wars but keep the world where US wants it to be. US seems to get what It wanted until now.
Korea?
Another fascinating briefing, with much material that was new (to me, at least). Thank you.
Interestingly, the internecine squabbles between the USN and the newly-established USAF paralleled a similar 'dirty fight' on this side of the Atlantic. Here, in the 1960's, the Royal Air Force 'scuppered' Royal Navy plans for its own 'super carrier', known as CVA-01, which was to feature an island positioned almost 100 feet inboard of the starboard deck edge. This would have allowed aircraft to taxy outboard of the inset island without fouling the landing area.
However, RAF staff officers in the newly-formed UK Ministry of Defence managed to persuade the British politicians that, from its existing bases in the UK and overseas, the Royal Air Force could provide air cover around the world (or at least in every part of it which was a British 'area of interest'). In so doing, the RAF shamelessly gerrymandered the data, using a series of charts that grossly exaggerated the combat radii of their in-service aircraft (especially of their air defence fighters). In the most blatant example, they claimed that, in order to defend the city of Darwin, RAF Gloster Javelin 'all-weather' [yeah, right!] fighters could provide CAP over the coastal waters of Northern Australia from RAF Butterworth, an airfield near Penang in northern Malaya. According to a file minute written by one senior Royal Navy officer, 'the RAF [has] moved Australia by 500 nautical miles'. [Note; For those wishing to learn more, there is a Wikipedia article on CVA-01 but it has marked shortcomings.]
To paraphrase Karl Marx: 'History repeats itself, first in tragedy, then in farce.'
On a separate note, I was interested to see that the only shot of a Skywarrior in the presentation showed it 'bolting'! Was that intentional on your part?
Yours aye,
Adam
I’m here because of your appearance on Rick Beato’s channel. I’ve watched a few of your vids now and, man, you are a good story teller. Subbed from Scotland.
Welcome aboard, Sam! Great to have you here.
@@WardCarroll Thank you, sir. And thanks for your service.
I love this channel. This and Mark Felton Productions are my go to's for military stuff.
So, I guess all this research must have taken you about... what... at least an hour, right? Dang, Mooch! This is excellent stuff! Your thoroughness is really appreciated.
An hour . . . right. 😂
Screwtube shadow banned me. I can only reply to other people's comments. But I thought you were going to talk about the new Admiral Levine who just so happens to be a man wearing a dress. And coincidentally is the secretary of health. The MOST INCOMPETENT ADMINISTRATION IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA BAR NONE ♥️🇺🇲. I'm sure you don't want to get your channel banned. But what are your thoughts on this ABOMINATION???
@@JohnFourtyTwo All because I busted on a guy in a dress with no military experience getting the title of Admiral and secretary of health. Can this administration do anything more disrespectful to the people who serve and proudly wear the uniform ♥️✝️🇺🇲😠😠😠
This Administration disgusts me!!!!♥️🇺🇲
@@WardCarroll I'm sure it was waaaaaay more than that, but certainly worth it! Great story, Mooch!
If there's anything at all that could be added to this excellent and accurate video, it could only be to research Billy Mitchell's story or even watch Gary Cooper's movie about him. They knew this was coming 20-years beforehand and dreaded it.
Well done!
At 5:16 I noticed General Omar Bradley in the pic. The last 5 Star General. My father took me to meet him in 1980 shortly before his death. I didn’t realize the significance of it until later in life. I was only 14 at the time. A true witness and influencer to history, and a great man.
In the end, the admirals were proven correct that the AF had set out to destroy the Navy.
The Navy was gutted but recovered when Korea proved that the AF's idea of all out nuclear war by long distance bombers as the only way to wage war was a pipe dream, and that protecting the sea lanes and forward deploying air power and guns where no AF just could go at all quickly was important.
That doesn't make their shenanigans right, of course, but that's inter-service rivalry for you and it'd not surprise me if the AF did similar things at times.
Them trying to push the navalised F-111 and later F-16 on the Navy come to mind.
Great history lesson. All kinds of shenanigans by people who ought to know better. Especially at their ranks. Meanwhile what's the Army getting out of all this?
The Army got the smallest percentage of the budget since its inception 180 years prior. Also the Air Force had to keep their grubby paws off our Grasshoppers and whirly birds.
