A Pattern for Joint Operations: World War II Close Air Support, North Africa
Epilogue
Eventually, the campaign in North Africa would be viewed as a sideshow to important campaigns that followed in Europe. For Americans, as well as the British, it was a serious training ground, offering both practical experience and valuable training in modern warfare. Even before the final Axis surrender in Tunisia the air leaders, Tedder, Spaatz, and Coningham, were writing their views of close air support for the Sicily campaign plans. Eisenhower and other Allied leaders broadly supported the third-priority concept for close air support and the need to gain air superiority before another invasion. Both before and during the early stages of the ground campaigns in Sicily and Italy Coningham's tactical air forces joined missions with Doolittle's strategic air forces to work on the first priorities, gaining air superiority and hampering the Axis supply lines.It remained to be seen how leaders viewed air support in this and other campaigns, how theater commanders concurred or differed with the principles and practices developed in North Africa, how the heightened interplay of air and ground doctrine was sorted out. Would the strong expression of air force tactical air principles survive? Would aircraft builders be able to answer the call for an effective fighter-bomber or observation aircraft, or would the vicissitudes of battle conditions change the requirements? Would communications technology provide better air-ground and command systems? Would better joint training, as promised by McNair and Arnold, help the relationship between air and ground personnel? With all the promises of improvement, how would close air support practices differ from those in North Africa?
