War From Above The Clouds

Dr. William P. Head's War from above the Clouds: B-52 Operations during the Second Indochina War and the Effects of the Air War on Theory and Doctrine is an examination of B-52 operations in Vietnam and how the air war affected airpower doctrine and theory. His study examines the evolution of this awesome manned strategic weapon in Vietnam to see how the design of the B-52s originally intended mission altered-if at all-the theories of airpower first put forward by Giulio Douhet and William “Billy” Mitchell. Dr. Head also analyzes how this same operational alteration affected official United States Air Force (USAF) doctrine first formulated by Army Air Corps and Army Air Forces leaders before and during World War II-later modified in the 1950s after the USAF became a separate service.

In the aftermath of World War II, airmen had to reevaluate the old theories. Would the bombers always get through? The lessons of the war seemed to indicate that the answer to this question was no, not without long-range fighter escorts such as the P-47 and P-51. Airpower leaders also rightly noted that bombing technology and the quantity of bombers had not been sufficient in World War II to allow airpower to be decisive. Dr. Head contends that the lack of a definitive test for the theory that airpower decisively affects the outcome of war continued during the Vietnam or Second Indochina War.

Dr. Head initially conducted his research for a shorter presentation at the Air Force's Fiftieth Anniversary Conference in Washington, D.C., during the summer of 1997. Air University Press is pleased to present the expanded essay-War from above the Clouds: B-52 Operations during the Second Indochina War and the Effects of the Air War on Theory and Doctrine-as a Fairchild Paper.

William P. Head (PhD, Florida State University) is chief, Warner Robins Air Logistics Center Office of History, Robins Air Force Base (AFB), Georgia. His prior positions include an assistant professor of history at the University of Alabama, Hunstville, and an adjunct instructor for Florida State University, Mercer University, Georgia Military College, and Macon State College. Dr. Head's publications include Every Inch a Soldier: General Augustine Warner Robins and the Development of American Air Power (1995), Weaving a New Tapestry: Asia in the Post-Cold War World (1999), and Case Studies and General Trends (1999). He coauthored Time Capsule: A History of Robins AFB, Georgia, 1935-1995 (1997) and Crown Jewel of Georgia: A History of the Museum of Aviation at Robins AFB, Georgia (1998). This latter work was winner of the 1998 Air Force Heritage Publications Award. Dr. Head is also coeditor of Looking Back on the Vietnam War: A 1990s Perspective of Decisions, Combat, and Legacies (1993), Eagle in the Desert: Looking Back on US Involvement in the Persian Gulf War (1996), and The Tet Offensive (1996). He has published more than 24 articles and book reviews in the Journal of American History, Journal of Military History, and Air Power History journal. His article titled “Air Power in the Persian Gulf: An Initial Search for the Right Lessons” was the outstanding article for 1992 and was published in the spring issue that year of Air Force Journal of Logistics. Dr. Head received the 1994 Air Force Most Outstanding Historian Award. He has been included, since 1996, in Who's Who in America, American Education, the South

and Southwest, and Who's Who in the World. Dr. Head contributed numerous articles to the 1999 ABC-Clio Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War, the 2000 ABC-Clio Encyclopedia of the Korean War and the Encyclopedia of Aerial Warfare, as well as the forthcoming ABC-Clio Encyclopedia of Naval Warfare and Facts On File Encyclopedia of Military History.

This paper examines the B-52 Stratofortress operations in Vietnam and how the air war affected airpower doctrine and theory. It also examines the evolution of this awesome-manned strategic weapon in Vietnam to see how the structure of the B-52's originally intended mission altered-if at all-the theories of airpower first put forward by Giulio Douhet and William “Billy” Mitchell. This paper analyzes how this same operational alteration affected official United States Air Force (USAF) doctrine first formulated by Army Air Corps and Army Air Forces (AAF) leaders before and during World War II and later modified in the 1950s after the USAF became a separate service. In defining airpower doctrine, Dr. Dennis M. Drew asserts that “doctrine has many functions, but it can adequately be defined as a `framework for understanding how to apply military power. It is what history has taught us works in war, as well as what does not.'”1

The 1992 Air Force Manual (AFMAN 1-1), Basic Aerospace Doctrine of the United States Air Force, defines Air Force doc-trine as “what we have learned about aerospace power and its application since the dawn of powered flight.” It also states that Air Force doctrine is “a broad conceptual basis for our understanding of war, human nature, and aerospace power.” The manual declares that doctrine is “the starting point for solving contemporary problems.”2

The September 1997 document-which appeared in late 1997-reaffirmed these points and the growing emphasis in the USAF on combat in space.3 In the very first chapter it states, “Air and space doctrine is a statement of officially sanctioned beliefs and warfighting principles that describe and guide the proper use of air and space forces in military operations.”4 This document emphasizes that “air and space doc-trine is an accumulation of knowledge gained primarily from the study and analysis of experience, which may include actual combat or contingency operations as well as equipment tests or exercises.”5 At the same time, this document declares, “it must be emphasized that doctrine development is never complete.”6 Dr. Drew concludes that “although doctrine may

These definitions and their core components are not completely new. Following World War I, two airpower prophets- Douhet and Mitchell-wrote and spoke extensively on how air-planes should be used in war and how they would become the new primary military weapon. Douhet in The Command of the Air and Mitchell in Winged Defense and Our Air Force called on their nations to develop separate military air services and build vast armadas of bombers and fighters designed to take the war beyond the battlefront to the enemy's heartland. These theories-born out of a desire to avoid a repeat of the bloody and costly trench and ground combat of World War I-hypothesized

that it was possible for a powerful fleet of bombers to attack and destroy the enemy's industry, infrastructure, civilian morale, and socioeconomic leadership, thus leaving the armies in the field to wither and die. In doing so, the only need for ground forces was for air base defense and “mopping up” since, in this “perfect world theory,” enough bombers would always get through to destroy the targets necessary to force the enemy-unwilling to suffer any further domestic hardship and destruction-to sue for peace.8

Since the 1920s, these theories of airpower have seen an extensive maturation process. In the 1930s and 1940s, the Air Corps and USAAF sought status as an independent service by arguing that they could be and later were a decisive force in winning World War II. In the postwar era the independent USAF became the strategic umbrella under which all other national defense policies were sheltered. In Korea and Vietnam the USAF believed it could have been a core component of victory by being a dominating factor on and beyond the battle-field. Since Vietnam, actions in the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, and Kosovo have apparently proven that-supported by appropriate weapons and technology-the current airpower theory and doctrine mentioned above is indeed the major component of modern military success.

In 1999 President William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton and our European allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) assumed the validity of this distilled theory by employing their air forces to pressure Serbian leadership to end genocide in the former Yugoslavian province of Kosovo. This time the matured theories actually worked and even those who had once decried the modern emphasis on airpower were left to applaud. For example, on 6 June 1999, the noted British military historian, John Keegan wrote: “Now there is a new turning point [in military history] to fix on the calendar: June 3, 1999, when the capitulation of President [Slobodan] Milosevic proved that a war can be won by airpower alone.”9

bomber strikes against German and Japanese industrial and civilian targets, daylight precision attacks, and nighttime urban-saturation fire-bombing raids. While these attacks brought great destruction upon the enemy and afforded the Allies air supremacy in support of land and sea operations, they did not fully realize the “Douhetian dream” of winning a war with minimal use of ground and sea forces. What airpower successes in World War II did achieve was to lead American political and military leaders to create a separate USAF in September 1947.

