Download or read book A Historical Look at Close Air Support (Cas) written by U. S. Military and published by Independently Published. This book was released on 2018-11-21 with total page 85 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: Throughout the history of close air support (CAS) there exists a consistent theme of friction and interservice rivalry. There are periods where close coordination and cooperation led to extremely effective CAS. Experiences in North Africa during World War II proved to be a harbinger of CAS throughout the twentieth century. The ineptness of the initial air-to-ground integration evolved by wars end into a synchronized, lethal form of combined arms operations. The troubled relationship between the Army and the Air Force over CAS directly impacts four major areas needed to accomplish effective CAS. Those areas are training, doctrine, trust and dialogue. Because of the troubles experienced in CAS during recent military operations in Afghanistan the Army is once again finding fault with current CAS capabilities. The Air Force admitted that there are problems. They also stress, with much justification, that there is plenty of fault to go around. The conclusion of the thesis is that CAS will continue to be an integral part of joint military operations. The Army and the Air Force must focus on improving training, doctrine, and most importantly, trust before any improvements are realized. The lives of US soldiers may well depend upon the effectiveness of CAS.Among military men, it is commonplace that inter-allied and interservice operations inescapably pose grave difficulties in execution. Differences in equipment, in doctrine, in attitude and outlook stemming from contrasting past experience all inhibit and complicate harmonious interaction. Past successes, however, have shown that these difficulties can be overcome where determination is present and effective procedures have been devised and applied by properly trained troops. Experience also shows that armed forces, not only of the United States but of other nations, have been slow to hammer out the necessary procedures. Often corrective steps have been achieved only after many failures in battle. In no area of interservice operations has this phenomenon been more pronounced than in the matter of CAS.The worth of close air support (CAS) as an effective tactical instrument of warfare is one of the most, if not the most, divisive issue between the US Army and Air Force. Prior to the Second World War the Air Service was a growing branch within the Army. To most army generals the value of an effective air corps lay in its ability to support ground troops, adjust field artillery, and conduct aerial reconnaissance. However, the airpower advocates within the Air Service believed that a properly equipped air force could wage war on a completely different scale than ever thought of before. Massive bomber formations could conduct strategic bombing on political, economic, and military targets, forcing the enemy to surrender. To these officers it was a sheer waste of energy and resources to build an air force to support ground operations when true airpower could render ground combat irrelevant.