Fascinating content! Institutional history like this is essential if we want to understand the kind of inter-service rivalry that continues to this day.
Great lecture. An obscure history lesson of that post war period.
Admirals acting like a bunch of immature kids. "Ooooh his bike is better than my bike, waaaaahh!"
All of these shenanigans are not a surprise given the power at stake. The Navy had largely won the Pacific war and now they saw themselves being pushed aside. Also, both the Army and Navy had cabinet level positions in the past now this was lost to the SecDef and the CJCS. In addition, there had been tremendous non-cooperation between the Army and the Navy during WW2 to the point that someone said, “if the Army had fought the enemy as hard as they fought the Navy, the war would have been over a year or more sooner.”
Even during the Eisenhower administration, it seemed that there was an over reliance on the Bomb. However, as it was seen during JFK’s time and beyond, the US required an ability to react in different theatres and proportionally (i.e. to ‘pivot’). So, in time, the Navy’s fears were groundless, but paranoia was served in the late 40’s and early 50’s on a plate with fries and a soda so I guess they cannot be expected to be too different than others.
What is remarkable to me, given the recent phenomenal successes of the Navy in the Pacific and killing the U-Boats and effecting the landings in the Atlantic that it would be seen in effect as ‘yesterday’s branch of the services’. Even level-headed, smart, reasonable leaders like Nimitz were effectively passed over. Not that they were correct, but rather that they had a tremendous amount of experience. Furthermore, I feel that the B-36 would have been decimated over almost any target when up against Mig-15’s etc. At least the Navy planes were smaller and more agile … and jets.
Projecting force around the world as a superpower is required to do is most effectively done with aircraft carriers. That is why it is still being done at great expense. It works. However, again, I wonder of HST and the others thought that the fledgling USAF needed a ‘mission’ to give it some legitimacy. Hard to say, but on another track, the USAAF had bombed both Germany and Japan to bits and much of this organization was being rolled from the Army into the new USAF. So, while ‘new’ it was populated with many old, experienced hands as well.
To do the responsible thing in how your armed forces are configured should have, ideally, nothing to do with the personalities. All the admirals and generals should see the entire force as one and to distribute capability best so that multi-mission ops can be effected without delay. However, the very nature of successful military leaders such as King and LeMay (exceptional cases …) is to project not only their forces, but their own personalities. They are very good at it and it takes a politician of some salt to withstand these when they feel they must. I always think of JFK turning down his military in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Must have been pretty tough with people like LeMay, Taylor and the others breathing fire. Its seems that he was correct given that we later found that the Soviet forces in Cuba had tactical nuclear weapons, but it was a hunch because no one knew this until the early 90’s. A very dangerous business.
The history books always lay what happened, but without the ‘colour’ (sorry about the ‘u’, I’m Canadian) the facts, while correct are lacking context. Stories like this one really make it rich as it must have been. That bit about the FBI finding the typewriter that wrote the anonymous memo is just the kind of nonsense that results when such things happen.
Thanks for a fine presentation. Henri.
The Navy didn't hardly win the war in the Pacific themselves, look at the casualty number's, the reason that the Army hardly got any press concerning the Pacific is because they basically got all of it for Europe, so the PR powers that be in Washington deemed that the Navy and the Marine Corps should get most of the press for the Pacific, which is fair enough, they deserved it, but look at the number's killed and wounded in the Pacific from the different branches and it tells an entirely different story, just as an example the famous Marine Corps battle of Siapan, most people don't know that there was an entire Army division involved in that battle, as a matter of fact they faced down the largest banzai attack in history on Saipan, not the Marine's, the Army did and most people don't even know the Army was involved in that battle.
To keep things in context something like 2/3rds of all the land warfare casualties in the Pacific were Army, and as far as the overall number's go from the war the 8th Air Force in Europe alone lost more men in the war than all of the Marine Corps did during the war, that's just the 8th Air Force, there were three other Army Air Force commands that operated just in Europe plus the one's in the Pacific, overall number's for the war the Army lost over three times more than the other three branches combined.
Here's the number's overall for WW2;
US Army killed, 318,274
US Navy killed, 62,614
US Marine Corps, 24,511
US Coast Guard, 1,917
Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard casualties combined is 89,042, that's less than 1/3rd of what the Army lost in the war.