Prior to the Korean War, US political isolationists had so curbed military initiatives and weapons development that the United States fought the entire war lacking a true heavy bomber. The B-29 performed well in 1950 before MiG-15 jet aircraft entered the war and shot down too many of the propeller bombers. From 1951 to 1953 they again performed well mostly at night. However, at no time was there sufficient opportunity to exercise new conventional bombing theories that had evolved with the earliest official USAF doctrine in the 1940s and 1950s.

The development of B-36 Peacemaker, B-47 Stratojet, and B-52 intercontinental bombers provided the United States with the capability to deliver a massive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) did the same thing; and, more significantly, the strategic bomber force was designed as much to deter war (which it did) as it was to actually deliver a decisive strike. In this regard it succeeded very well.

ding jungles and mountains of Southeast Asia (SEA). Political restrictions on northern targets led to an aerial role reversal- Naval and Air Force tactical fighter and fighter-bomber air as-sets flew strategic missions during Operation Rolling Thunder, while B-52s reluctantly flew ground-support sorties at 30,000 feet over South Vietnam and later aerial interdiction missions over the Ho Chi Minh Trail. In spite of great courage and sacrifice, these airmen soon discovered that the limits their political leaders placed on them-as well as their own lack of adequate and appropriate weapons and tactics-left them short of their goals once again.

experts asked this question: Why ground operations were not delayed to allow airpower to realize total victory? Even though the dream was not quite realized, this time it was clear that the technical advances of the 1970s and 1980s-as well as the realistic training and increased professionalism and preparation undertaken by the USAF after Vietnam-made the ground combat in the Gulf much less bloody than even Allied leaders hoped it would be. While airpower did not win the war alone, clearly it was, along with President George Bush's creation of the Allied coalition, the decisive factor in the victory.

The events in southeastern Europe in the late 1990s-ad-justed and refined by 80 years of history-proved the early theories of airpower pioneers were at least a good starting point. The difficult aerial interdiction campaign NATO forces under-took seemed, as Keegan noted, to alter the realities of military history since most experts believe that such operations work best when coordinated with ground operations. The frustrations of Vietnam would suggest that this is a daunting challenge. Only time will tell how much of these lessons will affect future warfare. Current trends would tend to indicate that the future belongs to aerospace forces.

It is important to realize that little had changed in airpower doctrine and theory by the time US airmen and airpower entered the Second Indochina War in 1965-the theories of Douhet and Mitchell were still the basis of Air Force strategy and doc-trine. Air Force basic doctrine first officially appeared in 1953; modifications were made to the official manual in 1954, 1955, and 1959. Even though the first manual appeared on the heels of the Korean conflict and there were a growing number of brushfire conflicts unfolding in the developing former colonial nations of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, these basic doctrine manuals essentially ignored any concrete mention of insurgency conflict or the broader concepts of limited war.10 Instead they focused on the tried and true theories of long-range strategic bombing and fighter escort revised for use against the new strategic enemy-Russian bear. As Dr. Drew contends,

Even at the official levels below AFMAN 1-2, Air Force Basic Doctrine, there was a similar lack of attention paid to insurgency or counterinsurgency. Caught up in the Cold War, US airmen were all but totally focused on nuclear strategic conflicts with the Soviet Union and how best to fulfill their role as a component of America's nuclear forces. One notable exception appeared in 1953 in the form of the AFMAN 1-3 doctrine manual. For the first time, an official publication alluded to what it called “special operations.” But while it mentioned the 1950s' catchphrase for what would later be called insurgency conflict, it defined special operations as “inserting agents behind enemy lines, supplying partisans, and delivering propaganda.” The 1954 revision continued this trend.12

In professional airpower theory, the topic of insurgency received some attention in a few major journals but mainly as a peripheral topic. Predictably, much of the writing was by French authors. In late 1952, Gen G. J. M. Chassin, the French air officer commanding Far East, published an important article in the English-language journal Interavia. The primary topic dealt with the difficulty of locating guerrilla targets. General Chassin, recalling his own experiences, declared that, “the chief characteristic of the war in Indochina is the invisibility of the enemy.” He concluded that “it needs an unusual degree of skill and experience to detect the presence of Vietminh troops in the mountains and forests, where they live under perfect camouflage.”13

Between 1954 and 1956, the French Supreme Command published a three-volume analysis of their efforts in Indochina. They contained captured Vietminh documents that detailed methods for thwarting superior enemy airpower. In turn, the French authors discussed in some detail “the difficulty of interdicting an enemy who required few supplies and relied on a very primitive and easily repairable logistic transportation system.” The work even went so far as to express fundamental doubts as to the efficacy of the basic tenets of US airpower theories based on the Douhetian model. They referred to this

While these insights were available in the late 1950s and early 1960s, US attention to such matters remained secondary. For the most part, the 1950s marked-with some justification-a period of nuclear fascination for the Air Force. In all the years since Douhet, Mitchell, and others first introduced their theories-those who led the Air Force-built airpower weapons and developed theory and doctrine consistently em-braced these fundamental concepts as inviolate means of conducting air combat.

As the 1960s dawned and President John F. Kennedy's attention turned first to the Laotian crisis and later to Vietnam, American air leaders had to rethink their role, at least with regard to these new kinds of conflict. Thus, US involvement in the Second Indochina War at least temporarily forced a minor alteration in US airpower theory and doctrine. The nature of that war and its development temporarily altered some of the official basic doctrine manuals and policy papers within the Air Force.

Early in the Cold War, the US Air Force focused on its strategic role of delivering a nuclear strike against the Soviet Union (USSR) and the People's Republic of China (PRC). The Stratofortress was built and deployed for this mission during the 1950s and 1960s-an era of massive retaliation, mutual nu-clear force buildups, and US conventional force reductions. However, as former Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF) Ronald R. Fogleman noted, “The harsh realities of Korea and Vietnam showed us the limits of nuclear deterrence and revitalized our interest in, and support for, conventional capabilities.”15

During the Kennedy years, US military forces became more conventional, since Army and Navy factions in the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) believed that the future would see more limited wars. Thus, budgets of the early 1960s did not provide for a new bomber or even the production of more B-52s. They were supplanted by Minutemen and Polaris missiles, and tactical weapons such as the F-4 Phantom. The XB/YB-70 Valkyrie

The entire tenor of US defense policy changed from the end of the Eisenhower administration to the beginning of the Kennedy years. This culminated when President Kennedy met with British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan in Nassau on 18-21 December 1962. In what became known as the Nassau communiqué, the two leaders concluded that there was a need to reverse “the atomic `sword' and conventional `shield' strategy that had prevailed in Europe. They agreed that `in addition to having a nuclear shield it is important to have a non-nuclear sword.'”16

US defense policy based on massed, manned-bomber retaliation against the Soviet Union, during the Dwight D. Eisenhower years, was replaced by a buildup of conventional weapons and forces to confront brushfire wars in the former colonial and developing nations of the world. With the Cuban missile crisis still fresh in everyone's mind, President Kennedy was determined never again to be left in a situation in which he might have to commit nuclear forces. The thought of having to start a nuclear war about Cuba was indeed sobering; it had almost occurred because the United States had previously placed all its military eggs in the single basket of strategic nu-clear response. Kennedy now moved to assure that in the future, the US would be able to use a measured and flexible response to such confrontations.17

It was a change that did not please most airpower advocates. General LeMay, the chief of the Strategic Air Command (SAC), openly expressed concerns over dependence on ICBMs at the expense of funding for the B-70 program.18 John F. Loosbrok, editor of Air Force/Space Digest, went so far as to declare that “the doctrine of nuclear deterrence is being re-placed by a doctrine of nuclear stalemate. The strategic umbrella, under the shelter of which major Soviet aggression has been deterred or repulsed at many times and in many places

