Page 338 - Airpower in 20th Century - Doctrines and Employment

338 airpower in 20 Century doCtrines and employment - national experienCes
tH

Developing Key Airpower Concepts: 1920-1921

General Mason Patrick ensured that the bomber idea would not be ignored when
he assigned Colonel Edgar Gorrell the duty of writing the final report on the aviation
activities of the Americans in Europe in World War I. Gorrell’s four volumes provide
a rich history of the American wartime effort and a thorough study on the techniques
10
and experience of strategic bombing was included in the report. Gorrell’s report went
into the library of the Air Corps Tactical School where it was used by a generation of
American officers in developing doctrine. 11
After World War I the U.S. military was largely demobilized. But aviation had
shown its worth and a new organization, the Air Service, was created by the U.S.
Army. After a rough beginning, in 1921 General Patrick was called back to serve
as the Air Service commander. An exceptionally talented leader, Patrick worked to
create an effective leadership cadre for the service. A major training center for Air
Service officers was established at Langley Field in Virginia and this school soon
became the center of thinking and development for the Army Air Service.
In the meantime, Brigadier General Mitchell was given the leeway to carry out
experiments with new bomber aircraft. Convinced of the future role that bombers
could play in war, he set out to convince the U.S. Congress and military leaders of
the decisive role that airpower could play in future warfare. Mitchell made headlines
by leading a bomber force that sank the modern German battleship Ostfriesland
in Chesapeake Bay in a series of tests in 1921. Although the tests were conducted
in highly unrealistic conditions, the fact that airplane bombs could sink one of the
world’s most modern battleships, a ship that had withstood numerous heavy gun hits
at the Battle of Jutland, forced naval officers and army generals to reconsider the
potential of the airplane.
12
However, Mitchell pushed too far and too fast. His books and articles advocating
“air mindedness’ and his bombing experiments won headlines, but his open attacks on
13
the Navy and Army leadership did a lot more harm than good for American aviation.
Mitchell was court- martialed and suspended from the army in 1926 for his behavior.
Yet, while Mitchell was won headlines, the real work developing the aviation forces
was carried out by General Patrick, who led the process of transforming the Air
Service into the Air Corps in 1926 and created a sound infrastructure for American
military airpower to develop further.

10
For full text of the report see Mauer Mauer ed., The U.S. Air Service in World War I, 4 vols. (Wash-
ington: GPO, 1978-1979).
11
Crane, pp. 14-15.
12
Cooke, pp. 116-137.
13
For a critical assessment of General Mitchell and his thinking see Mark Clodfelter, “Molding Air-
power Convictions: Development and William Mitchell’s Strategic Thought,” in Paths of Heaven:
The Evolution of Airpower Theory, ed. Phillip Meilinger (Maxwell AFB: Air University Press, 1997)
pp. 79-114.