P-38 debate for ETO - Letter from Col Rau, CO 20th FG - March 1944-December 1944

From Wiki ;
In 1940, Zemke was sent to England as a combat observer with the Royal Air Force, studying the tactics of both the RAF and the Luftwaffe, observations that he would use later when the United States entered the war. In 1941, he was sent to the Soviet Union to instruct Russian pilots in flying lend-lease P-40 Tomahawks.
World War II service
56th Fighter Group

In February 1942, after the United States' entry into World War II, Zemke desired to join a USAAF unit and made his way back to the United States through Iran and Egypt. After several temporary assignments, including tests of the new P-47 Thunderbolt, Zemke, by then a major, became group commander of the 56th Fighter Group—the first fighter group to fly the P-47—on September 16, 1942, preparing it for movement to England. Not impressed with the performance or maneuverability of the aircraft, Zemke spent much time developing tactics utilizing the Thunderbolt's tremendous dive capability that would make it a successful platform in the European Theater. In January 1943, the 56th was sent to England in order to participate in the bombing offensive against Germany with the Eighth Air Force.

I had heard that Zemke made his own way back to England without orders so that he could use his knowledge and experience to shape the US squadrons being brought up to operational readiness. I believe that this irked his superior officers who held his promotions back for the remainder of his career. I can not validate this - but believe it may well be the reason he never got beyond Colonel.

Juha said:

Hello Drgondog
Intresting info. Off the topic but do You have any idea why Zemke, who seems to have been an exeptionally good combat leader never advanced beyond the rank of colonel even if he stayed in USAF till mid 1966?

Click to expand...

No. You can ask the same question regarding Blakeslee and a host of other great wartime leaders that topped out at Bird Colonel.. a common thread for those that hit a ceiling include willingness to express dissatisfaction with leadership traits of some of those above them - particularly those that had flag rank with little combat experience - or 'managers and salesmen - not war fighters'..and remember it took Robin Olds a long time to get his star.

It appears worse today.

meaning absolutely no disrespect, but sometimes good leaders in combat dont make good leaders in peacetime. i think its a different dynamic. In peace you are trying to save money, develop a good training base, and attract the best people you can, when there are frequently better offers outside the service. Sometimes the a*ski*cking
wartime leaders are NOT what is required for the most efficient peacetime establishment.

The best analogy I can think of is the civil war union general George McClellan. He organized the famous Army of the Potomac and served briefly (November 1861 to March 1862) as the general-in-chief of the Union Army. Early in the war, McClellan played an important role in raising a well-trained and organized army for the Union. As an administrator and a trainer, he had few equals. He was notable for being meticulous in his planning and preparations, these characteristics hampered his field command ability and made hime a very poor field commander. He proved incapable of challenging aggressive opponents in a fast-moving battlefield environment. He chronically overestimated the strength of enemy units and was reluctant to apply principles of mass, frequently leaving large portions of his army unengaged at decisive points.

Not all field commanders or warriors make the best administrators, and adminsitrators are whats needed mostly in peacetime

Parsifal - we can agree to disagree on this subject.

My perspective is that the top ranks are permeated by war fighters who a.) recognize what war brings to combat units and b.) understand the training requirements to prepare those with no combat experience to understand, to their best ability to communicate such, what to expect in the 'fog of war'.

Create the Administrative function as required to "manage" the Budgets and the Sales. Such Staff officers are eligible for promotion but never to lead major combat orgs, nor be selected for Chief of Staff for their respective chosen Service, unless and until they cross over and lead men in combat AFTER serving UNDER leaders in combat orgs.

There have been many combat leaders that survived and thrived combat at battalion, regiment and division level that survived the politics of the Pentagon - but IMO they should never be put in high level rank competition with the VP of Sales and CFO.. Fighting and directing combat operations should never be assigned to those that have not led men (successfully) in combat.

I think Bill also alluded to the fact (several posts back) that when some WW2 vets served in the post war years they preferred to the keep the bird on their shoulders in lieu of putting a star on in fear of permanently remaining behind a desk. IMO for some, the star wasn't worth it.

ie - Robin Olds.....

Joe - true in context that they weren't willing to perform durance vile at the Pentagon. Robin and dad were next door to each other - Robin in plans and dad Dty CoS ADC - missiles division working for a friend - maj gen Charles Sandy McCorkle - and got really tired of testifying with USN on the virtues of Talos versus Nike. Dad opted out in 59, Robin stayed but still didn't get his star for, what, 12 more years and another sterling combat record.

Neither Robin nor my father 'paid their dues' in staff assignments for a long enough time - but dad said it was long enough to develop an intense dislike for those that developed a significant stain on their nostrils.. most of his command level fighter pilot peers or in some cases lesser rank made at least two stars, some three.