In the 1950s, the B-52 had already been developed and deployed to carry out the strategic roles and missions of nuclear deterrence. It was a policy that had begun to change as early as the Defense Reorganization Act of 1958, which declared, “the day of the separate ground, sea, and air warfare was gone forever.” In the 1960s USAF policy changed under the able leadership of SECAF Eugene M. Zuckert and eventually led to the creation of a new basic doctrine. Instead of following the pattern in the 1950s habit of changing words and updating catchphrases, the 1964 basic doctrine reflected a new centralized defense structure and a need for flexibility in the Air Force.20

While the USAF had concentrated on bombers and its strategic mission throughout the late 1950s and wrestled with changes in its roles, missions, and doctrine in the early 1960s, Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Lyndon Baines Johnson continued the buildup of material support and troop commitments to the US-supported anticommunist regime in South Vietnam headed at first by Ngo Dinh Diem.21

On 1 November 1964, Vietcong (VC) forces attacked the Bien Hoa Air Base (AB) just outside Saigon, destroying six B-57s and killing five USAF personnel. President Johnson-outraged- wanted to retaliate. Air Force leaders recommended a massive B-52 raid on the Phuc Yen MiG-capable airfield just outside Hanoi. Johnson decided against the raid because of the up-coming presidential elections, but he asked for a postelection report so he could assess his options.22

On 11 November 1964, Assistant Secretary of Defense John T. McNaughton and an advisory team drafted a report titled “Action for South Vietnam,” which presented three options. The first option proposed to take reprisal actions to punish the North for its actions in the South. The second option, which the JCS supported, called for “a full-court press” and a series of “systematic attacks on the North-bombing rapidly, widely, and intensely.” The third option required a “progressive squeeze and talk” policy that called for covert operations in Laos and bombing North Vietnam (NVN). This option proposed to begin at a low level of intensity in the panhandle area and move up in both latitude and in the level of violence toward more lucrative targets in Hanoi and Haiphong. Johnson favored the third option, since he believed it allowed him to in-crease pressure until he could reach a negotiated settlement that would leave the pro-US South to build a secure nation. It meant the United States could increase the “quotient of pain” at anytime, posing an implied threat of increased military violence to intimidate Hanoi and the southern antigovernment faction known as the National Liberation Front (NLF) into acting as the United States wished. It also avoided a direct confrontation with the USSR and PRC and provided a sense of consensus within the administration and Congress, which Johnson needed in order to carry out his policies elsewhere.

Before he knew it, the president had his hands full with “a pi-- ant little war” in Vietnam, and the United States soon fell into a policy of gradual force buildup and limited use of air-power. It was a plan that ignored the need to stabilize South Vietnam socially, politically, and economically. It was a policy, coupled with the resilience of the enemy that-in retrospect- could not secure South Vietnam or defeat the VC Southern Communist guerrillas or the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN).

US airpower became a compromise weapon for Johnson. It limited the commitment of ground forces, especially reserves, and caused spectacular numbers and pictures of destruction. It also satisfied “hawks” like Senators Richard B. Russell (D-Ga.) and John Stennis (D-Miss.) while mollifying moderates and defusing liberals. But even airpower had drawbacks; the president rightly feared that air attacks too close to China might cause a repeat of the Korean intervention, which for two years delayed the settlement of that war. Early US air operations were tightly restricted out for fear of war with the PRC or USSR. It was not until the 1970s that President Richard M. Nixon-with friendlier relations with China and the Soviet Union on the horizon-employed B-52s in a more conventional and effective fashion. By then the nature of the war had changed; “Vietnamization” was under way and air power was used to cover a US retreat.

In order to understand the role of B-52s in Indochina and why their initial employment agitated USAF leaders, one must understand the background of the weapon system and know why it was built in the first place. On 28 June 1946, the Air Force designated Boeing's 360,000-pound (lb), six-engine turboprop, straight-wing Model 462 heavy bomber-the XB-52. In October the XB-52's designation was switched to the 230,000

In March 1949, a board of senior Air Force officers recommended buying the B-52 design. The original contract called for Boeing to build two prototypes-both without expensive tactical equipment-but Boeing and USAF officials later agreed to install tactical equipment on the second bomber, re-designating it as the YB-52 prototype. Contrary to normal procedures, it flew on 15 April 1952-before its XB cousin-when test pilot A. M. “Tex” Johnston flew it for two hours and 31 minutes from Renton Field, Seattle, Washington, to Larson Air Force Base (AFB), Washington. By October it “had flown 50 hours at speeds up to Mach 0.84 without full power at altitudes above 50,000 feet.” The USAF accepted the YB-52 on 31 March 1953 but left it with Boeing for further testing. It made 345 flights covering a total of 738 hours.25

The XB-52 flew for the first time on 15 October 1952 and was accepted in 1953 for the Air Force's Phase II flight test program. The biggest change in the B-52A production models was the expansion of the nose section, which provided side-by-side pilot seating to replace the original tandem seating arrangement. The B-52As flew for the first time on 5 August 1954. Originally, the Air Force agreed to buy 13, but only three were accepted while the other 10 were completed as B models.26

To counter new Soviet intercontinental jet bombers in 1955, Boeing opened a second assembly line in Wichita, Kansas, to increase B-52 production by 35 percent.27 Fifty B-52Bs be-came the first BUFFs deployed to active duty units of SAC. On 29 June 1955, B-52B serial number 52-8711 arrived at Castle AFB, California, and was assigned to the 93d Heavy Bomb Wing (BW). The wing became fully operational on 26 June 1957.28

1962. The G models entered service in SEA during the Line-backer II campaign of 18-29 December 1972. They, along with the B-52Ds, became the weapon of choice during these raids. Of the 15 B-52s lost to northern air defenses during Line-backer II, seven were G models. Overall, Boeing built 744 B-52s. Vastly upgraded versions of the later models still remain the backbone of America's manned bomber force. Their ability to deliver air launch cruise missiles has made them a particularly effective strategic air asset in the late 1990s. The B-52s are also the longest serving bomber in US history.29

Arguably, the most significant B-52s in Vietnam were the D models. The Seattle plant built 101 Ds and the Wichita plant 69, the first flying on 4 June 1956. With US involvement in Vietnam growing by 1965, USAF officials initiated the $16-million “Hi-Density” or “Big Belly” modification program, which re-configured Ds and provided the United States with the first bomber able to carry out massive strategic missions over the North, even though this would not occur for nearly seven years.

As the 1960s dawned, the B-52s were the backbone of America's Cold War strategic strike force and a key component in the nuclear triad. They were weapons that the USAF could not possibly envision using in any other role, especially not in a guerrilla conflict in SEA. Even so-as noted earlier-during the early 1960s, conventional wars and tactical weapons development received more emphasis. Kennedy paid increasing attention internationally to brushfire wars in Asia and Africa.

Within the inner circles of the Air Force-especially within the newly created Aerospace Doctrine Division of the Office of Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs-key leaders believed that a new, more clearly stated, basic doctrine was needed, as well as long-range planning. Instead of cosmetic changes in doctrine which had been the norm in the 1950s, many, like Maj Gen Dale O. Smith and Brig Gen Jerry D. Page, who headed doctrinal work in the Air Force, wanted substance and eternal vision incorporated into Air Force doctrine.31 While this did not mean that insurgency issues would suddenly become a major focus, it indicated a growing need among airmen to define clearly their ever-evolving job. With the war in Vietnam growing this meant that such considerations had to include defining airpower's role, since the Air Force-albeit reluctantly-would soon be involved in that war.