Pacific theater alone;
Land warfare deaths (US Marine Corps includes Navy Corpsmen);
US Army, 41,592
US Marine Corps 19,163
That's over twice as many Army personnel lost in land warfare in the Pacific as the Marine Corps.
Overall death's in the Pacific including air arms;
US Army, 55,245
US Navy, 31,157
US Marine Corps, 23,160
The US Army lost more personnel in every theater than any other branch whether it be in land warfare or air warfare.
They all did their share of fighting and dying but the Navy didn't "win the war in the Pacific by itself" by any stretch of the imagination.
Henri,
Are you familiar with Operation Northwoods? Please check it out to understand who these cold war generals were.
@@dukecraig2402 Thank you for your comment and what you say is if course correct. However, I do feel that a sheer summing of casualties is not a complete picture of the relative contributions of each branch. The very nature of the job of foot soldiers will incur more casualties. However, the submarine blockade of Japan and the strategic naval victories made it possible to allow the army landings to occur. The Bomb stopped the war and prevented frightful land battles on the Japanese main islands. I mean to have absolutely no quibble with the courage, sacrifice and service of the GI's. My comment, while perhaps simplistic was aimed at the mindset, as I perceived it, of the admirals when they apparently felt they were being sidelined.
@@henrivanbemmel
Like any other high ranking people from any branch they're only going to worry about their branch.
All of them are in a constant state of infighting over the trillions of dollars of defense money, and they'll ALL push the doomsday narrative if people don't "listen to them".
Just like global warming, the US government gives out 2.5 billion dollars every year for research into it, the one's that come up with the scariest doomsday narrative get the biggest slice of the pie.
@@henrivanbemmel @Duke Craig, great observations and responses to you both. Nice to see a well composed and constructive dialogue on YT for a change. @Ward Carroll! Very nice presentation on the early squabbling between the three branches.
I served on the Arthur W Radford! Wish we would’ve known about this intrigue when we were ships company! Thanks so much for the history lesson.
Wow, that was straight out of a movie. That would make a good movie. Glad all the services get along better these days. 🖖
The USMC usually gets lumped into the Navy. Technically and functionally correct. Vandergrift appreciates that...
The USMC has 2 jobs, kicking ass and eating crayons, nothing to do with politics.
@@CheezyDee Au contraire, the Marines fought their own political battle in the 1950s, to avoid being disbanded and absorbed into the Army. Truman in particular hated the USMC and thought it was a waste of money, and that the Pacific Campaign was the last time it would be useful.
@@RCAvhstape That makes absolutely no sense, what's the Navy supposed to do for security? Station personnel from a different branch on Navy ships? Good luck coordinating that deployment. What if the closest ship to a hotspot needs boots on the ground now? Hand a bunch of sailors rifles? I was a Machinist Mate, not Naval Infantry. The more I read about Truman, the more he seems like a dopey prick.
@@CheezyDee First to Fight by Victor Krulak is a good book that explains it all.
Cheezy Dee and Helium Road, I will say this, a Navy Corpsman can walk freely in both circles. My dad, Marine O-4, said his entire table got up to talk to an E-6 (Corpsman) with a Purple Heart during after-drinks at a Marine Corps Ball.
I was told by a guy that was on the essex during the french dien bien phu siege, that they rolled out a nuke or two to be used to help the french get out of the fix they were in. But then after some calculations it was figured that the nuke would also kill the french guys. But i wonder, if the navy does launch a plane with a nuke, and does not use it, will the plane land back on the carrier with the nuke? And if not, what do they do with it?
I enjoy all your videos but I like the history themed ones the best. Plus - I finally know what the heart with the dollar sign thing is and happily clicked. Keep up the wonderful work and than you for your service.
That’s truly a history lesson for all military folks. As an AF vet, the culmination of our new services was fraught with issues. Every service needed funding and support, but a strategic vision didn’t exist. The forming of the JCS was very important to identifying how we spent our dollars and accounted to America. I think our services are equally balanced, but way underserved in infrastructure. Every service is way behind in this area. Recapitalization is huge. If we don’t take care of the shortfalls. We will see failure.