The air campaign over Korea: pressuring the enemy

Joint Force Quarterly, Spring-Summer, 2001 by Conrad C. Crane

The staff of Far East Air Forces (FEAF) conducted the first systematic study of measures to produce a negotiated settlement in a limited war through airpower some fifty years ago. As both the conflict and truce talks continued, stalemate on the ground and ineffective interdiction inspired Brigadier General Jacob Smart, FEAF deputy commander for operations, to look for a better way to utilize resources. He directed Colonel R.L. Randolph and Lieutenant Colonel B.I. Mayo to find a means of unhinging the communist forces in North Korea. The result prompted a new vision for employing airpower--pressuring enemy leaders to abandon the fight.

Out of the Blue

Randolph and Mayo began by examining the interdiction campaign, which had focused on cutting rail lines to force the enemy to move supplies primarily by road. Planners hoped that Fifth Air Force aircraft could cause enough attrition of enemy trucks that front line armies could not be supplied. This had not worked despite over 15,000 railway cuts and the destruction or damaging of 199 bridges. Enemy repairs, night movement, and MiG-15 jet fighter attacks foiled FEAF efforts to close transportation routes. Randolph and Mayo also observed that the daily enemy mortar shell requirement could be carried by one truck or 100 men with A-frames. It was virtually impossible for interdiction to halt such traffic. In addition, FEAF losses were heavy. The campaign had cost 243 aircraft destroyed and 290 heavily damaged, and only 131 were replaced. (1)

The study recommended that all assets other than those required to maintain air superiority "be employed toward accomplishing the maximum amount of selected destruction, thus making the Korean conflict as costly as possible to the enemy...." Targets were reprioritized based on effects on the enemy, vulnerability to available weapons, and probable cost of attacking them. Candidates included hydroelectric plants, locomotives, vehicles, supplies, and specific structures in cities and villages, especially those actively supporting enemy forces. Based on this study, Smart planned to de-emphasize interdiction and concentrate on the new targets to "bring about defeat of the enemy as expeditiously as possible" rather than "allowing him to languish in comparative quiescence while we expand our efforts beating up supply routes." He knew that the well dug-in enemy was under no real pressure on the front line and needed limited supplies to sustain operations in a stalemate. Smart also believed that destroying such targets should impair the morale of civilians who provided logistic support, though he acknowledged that selection would be difficult not only for operational reasons but because of uncertainty about what decisionmakers thought would work.

The commander of U.N. Forces and U.S. Far East, General Matthew Ridgway, USA, had made an initial determination to influence negotiations with airpower, but his resolve was tempered by his disappointment in the interdiction campaign and early battles with the Joint Chiefs about bombing both North Korean ports and Pyongyang. He also was hesitant to risk disrupting the peace talks. The communists had twice used the excuse of air attacks on the negotiating venue to break off the talks, once with suspect evidence and another time in the wake of an actual U.N. bombing error. Ridgway's successor, General Mark Clark, USA, was not as skeptical about the efficacy of airpower nor as reluctant to confront the Joint Chiefs, who were increasingly frustrated by interminable armistice discussions.

Clark believed the communists only responded to force. Moreover, he had great respect for air interdiction. During World War II, he commanded an army in Italy, where Operation Strangle caused the enemy great logistic difficulty and produced some success, even though it did not result in a swift conclusion. When Smart and Lieutenant General Otto Weyland, the FEAF commander, approached their new boss about air pressure strategy, they found a willing listener. Weyland dealt with Clark personally from then on, freeing the Far East Command staff of target selection and reinforcing Clark's belief in the importance of hitting targets in rear areas.

By early July, FEAF target committee members agreed that a revised target attack program had to be developed reflecting new priorities. Smart cautioned that modifications should not be regarded as a major policy change but instead as an emphasis on destruction rather than delay and disruption. This terminology was intended to minimize Army desires for more close air support and avoid controversial headlines. The FEAF directive outlining the new program was published in the second week of July. The highest priority remained air superiority, followed by maximum selected destruction, and then direct support of ground forces.

New Targets

The first focus for the escalated air campaign would be enemy hydroelectric plants. In March, Ridgway rebuffed a FEAF request to attack them, stating that intelligence did not justify bombing targets whose primary use was for the civilian economy, and their destruction would not hasten a communist agreement on armistice terms. He would sanction attacks only if negotiations were deadlocked or broken off. A message in May from the Joint Chiefs, probably intended to goad Ridgway into action, reminded him that the most recent directives only specifically prohibited attacking Suiho Dam on the Yalu; other power facilities were outside restricted areas. On June 11, 1952, Weyland sent a plan to Clark calling for bombing all complexes except Suiho. Meanwhile, the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force, General Hoyt Vandenberg, shepherded a proposal which removed all restrictions on attacks against Yalu River hydroelectric sites through the Joint Chiefs. Far East Command was notified in time to add Suiho to the list, and Clark approved the attack.