Independent Air Force Questions

[Jane-DoH]

This is kind of a historical series of questions related to the formation of the various independent Air Forces around the world.

1.) Who was the first person to think of the idea of an independent Air Force?

2.) Was Giulio Douhet inspired by Hugh Trenchard or vice versa? Did they come up with their basic ideas on their own?

3.) I know Billy Mitchell was inspired by Hugh Trenchard and the RAF, but how much influence did Trenchard's (and the RAF) concepts have in influencing Mitchell's ideas and concepts?

[Herc-u-lease]

Jane,

I can only answer Q1 and i'm sure there are far more knowledgeable people than me who will add in details. It was Lt General Jan Smuts. Whether he thought of the idea or if it was simply his name at the top of the paper is a different question. RAF 90th Anniversary (http://www.airwar1.org.uk/raf%20anniv.htm)

this got drilled into us while not walking on the carpet :ugh:

H-u-L

[Rector16]

I'll have a go at Q2. Guilio Douhet was ahead of Trenchard. Douhet started writing in early 1912 (during the Italian/Ottoman war for control of Libya). Trenchard wasn't really in the game at that point (he learned to fly in 1912 - but wasn't writing much about it until 1913 onwards during his time at CFS). Douhet continued to publish (from his cell - imprisoned for ordering mods to ac without authorisation) until well after WW1 - writing his key treatise in 1921 (I think). Douhet was aware of 'Boom' but was ahead of him (to start with at least).

Hope this helps - with all the answers to your Qs you should have the dullest dinner party in the world!!! :ok:

[tornadoken]

Don't get over-centred on uniform colour. Military money all comes from one pot and Ministers do not spend more on 3 separate (land+sea+air) Forces than they would on 1 or 2 multi-mode Forces. Smuts 1917 recommended splitting out Air (and integrating till-then overlapping Land-Air and Marine-Air), in part because Ministers feared civilian panic from Zeppelins, and in part because UK's own Paralysers were drifting, not well-managed in the grotesquely overloaded Ministry of Munitions competing for materials with the Air Members of the Board of Admiralty. Right mess. Accountability; not me guv! one fall-guy needed; ambitious personalities (Lloyd George, Churchill). "Independent" did not mean "extra money": it meant targetting separately from support of monitor- and artillery-bombardment.

Imperial Japan and USArmy/USNavy (till 1947) found it entirely suitable to run Air Arms integrated within discrete land and naval Forces. USN continues to integrate Air within its Force, even while segregating its Navy and Marine Air. Neither Belgium nor Canada have lost capability by re-naming Air as Component within unified Armed Forces. Unit esprit de corps is not dependent on reporting chains of Top Brass bidding for budget. There is no objective "best practice".

[Jane-DoH]

tornadoken

Oh, I'm aware you can do fine if you have an Army and Navy with their own Air Forces, or an independent Air Force with an Army and Navy as well.

[Pontius Navigator]

USArmy/USNavy (till 1947) found it entirely suitable to run Air Arms integrated within discrete land and naval Forces. USN continues to integrate Air within its Force

I would agree about the US Navy having its own air arm but pretty clearly the Marines will be more concerned with the land battle and the Navy with the sea battle. Separate arms makes sense for them given the scale of their forces.

In the case of the US Army Air Force the case was far from clear cut as the USAAF was initially engaged only in strategic bombing, very much the preserve of an independent air force.

[Roadster280]

Military money all comes from one pot and Ministers do not spend more on 3 separate (land+sea+air) Forces than they would on 1 or 2 multi-mode Forces.

I do not think this is at all true. Not that I am advocating reversion of the RFC and RNAS, but if this was to happen, I can think of several functions that would no longer be required:

RAF College - train offrs at Sandhurst and Dartmouth. Both have plenty of capacity.
RAF Halton - train ORs in Army and Navy establishments.
RAF Police - RMP has a much wider footprint, and RAFP uses "police" for duties that don't require a warrant.
RAF Intelligence organization - already becoming J2 anyway.

Equally though, if we HAVE to have an RAF, I don't see why we also need an AAC. FAA yes, because of the embarking ships malarkey, but AAC?

[The B Word]

1911? Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries...

...from that I can guess you know what is coming next?

France were first to indentify the need for a military air force:

From December 1909, the French Department of War began to send army officers and NCOs from all branches of the army, especially engineering and artillery, to undergo flying training at civilian schools as “pupil-pilots” (élèves-pilotes). In March 1910, the Établissement Militaire d'Aviation (EMA) was created to conduct experiments with aircraft. The Aéronautique Militaire was created on 22 October 1910.

Much as it "gauls" myself to say it (geddit?)

The B Word

PS - better idea here on reloction:

1. Sell Sandhurst - very good property values in Surrey and give profits to Govt. Give the pongos to the RAF Regt.
2. Sell Britannia Royal Naval College Dartmouth - again good property values on the South Hams and give profits to Govt. Start up the RAF Marine Branch again.
3. All relocate to Royal Air Force College Cranwell - now that is value for money for the country that is broke! Roll "teeny weeny airlines" and what's left of the Fish-head's Air Arm (after all it used to be the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force 70-odd years ago) into the RAF. Double Bonus: No more inter-service whining about "Look Sir, their in Hotels"...
4. Job done :E