Changes in basic thinking came slowly in the early 1960s, but they came. It was a shift that did not specifically address airpower's role in limited brushfire wars, and it forced air-power leaders to reexamine and redefine their long-held beliefs and theories. In 1962, General LeMay wrote an article titled “Air Power in Guerrilla Warfare,” which recognized the need for airmen to examine low-intensity conflict. Still, this same study concluded that “general war poses the primary military threat to the security of the Free World, and it is under the umbrella of strategic superiority that the United States has freedom of maneuver in the lesser forms of conflict.”32

The interest in insurgency warfare among airmen grew here-after. In September 1962 the newly created Special Air Warfare Center held a symposium on limited war as part of the Air Force Association (AFA) national convention. Within two years, the interest generated by this meeting and the growing role of the United States in Vietnam culminated in the publication of a new Air Force basic doctrine manual in August 1964. Within the manual, one brief chapter correctly described both insurgency and the goals of counterinsurgency. It delineated air-power's role in both combat and noncombat missions and discussed the “difficulties in interdicting guerrilla lines of supply.”33 The latter concern would need to be addressed again during Commando Hunt operations (1968-72). Ironically, Commando Hunt would prove the efficacy of this part of the new basic doctrine manual. It also proved the relative merits and shortcomings of B-52s in attempting long-range interdiction missions over enemy-held territory, especially flying over imposing mountains and dense jungle terrain.

But while the new basic doctrine manual of August 1964 included a discussion of insurgency and counterinsurgency, like LeMay's earlier article, its doctrinal emphasis remained- as Dr. Drew says, “where it had been since the advent of nu-clear weapons and the creation of the independent Air Force”-on the strategic mission.34 The main reason for the new basic doctrine manual in 1964 was not because of insurgency but the change in foreign policy and the advances in military technology. In 1963 LeMay had directed Gen Bernard A. Schriever, commander of Air Force Systems Command to make “a comprehensive study and analysis of the Air Force structure projected into the 1965-1975 time period.”35 As Dr. Robert Frank Futrell contends in his monumental work on Air Force theory and doctrine, both Zuckert and LeMay recognized that the Air Force needed to “take stock of its capabilities and to look to its future potential.”36 To Zuckert the past had to be altered. The Kennedy administration's policies were different, and the Air Force should adapt to them. He clearly believed that “Air Force doctrine should be designed to support national policy and strategy, which was a somewhat different concept from a pure aerospace power doctrine based on the

The result of Zuckert's lobbying was the formulation of the previously mentioned new basic doctrine manual on 14 August 1964-titled United States Air Force Basic Doctrine-designed to break with the past doctrines in substance and form. The basic doctrine manual was no longer designated 1-2, but 1-1. It moved USAF doctrine away from deterrence alone, assuming that nuclear war was less likely in the 1960s than it had been in the 1950s. As Futrell puts it, AFMAN 1-1 “adapted its doctrine to the concept of national security that had emerged from the new strategic situation in which thermonuclear weapons and an assured delivery capability in the hands of potential enemies had altered the use of total military power.”38 Perhaps equally important was the addition of the concept of flexibility of airpower in response and capabilities. This also led to the inclusion of a brief but important section on insurgency; but it did not mean that the basic theory of air-power, born at the beginning of the century, had changed- only that other aspects were being considered for the time being. The vast majority of airmen still believed in the employment of B-52s in their strategic role, the basic role of the Air Force.39

General LeMay's article and the 1964 AFMAN 1-1 notwithstanding, when the first B-52Fs arrived in Vietnam, much to the consternation of Air Force leaders, the flagship of the strategic air fleet was to be employed in a role contrary to their traditional concepts of strategic projection-namely Arc Light. Even though B-52s were and are strategic bombers, Arc Light was not primarily a strategic air campaign. They were ground support missions flown at high altitudes over South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos in support of Allied ground forces or missions to interdict northern infiltration of troops or supplies. Arc Light raids were B-52 operations flown out of Guam and Thailand (and some from Kadena AB in Okinawa, Japan) from 18 June 1965 to 15 August 1973. Through 1968, most Arc Light sorties were flown below the 17th parallel, with only 141

The first 30 B-52Fs arrived in Guam in February 1965. In March as US Marines landed near Da Nang, the JCS proposed melding B-52s into the new Operation Rolling Thunder campaign. The State Department opposed this proposal, believing it would send dangerous signals of escalation to the PRC and USSR. Many planners realized that B-52s-with only 1965 technology-would have difficulty flying missions in Vietnam, since the terrain provided few offset aiming points or specific ground references to assure accurate bombing. US officials also feared that the loss of even one B-52 to enemy fire would be a major blow to America's world image and to South Vietnamese morale.41

Air Force leadership was displeased that the BUFFs-centerpiece of the US nuclear bomber force-were in SEA at all. Officials at SAC worried that if too many B-52s went to Asia, they might not have enough to fulfill their role as part of the US nu-clear force.42 In early 1964, the JCS had amended the Joint Strategic Capability Plan to require that 30 B-52s be available for worldwide contingencies. During meetings with JCS leaders in Honolulu, Hawaii, in April, Gen William C. Westmoreland, commander, Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) implored the JCS to allow him to use B-52s against VC base camps. He argued that B-52s were better suited for this job than fighters and fighter-bombers, because they could efficiently deliver a wide, even pattern over a large area.43

In 1965 “the concept of operational bombing procedures for large scale non-nuclear strikes was inconsistent with existing SAC materiel concepts,” since B-52 crew training and doctrine were designed for strategic nuclear conflict. Luckily, “the basic Arc Light task of area bombing . . . required only a narrow spectrum of the available conventional weapons inventory,” which included M-117 750 lb bombs, MK-82 500 lb, BLU-3B and BLU-26B antipersonnel bomblets, and AN-M65A1 general purpose and AN-M59A1 semiarmor-piercing 1,000 lb bombs. At first the standard Arc Light load for B-52s based on Guam

In May the JCS approved Westmoreland's formal request. Plans now began for conventional B-52 raids over South Vietnam. However, as noted above, pilots were accustomed to using radar to locate ground targets; and in 1965 Vietnam, radar data was scarce, besides they had little experience flying over dense, three-canopy jungle. Air Force officials temporarily solved this ground-reference problem with homing and targeting beacons that they seeded in the target areas. Planners decided that once radar files had been built up sufficiently, they would go back to radar synchronous bombing.45

On 15 June, VC forces were discovered near Ben Cat at a regional headquarters 10 miles north of Saigon, and a raid was scheduled for 18 June. Johnson, fearing negative world reaction from the use of the B-52s, demanded assurance that no civilian areas would be hit during the raid. Ambassador Maxwell Taylor instructed Brig Gen George Simler, chief of Operations, 2d Air Division (AD), to accompany the mission in a C-123 Provider to guarantee tight command and control so no bombs would accidentally fall on nearby villages.46

Plans called for 30 B-52Fs of the 7th BW and 320th BW to launch from Guam at 0100 hours, rendezvous for aerial refueling over Luzon, Philippines, and meet over the target at 0730 hours. There were 10 three-aircraft cells; 24 planes carried fifty one 750 lb bombs, while six carried 1,000 armor-piercing bombs. Things began as planned, but tailwinds from a typhoon in the eastern Pacific pushed the bombers ahead of schedule. When the first cell banked 360 degrees to slow for the arrival of the refuellers, they ran into the path of the second cell in the dark skies over the South China Sea. Two planes collided and crashed into the sea. Eight crew members perished, while the four survivors and one body were recovered. Only 27 of the bombers refueled. The 28th bomber, with a broken hydraulic pump and radar, landed in Okinawa. The remaining bombers crossed the Vietnamese coast at 0630

hours and dropped their first bombs 15 minutes later from about 20,000 feet. Guiding off a beacon placed in the area the night before, they bombed a one-by-two-mile target box with 1,300 bombs. Half the bombs hit inside the box. They then flew south to avoid the Cambodian border, and near Saigon they turned east toward Guam. One bomber was forced to land at Clark AB (formerly AFB), Philippines, because of electrical problems. The last bomber landed exactly 13 hours after the first one had departed.47

