Archie to SAM: A Short Operational History of Ground-Based Air ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ANTIAIRCRAFT DEFENSE THROUGH WORLD WAR II Figure 26. Falling B-24. During World War II, ground fire downed more American aircraft than did enemy fighters. In the European theater of operations, AAA downed 5,400 American aircraft, while enemy aircraft destroyed 4,300. (Reprinted from USAF.) missed only 3 percent; but against flak, the bombers destroyed only 2 percent and completely missed 28 percent. 74 Allied Countermeasures Allied Airmen used a number of measures to reduce the effectiveness of enemy flak. Planners picked routes around known flak positions, used higher bombing altitudes, employed saturation tactics, and devised tighter formations. 75 Two other measures deserve detailed treatment. 42
ANTIAIRCRAFT DEFENSE THROUGH WORLD WAR II Figure 27. Damaged B-17. This B-17 survived a flak hit over Cologne, Germany. During World War II, the Eighth Air Force suffered 20 percent damage per sortie and wrote off 1,600 bombers as “damaged beyond economic repair.” (Reprinted from USAF.) The importance of radar to the defender as both an earlywarning and gun-laying device grew as Allied bombers increasingly operated at night and in poor weather. Fortunately for the Allies, the British held a marked advantage over the Germans in electronic warfare; some say a two-year lead. One countermeasure used against German radar was called window (by the British) and chaff (by the Americans). Aircraft dropped strips of aluminum foil, similar to Christmas tree tinsel, which created false signals on German radarscopes (fig. 28). The RAF first used this electronic countermeasure in the July 1943 Hamburg raids, following a command decision that cleared its use after being withheld for almost 18 months. The second major ECM device, called carpet, electronically jammed German radar. In October 1943, the Allies first employed the device in bomber formations as both a broadband and spot jammer. Estimates vary on the impact of ECM; and ECM impact changed as specific conditions changed, especially weather. Although the ECM device may have decreased the effectiveness of flak 43
Page 2 and 3:
Report Documentation Page Form Appr
Page 4 and 5:
Air University Library Cataloging D
Page 6 and 7:
Contents Chapter Page DISCLAIMER .
Page 8 and 9:
CONTENTS Chapter Page 7 BALLISTIC M
Page 10 and 11:
CONTENTS Figure Page 30 George Pred
Page 12 and 13:
CONTENTS Figure Page 70 Blowpipe .
Page 14 and 15: Foreword Dr. Kenneth Werrell’s hi
Page 16 and 17: About the Author Dr. Kenneth P. Wer
Page 18 and 19: PREFACE excluded from the original
Page 20 and 21: PREFACE always been a factor in air
Page 22 and 23: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Artillery Institute
Page 24 and 25: ANTIAIRCRAFT DEFENSE THROUGH WORLD
Page 34 and 35: Figure 7. British 40 mm light antia
Page 92 and 93: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES American air
Page 94 and 95: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES company deliv
Page 96 and 97: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES (discussed la
Page 98 and 99: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES flak rockets
Page 100 and 101: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES 1953, the rat
Page 102 and 103: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES to 1,285 in J
Page 104 and 105: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Figure 40. Ar
Page 106 and 107: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES cember 1958,
Page 108 and 109: Figure 42. Nike Hercules. The Nike
Page 110 and 111: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Airmen test-f
Page 112 and 113: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Bomarc failed
Page 114 and 115:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Despite knowl
Page 116 and 117:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Figure 47. Ha
Page 118 and 119:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Army decided
Page 120 and 121:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES The third fam
Page 122 and 123:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES with both les
Page 124 and 125:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES that fired ov
Page 126 and 127:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Figure 53. Br
Page 128 and 129:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES The two-decad
Page 130 and 131:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES A. H. Peterso
Page 132 and 133:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES “SAMs Spur
Page 134 and 135:
Chapter 3 Airmen versus Guerrillas:
Page 136 and 137:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS the next y
Page 138 and 139:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS war with t
Page 140 and 141:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS Figure 56.
Page 142 and 143:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS firings fr
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS and Navy c
Page 148 and 149:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS American A
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS but modifi
Page 156 and 157:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS In all, du
Page 158 and 159:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS least an e
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS War Vietna
Page 164 and 165:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS D.C.: Depa
Page 166 and 167:
AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS 97, 121; a
Page 168 and 169:
Chapter 4 Operations between Vietna
Page 170 and 171:
OPERATIONS BETWEEN VIETNAM AND THE
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Chapter 5 Ballistic Missile Defense
Page 204 and 205:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE Army cons
Page 206 and 207:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE Figure 80
Page 208 and 209:
Figure 81. Spartan launch. The Spar
Page 210 and 211:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE a limited
Page 212 and 213:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE these wer
Page 214 and 215:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ment to c
Page 216 and 217:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE developin
Page 218 and 219:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE Radar Int
Page 220 and 221:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE when the
Page 222 and 223:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE casualtie
Page 224 and 225:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE fluential
Page 226 and 227:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE missiles
Page 228 and 229:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE psycholog
Page 230 and 231:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 6. Army O
Page 232 and 233:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE April 196
Page 234 and 235:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 54. Reiss
Page 236 and 237:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 74. GWAPS
Page 238 and 239:
Chapter 6 Ground-Based Air Defense
Page 240 and 241:
GROUND-BASED AIR DEFENSE SINCE 1990
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Chapter 7 Ballistic Missile Defense
Page 260 and 261:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE IN THE 19
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Figure 96. Arrow launch.The Arrow i
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Chapter 8 Summary, Trends, and Conc
Page 292 and 293:
SUMMARY, TRENDS, AND CONCLUSIONS ev
Page 294 and 295:
SUMMARY, TRENDS, AND CONCLUSIONS te
Page 296 and 297:
SUMMARY, TRENDS, AND CONCLUSIONS EC
Page 298 and 299:
Index A-1, 128, 227-28, 232 A-4, 12
Page 300 and 301:
INDEX Convair, 98 Crotale, 158 D-da
Page 302 and 303:
INDEX Gulf of Tonkin incident, 115
Page 304 and 305:
INDEX Remagen, 24, 57, 270 RF-4C, 1
Page 306 and 307:
INDEX SAM, 34, 74, 81-82, 84, 87, 9
Page 308:
Archie to SAM A Short Operational H
show all

Archie to SAM: A Short Operational History of Ground-Based Air ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?