While the results were less than spectacular, Westmoreland told the media he now had the perfect weapon to attack a “dug-in enemy target, saturate large areas, surprise the enemy, reduce his safe havens, and encourage the timid South Vietnamese soldiers to venture into Vietcong base areas.” The Air Staff was not pleased. One USAF report responded, “Of course, this would have to be balanced against the problem of fixing VC targets with enough accuracy to allow attacks on small tar-get areas. Also, the longer reaction time of Arc Light forces does not allow for a response against transient VC targets.”49

Despite these concerns, plans went forward for more Arc Light raids. B-52s flew five missions in July and 10 in August. On 2 August 1965 they returned to the use of radar synchronous bombing. By mid-August, the 30 bomber flights were re-placed by fewer planes flying more missions. Raids no longer had to be preapproved; instead, five “free bomb zones” were created and target folders made up for short-notice missions. Two zones were located just north of Saigon, two were at the southern tip of South Vietnam, and the last was southeast of Da Nang near a suspected VC regimental headquarters. In addition, the JCS assumed final target approval for Arc Light; Westmoreland became involved only when US troops were in the target area to avoid alerting enemy agents again. The smaller-formation raids began 26 August; and by October, as few as five planes flew in formations that allowed the 30 B-52Fs to carry out multiple missions.50

On 14 November, 1st Cavalry Division units-after repelling an attack against the Plei Me Special Forces camp in the Central Highlands and mopping up near Pleiku-uncovered a secret North Vietnamese Army (NVA) base defended by two regiments in the Ia Drang Valley near the Cambodian border. The allied ground forces called in air strikes, and 18 B-52s hit the area on the 16th dropping 344 tons of bombs. By the end of the month, they had flown 96 sorties and dropped 1,795 tons of bombs.51

These early raids demonstrated to USAF officials that the B-52s needed to carry more bombs. As early as summer 1965, the USAF approved Engineering Change Proposal 1224-7 “Hi-Density Bombing System” to modify 82 B-52Ds to carry 84 rather than 27 500 lb bombs or 42 instead of 27 750 lb bombs internally. Including bombs fixed to the wings of the bombers, this increased the B-52's total maximum bomb load from 38,000 to 60,000 lbs. In February 1966, approval was granted to modify the remainder of the 155-bomber fleet. The first D model began modification on 16 December 1965; and the entire 155-bomber force was completed by 8 September 1967. B-52Ds from the 28th BW and 484th BW deployed to Andersen AFB, Guam, in April 1966, gradually replacing F models in combat. In March 1967, Ds also began operating out of U Tapao Royal Thai AB (RTAB), Thailand. The new bombers were completely deployed by early 1968. Of these 155, 22 were lost in Vietnam.52

1965-66. Even though the Ds were older, they were being up-graded in other basic areas that increased their life expectancy by 2,000 hours-double that of the Fs. The G and H models were held back for their “more significant [single integrated operations plan] SIOP role”-delivering a strategic nuclear payload. The Ds were also refitted with all-weather capability; a major problem facing all US aircraft in 1965 and 1966. As one RAND Corporation report noted in 1966, “The Air Force has no (conventional weapon) capability for all-weather bombing in SEA.”53

As noted, the 28th BW and 484th BW deployed the first B-52D Big Bellies to Guam in April 1966, but when they arrived they discovered a lack of standard ordnance. Specifically, there were no MK-82 bombs left on Guam. Until the bombs were shipped from Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota, the first Big Belly missions flew with 24 M-65 1,000 lb bombs internally and 24 M-117 750 lb bombs externally. The B-52s were not the only ones to suffer shortages. Naturally, in 1966-68, as the sortie rate for the BUFFs rose from 100 to 1,600 per month, so did the expenditure of bombs. Soon, this impacted Rolling Thunder as well. Some USAF officers even privately suggested that Army leadership in Vietnam was undertaking the Arc Light raids just to steal attention from what USAF leaders perceived to be the more important air campaign over NVN.54

By spring 1966 President Johnson had become less concerned with the negative impact of the B-52s on public opinion, believing they were effectively curtailing enemy infiltration and hurting enemy morale in South Vietnam. Adm U. S. G. Sharp-commander in chief, Pacific Command (CINCPAC)- was given approval for target designation. Instead of facilitating use of the powerful B-52 weapon, the new policy only compounded tensions between airmen and their Army and Navy counterparts. Airmen had been upset that Army ground commanders were ordering the greatest strategic bomber ever built into a ground support role, but now to have a naval officer pick targets was simply unbearable. Target restrictions and lack of target flexibility was nothing new for airmen; to

While General Westmoreland was pleased with the new Arc Light policies, Westmoreland's direct control over these strategic air assets caused Gen William W. “Spike” Momyer, Seventh Air Force commander, to worry openly that the entire process not only violated the basic concept of a separate strategic and tactical air force run by airmen trained in such combat but that “Westmoreland's employment of the B-52s as long range artillery to suppress `what may or may not be suspected concentrations or supply areas' was questionable and relatively ineffective.”55

Momyer wanted to use the B-52s against specific targets, re-serving just two squadrons to fly approximately 150 sorties each month, while using tactical aircraft to strike enemy concentrations. This disagreement came about partly because no one had any hard evidence regarding how effective US air forces were; since there were no “quantifiable assessments, each general adopted a position that fit his preconception of the role of airpower.”56

Normal Air Force intelligence and data collection were all but completely absent during the Vietnam War. In previous wars the Air Force had kept a data catalogue for airmen to use in planning operations. They did not do so in SEA until 1968 during the Tet Offensive and siege at Khe Sanh. Their lack of ability to select ground targets or use their assets in close air support (CAS) roles also meant that it was all but impossible to commit reconnaissance assets to establish the effectiveness of Arc Light or any other raids in Vietnam. Perhaps World War II hero Lt Gen Elwood R. Quesada-USAF, retired-put it best after returning from a special fact-finding tour of Vietnam in early 1966.57 In his evaluation of the use of airpower (especially B-52s) in Vietnam he declared, “Our effort in Vietnam . . . to me as far as air power was concerned was a little bit of what I used to refer to as operational masturbation. I have always felt that the B-52s were to a large extent bombing forests . . . It was just clear to me that tactical airpower as being exercised in that theater was the product of the Army and Army thinking.”58

There can be little doubt that Vietnam was a show produced and directed by Army leaders. The direction of the Kennedy and Johnson defense policy, as we have seen, moved away from strategic policies and nuclear bombers toward weapons and policies (mostly ground) designed to meet guerrilla wars. In the early 1960s, the buildup of Army aviation mirrored this new direction. Eventually, helicopter gunships and transports, as well as a myriad of observation aircraft, fit nicely into the JCS Publication 2, Unified Action Armed Forces. To the Air Force, this new direction was not only a violation of assigned roles and missions but also an expensive duplication of Air Force assets and capabilities. Perhaps worst of all was the fact that Air Force Regulation 1-1, Aerospace Doctrine: Responsibilities for Doctrine Development, also charged Tactical Air Command (TAC) to “work in coordination with the Army Combat Developments Command to develop mutually agreeable joint doctrinal manuals for submission to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”59

One of the main reasons B-52s had to do the job normally reserved for tactical air assets was that most tactical assets were being used in Operation Rolling Thunder. Another reason was the lack of fighters of the kind needed (ones that flew lower and slower) to carry out CAS or other important tactical roles, especially in the South. Tactical weapons development and fighter pilot training had reduced the US fighter advantage in all areas, especially air-to-air combat. As Dr. Futrell laments, “It was tragic irony that the air war in SEA would necessitate an agonizing relearning process and a hurried adaptation of weapon systems back into an arena thought to have been eliminated [conventional tactical fighter operations].”60

The numbers show just how far the US fell between Korea and Vietnam. During World War II, the best figures available indicate that in Europe 7,422 enemy fighters were shot down while the US lost 1,691, a ratio of 4.4:1. In Korea, the numbers were 874 to 122, or a ratio of 7.2:1. In Vietnam, the North lost 195 fighters-139 to Air Force fighters and 56 to Navy fighters-while the US lost 61 Air Force fighters and 16 Navy fighters, totaling 77. The ratio was 2.53:1. The numbers changed once better aircraft, antiradar jammers, and targeting

It is also worth reiterating that many experts, especially air-men, believed that Vietnam was a ground war run by ground commanders, which excluded considerations from any other service. To many airmen like Momyer, not only was Westmoreland's focus totally on the ground war but also the fact that Army forces had become too dependent on air cover. Maj Gen Theodore R. Milton went so far as to declare that “the Army became over-dependent on air support, and air support of a kind highly vulnerable against a modern force.”62 For these reasons, the B-52 became the weapon of last resort for Arc Light.

Even so, the B-52s should have been placed directly under Momyer's command; he was in the best position to decide which targets were most valuable and how best to use all air resources. In the end, the JCS concocted a compromise by which Momyer became Westmoreland's MACV deputy for air. Under the new plan, operational control was given to Momyer, and most Air Force officers-especially intelligence personnel-were moved from MACV to Momyer's staff. Much remained the same, since Westmoreland still picked the targets, and, as Momyer declared, “as long as Westmoreland picked the targets the aircraft would continue to be used for close air support rather than for interdiction.”63

Throughout the years of Rolling Thunder (1965-68), controversy swirled over actual control of air assets. As noted, Momyer had long wanted a single manager for all tactical combat aviation-preferably an airman. But control of air assets remained a chaotic malaise of interservice rivalry, especially in South Vietnam. Finally, on 18 January 1968, General Westmoreland proposed placing all tactical and CAS assets under a single manager-the MACV deputy for air. When he revealed his plan to Maj Gen Norman J. Anderson, commander of the 1st Marine Air Wing, and III Marine Amphibious Force commander, Lt Gen Robert E. Cushman Jr., they balked. As Westmoreland recalled, “Anderson became rather `emotional,' declaring that the Marine Air Wing belonged to the Marines and no one else.”64

The disagreement went all the way to Washington, where Gen Leonard Chapman Jr., Marine commandant, supported his subordinates so vehemently that the overall area commander-Admiral Sharp-decided to have Westmoreland temporarily withdraw the proposal. However, the Tet Offensive soon made Westmoreland's reorganization plan a requirement; and as a result, on 8 March Momyer was given mission direction, and the USAF was given overall command. It was a pol-icy continued under Gen Creighton Abrams from 1968 to 1972; and as Momyer remarked years later, it was a policy that “should have been done long before.” In many ways the turning point of the siege at Khe Sanh was the flexible air response under a single manager, which began in March. Momyer believed that it was.65

One of the first interdiction missions came during 12-26 April 1966 when B-52s bombed NVA infiltration routes through the Mu Gia pass between NVN and Laos. Among the targets were trucks, road work crews, and air defense sites. Westmoreland continued to rave over the results, declaring at one point that “we know, from talking to many prisoners and defectors, that the enemy troops fear B-52s.” The annual report by Head-quarters Military Region (MR) VII-captured during Operation Silver City II, by the 173d Airborne Battalion on 14 March 1966-seemed to confirm the general's argument that “there was some evidence of reluctance [by enemy forces] of per-forming missions for fear of B-52 aircraft.”66

CINCPAC replied that while interdiction operations were important, he could “not allow additional B-52 strikes because of the increased danger from SA-2 missiles: `Past Arc Light strikes have closed Mu Gia for relatively short periods of time. Results of future strikes probably would not improve this situation significantly. As circumstances stand now, further strikes do not appear justified unless the results can be offset by reducing the threat anticipated.'”67 The reply not only demonstrated the potential futility of the entire interdiction effort but also demonstrated CINCPAC's justifiable concerns over Soviet surface-to-air-missiles (SAM), which had been placed along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

In 1966, B-52s dropped an average of 8,000 bombs per month and flew a total of 5,000 bombing sorties. By contrast, US tactical aircraft flew 355,000 sorties and 74,000 fixed-wing missions. In March the JCS had approved Westmoreland's request to set the monthly B-52 sortie rate at 450, which he then raised to 800 in June 1966. The previously mentioned bomb shortage kept this number to 450 until August, while the actual sorties did not reach 800 until March 1967. By late 1967, Arc Light had already cost $780 million.68

On 1 July 1966, the first Arc Light quick-run operations began when six B-52s of the 4252d Strategic Wing, Guam, and six KC-135s, Kadena AB initiated a modified alert system, which reduced response time to nine hours from notification to time over target. It allowed field commanders to concentrate bombing with the support of the Combat Skyspot rapid-response targeting system, a ground-directed-bombing system in South Vietnam employing SAC mobile ground radar units. It increased MACV targeting latitude, and the selection of targets no longer depended on a nearby prominent geographical feature. B-52s could be guided to targets as long as they were within range of a Skyspot radar point. One report noted, “Accuracy soon surpassed that of any previously used radar synchronous bombing.”69 While per-haps an exaggeration, clearly Skyspot upgraded bombing accuracy, especially regarding target location.

As early as 3 January 1967, overall Air Force pilot shortages required officials to recall 2,300 older pilots while instituting a new shorter and more intense training program to train 3,247 new pilots per year. Continental US operations required fewer personnel to do similar jobs in SEA; thus the SAC units in theater drew on crews from all over SEA hampering other operations, such as Rolling Thunder. In one effort to solve this problem, SAC officials began assigning hundreds of personnel to 179-day temporary duty assignments. The shortages continued while the divorce rate skyrocketed. In spite of every effort to remedy these problems, pilot and ground crew shortages remained a problem throughout the war.71

By mid-1967, B-52s began Arc Light operations from U Tapao RTAB, which meant they could fly two- to five-hour nonrefueled missions instead of the 12- to 15-hour missions from Guam, which included dangerous refueling rendezvous over the Pacific. On 13 September 1967, the final modified B-52D arrived in Guam; and even though crew training delayed the full use of these new large-capacity BUFFs, by the end of the year they were doubling the Arc Light bomb delivery rate. In late 1967, B-52 units in SEA were augmented by elements of the 306th, 91st, 22d, 454th, 461st, and 99th BWs, allowing an increase in the number of Arc Light raids. B-52s flew nearly 9,700 bombing sorties in 1967, twice the number flown in 1966. On 6 May 1967, B-52s flew their 10,000th sortie having dropped 190,000 tons of bombs.72

By 1967 Arc Light was a growing enterprise. From 22 February to 14 May 1967-during Operation Junction City-B-52s flew 126 sorties and dropped 4,723 tons of bombs; of the 2,700 enemy troops killed during the operation, 75 percent died under the rain of B-52 bombs, including Gen Nguyen Chi Thanh, commanding general, Central Office for South Vietnam.73

In late 1967, B-52s flew 228 sorties against 32 targets during an engagement between the US 4th Infantry Division and the NVA 1st Division near the Special Forces camp at Dak To. The BUFFs also flew 36 more sorties in late November in support of US and ARVN forces fighting VC main force units near Loc Ninh. They made their deepest penetration into NVN up to that point when they attacked storage areas and truck traffic 102 miles northwest of Con Thien.74

In September 1967, Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) Robert S. McNamara requested a report on the air war from the Institute for Defense Analyses' Jason Division, an ad hoc group of 87 high-level scholars and scientists. Based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) data, their December 1967 report declared, “the Jasons categorically reject bombing as an effective tool.” Rather than having been degraded, they determined that enemy transportation “actually had been improved because of added redundancy. Where one road had existed previously, several had been built.” Citing this evidence, they judged, “we are unable to devise a bombing campaign in the North to reduce the flow of infiltrating personnel into [South Vietnam] SVN.”75

In spite of this compelling report, the JCS tenaciously clung to their belief in the effectiveness of the bombing and made 10 new recommendations they believed would make the air war more effective. A few of these recommendations were removal of all restrictions on military targets, the ability to mine all ports, and the wider use of the B-52s throughout the theater. Johnson wrestled with both opinions. In spite of domestic and foreign political and economic pressure to end the costly war, he was still determined to see the war to a successful conclusion. He desperately wanted a conventional strategy to defeat the enemy; but every time the JCS demanded more freedom to bomb enemy sanctuaries, Johnson wondered if their next re-quest would be to “bomb targets in China.” In a moment of

One of the most significant B-52 operations occurred during the NVA's siege of the Marine base at Khe Sanh, which began in late January 1968. During Operation Niagara (14 Janu-ary-31 March 1968), B-52s flew 2,707 sorties dropping 75,631 tons of bombs-using a scheduling technique known as Bugle Note-in which ground radar and ground crews kept aloft an unbroken stream of three to six aircraft which struck enemy targets every three hours. The B-52 three-aircraft cells arrived over a predesignated interception point, where they were picked up by Skyspot ground radar and directed to a series of specific targets. This way, targets could be changed up to two hours prior to target time. These tactics also meant that the BUFFs could virtually bomb the enemy around the clock.77

At first, the targets were staging areas, storage sites, and artillery positions 3,300 yards outside the Marines' outer perimeter. Later, US reconnaissance units discovered an enemy bunker complex inside the buffer zone. Beginning on 26 February, B-52s and other aircraft began strikes within one-sixth mile of US lines. The BUFFs proved their accuracy. During the 589 close-in sorties, there was no US damage.78

Johnson referred to the Khe Sanh air campaign as “the most overwhelming, intelligent, and effective use of airpower in the history of warfare.” Westmoreland added, “The thing that broke their back basically was the fire of the B-52s.” A captured NVA officer estimated that 75 percent of his 1,800-man regiment had been killed by a single Arc Light strike.79

In April, B-52s flew in support of Operation Pegasus, the 1st Cavalry Division's (Mobile) spearhead to break through enemy positions on Route 9 and end the siege at Khe Sanh. Later in the same month, they supported Operation Delaware, a sweep of enemy positions near the Laotian border in the A Shau Val-ley west of Da Nang. The B-52s flew 726 sorties and hit 123 targets. Between 19 April and 24 June 1968, B-52s supported Operation Turnpike, an effort to impede “the infiltration of the unprecedented volume of men and material flowing into South Vietnam” after the cessation of the Tet and Khe Sanh bombing raids. The targets were truck parks, storage areas, and troop

The pace of the air war changed in 1968 when Johnson halted US bombing of North Vietnam in an attempt to start serious peace negotiations. Even so, B-52 raids continued. Not only did regular Arc Light raids continue until 1973 but President Nixon would also later sanction secret Menu operations in Cambodia during 1969 and 1970, as well as six of the seven Commando Hunt Laotian interdiction operations that lasted from late 1968 to early 1972. For B-52s the coup de grâce would come during the Linebacker I and II strategic missions in 1972.

As air operations in SEA grew, established theory and doc-trine had to wrestle with the realities of this kind of conflict. In the early 1960s, some USAF Academy and Air University (AU) papers and professional articles from the Air University Review examined the role of airpower in insurgency and guerrilla war. Most agreed with one 1962 Air Command and Staff College paper, “Air Power in the Fight against Guerrillas,” which declared that anyone who believed that conventional airpower was limited had “overlooked the inherent flexibility of the air vehicle. There is no such thing as limitations or impossible conditions, only incorrect tactics or poor employment.”81 While such a statement seems clear, the paper still does not fully elaborate on how airpower, particularly B-52s, should be applied. None of the other papers or articles from that era explained how airpower should be used in SEA, and none of the articles paid more than passing attention to the issues of non-conventional applications of airpower.82

During the late 1960s, only one significant study-”Counterinsurgency from 30,000 Feet”-appeared that examined the effects of B-52 antiguerrilla ground support operations on USAF doctrine. The study is an operational look at the subject in which Robert Kipp, a civilian historian with SAC, touted the effectiveness of the B-52 bomber in countering guerrilla forces. Unfortunately, the article was not an in-depth effort designed to

Official doctrine experienced a dramatic change with the publication in March 1967 of AFMAN 2-5, Tactical Air Operations Special Air Warfare. It was exclusively devoted to special air warfare; and it provided airmen with the first detailed and thoughtful analysis of special air warfare, defining it as the efforts to “strengthen or create resistance to enemy authority among the people within enemy territory.” The manual's authors determined “that military and non-military counterinsurgency actions must be totally intertwined and mutually sup-porting.” They also called for the creation of “country teams,” which were to include diplomats, civilian aid personnel, information agents, military assistance advisors, and unified military command and military component command personnel. Such teams, they argued, should be used to establish and direct a unified strategy.84

The manual also declared that the military component of strategy must be able to adjust to each phase of the insurgency conflict and that, within these phases, special air war-fare endeavors should range from nation building to open combat. The manual emphasized that during combat it was very difficult to obtain totally accurate target identification. Such identification was very important, since “military actions by friendly units which kill or injure innocent civilians can lose the loyalty of an otherwise friendly village.” A clear understanding of insurgency theory led the authors to realize “the fact that both sides in an insurgency have the same `center of gravity' [the people] and the objective of both sides is to capture the support of the population.”85

This was no idle assertion. Throughout the Vietnam War one of the allies most difficult jobs was winning the hearts and minds of the common people. Most feared soldiers in any uniform because they had always brought death and destruction. The whole basis of the elaborate and expensive pacification pro-gram that the United States attempted with varying levels of success and failure throughout the war was the need to befriend the villagers of South Vietnam. Such an understanding by

Of import to this study is the fact that such notions ran, and still run, counter to basic and traditional theories of strategic airpower. In these Douhetian theories, centers of gravity must include industrial, geographic, and/or military targets. The kind of special air warfare described in AFMAN 2-5 was based on joint operations not only with military ground forces but also with civilian pacification personnel and in-country nationals. Therefore, the main job of the Air Force would predominantly range from airlift of supplies to friendly military forces and from humanitarian aid to local villages to tactical air and gunship CAS operations. This airpower would be a low and slow type, not high and fast. The use of strategic weapons-such as the B-52-and strategic missions would be limited under the tenets of AFMAN 2-5. It provided a set of suppositions and air-power concepts that would have taken time to plant and cultivate in the minds and hearts of airmen still almost totally immersed in traditional strategic theory and doctrine. Perhaps it was unreasonable to expect them to do so.

Equal in importance to AFMAN 2-5 was the Air Force's creation of the 4400th Combat Crew Training Squadron (CCTS) in April 1961 at Eglin AFB, Florida. A year later, the 4400th CCTS was absorbed into the Special Air Warfare Center, also located at Eglin. Both were the product of the Kennedy ad-ministration's genuine concerns over insurgency warfare. The 4400th CCTS (also known as Jungle Jim) trained and indoctrinated foreign airmen, including South Vietnamese, and developed counterinsurgency tactics and methodology. The center enlarged this mission in 1962 and even developed specialized tactics and procedures to counter guerrilla techniques.86

In late 1961, with the dispatch of air personnel to Vietnam during the Farmgate program, one would have expected that this exposure to insurgency to result in the inclusion of such issues in official doctrine, even if at a lower level. Although General LeMay's policy paper on guerrilla war acknowledged the existence of such conflict, it defined it as a “lesser” conflict and not a “different” kind of war.87

During the AFA national convention of 1962, the Special Air Warfare Center sponsored a symposium on limited war. Brig Gen Gilbert L. Pritchard spoke on counterinsurgency, which was later published by the Air Force. He discussed the formation of classic guerrilla strategies and tactics and proposed methods for countering these techniques and the forces using them. General Pritchard asked for “close coordination and cooperation of airpower with other forms of military power and with nonmilitary government agencies in a comprehensive and integrated campaign-including civic action and `nation-building.'”88 Clearly, the concepts of AFMAN 2-5 were already present in this speech.

Project CHECO was created by the Air Force on 3 March 1962 “to secure an appropriate documentation of Air Force actions in SEA both for support of immediate on-going requirements and for eventual historical purposes.” A lieutenant colonel, major, and civilian historian originally staffed the primary offices. CHECO proved to be a remarkably frank group of writers and researchers. Lt Col Donald F. Martin became project chief on 1 May 1964, and by the end of the year he and his staff had completed the first project-a six-volume History of the War in Vietnam, October 1961-December 1963.89

In early 1965 the project was reorganized, and the CHECO Division established with Col Edward C. Burtenshaw serving as chief under the Directorate of Tactical Evaluation, DCS Plans and Operations, Pacific Air Forces (PACAF), Saigon. The field chief in Vietnam was Kenneth Sams. In May 1965, officials changed CHECO's designation to Current Historical Evaluation of Combat Operations. They also moved it under

the PACAF Office of Information and determined that CHECO publications should include current history appraisals of all Air Force combat operations, not just counterinsurgency. Under the direction of the Air Force director of Plans in Washington, CHECO's ever-expanding staff processed requests from various commanders and Air Staff members for the creation of one-time studies of specific air campaigns, missions, or programs, as well as recurring, regularly produced histories of various units and programs.90

Two-man teams were to take two months to research and produce reports. Some included trips into the field with air components. None of the reports had any historical perspective, but the field teams collected large amounts of raw data that proved historically valuable in later years. By the summer of 1968, the staff in Saigon totaled five civilians, three officers, and two airmen who were often augmented by USAF Academy instructors during the summer months. At the same time, the term Combat in CHECO was changed to Contemporary.

By August 1968, the Air Force vice chief of staff had made CHECO the sole USAF document and data collection agency in SEA. Concurrently, members conducted dozens of interviews with key personnel. These documents later became a valuable source for books and articles written about the US air war in SEA, especially in South Vietnam. They also proved invaluable to airmen studying their difficult role in Vietnam during the war. While CHECO products were not used to formulate doc-trine, the data in them was the component of both official and unofficial theory for many years.91

Of equal importance was the 1965 creation of Project Loyal Look, later known as Corona Harvest. The use of B-52s in Arc Light and the disagreement about its effectiveness played a direct role in the insistence, in late 1965, by Dr. Charles Herzfeld, director, Advanced Research Projects Agency, and Maj Gen Ed-ward G. Lansdale, USAF, retired, special assistant to the US ambassador, Saigon, on a bombing and firepower survey along the lines of the World War II Strategic Bombing Survey. Based on this suggestion, on 23 November 1966 Air Force Vice Chief

Renamed Corona Harvest on 13 April 1967, AU Aerospace Studies Institute personnel were tasked to define lessons learned, measure airpower effectiveness, “assess the validity of current concepts and doctrine in light of airpower operations,” and recommend modifications to existing concepts and doctrine to ensure they were more effective. The first results came in 1969 with the Battelle Memorial Institute publication of a chronological compendium titled Communist Policy Towards Southeast Asia, 1954-1969.93

Beginning in the summer of 1967, AU faculty and students undertook numerous projects, including research and writing of publications using JCS, National Security Council, SECDEF files, Air Force senior-level papers, and major commands (MA JCOM) documents. They spent three months researching specific topics of interest, receiving input from 19 commands and agencies covering 47 functional areas grouped into tasks, hardware, personnel, support activities, and plans, concepts, and doctrine. These publications-which focused on more specific topics-were divided into four phases: Phases I and II, 1954-64; Phase III, 1964 to mid-1968; Phase IV, mid-1968-end of 1969; and Phase V, 1970-73. The last two were added after the original project began.94

All publications were reviewed first by a panel of tactical and technical experts and later by a board of senior officers. The entire process proved very time-consuming and labor-intensive, expending more than 10,000 man-hours by 1970. Many of the opinions and conclusions ran counter to accepted Air Force policy; and when senior officers began their reviews of these reports, the “Pentagon Papers” were leaked to the public, thus making many in the Air Force nervous. In January 1971, Air Force Vice Chief of Staff John C. Meyer directed that the conclusions be redone in-house.95

called General Momyer-the former TAC and Seventh Air Force commander, who had then recently retired-out of retirement to head a steering committee to publish, for public consumption, various conclusions from the Corona Harvest project so USAF personnel could use them. The committee assigned Lt Gen Felix M. Rogers, AU commander, to set up a review committee to declassify as much of the Corona Harvest data as possible. The primary working assignment eventually fell to three senior colonels who developed and disseminated 800 lessons learned and recommendations. The principal directors were Colonels John E. Van Duyn and Robert L. Gleason.96

While there were many positive lessons from which to draw in these reports, both men believed that the great efforts of Corona Harvest fell short in two important areas. Van Duyn and Gleason were particularly disappointed that the project was “unable to accomplish its principal purpose: a meaningful evaluation of overall airpower effectiveness.” Colonel Gleason admitted, “one of the `stark realities' of Corona Harvest was the identification of the fact that `airpower effectiveness and airpower efficiency were two different things.'”97

They concluded that old standards of measuring performance had to change because sortie rates, the number of bombs dropped, and so on equaled efficiency, not effectiveness. Gleason observed, “halting 90 percent of an enemy truck LOC [lines of communications] would be less than 90 percent effective if the enemy only needed 5 percent of those trucks to sustain operations.”98 This was a lesson that was lost in the numerical glut of truck kills, which flowed forth during Commando Hunt. The lack of precedence for such measurements and the lack of enemy feedback or reaction to the bombing hindered reporting in Vietnam-a significant point in view of the fact that the enemy had as much as anyone to do with the American defeat.99

yet the Corona Harvest project-while not as useful as hoped for at the time-has proved a vital source of raw data for those writing about the air war in Vietnam. Like the CHECO reports, Corona Harvest papers and books have been the basis for 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s official Air Force publications and nonofficial academic writings. Both have had a great impact on Air Force doctrine and theory. Both have been at the center of the major changes made in leadership, technology, and doctrine within the USAF. At the time, this data had less effect on circumstances and policy decisions than they might have if the political atmosphere in the United States had been less charged. Even so, their effect on doctrinal and theoretical evolution in the post-Vietnam era is significant and worthy of examination by all scholars.

Such policy statements and early data collection led to the previously mentioned two-page chapter in the 1964 basic doc-trine manual and the AFMAN 2-5 manual of 1967 on special air warfare. But, by 1965, the continuous fluctuation of policies in Vietnam by US political leaders meant that most of these ideas were ignored. The Air Force was heavily committed to prepare for what it thought would be a classic strategic bombing campaign it originally hoped would be against NVN. Original Air Force plans required use of B-52s as the center-piece of the blit