Development of Allied airpower - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The First World War (1914-1918).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By MB.
#13238070
What do you think about this subject?

What are it's merits and demerits?
Last edited by MB. on 16 Nov 2009 23:18, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
By Cartertonian
#13238075
In what context? Are you considering the matter from an aero-engineering perspective, an ordnance perspective, a strategy and doctrine perspective...?
User avatar
By MB.
#13238084
In what context? Are you considering the matter from an aero-engineering perspective, an ordnance perspective, a strategy and doctrine perspective...?


The treatment would be as holistic as possible, incorporating all of the aspects mentioned.
User avatar
By Cartertonian
#13238096
Lemme get back to you. I've got a ton o' stuff on this, but it's bedtime for this airpower theory student! :roll: ... :lol:
User avatar
By MB.
#13238119
Hope to hear from you soon!
User avatar
By Cartertonian
#13238955
Without boring you with too many details - all my airpower stuff is at home, and I live away from home during the working week. :hmm:

Sorry. :roll:
User avatar
By MB.
#13273062
I am thinking about focusing on the development of the RNAS during the First World War, but of course other areas will be considered. WWI was certainly the most significant period for airpower development and there is little today that differs in doctrine or method from the techniques developed during the first world war.
User avatar
By Cartertonian
#13273307
That'll be bloody interesting. I'm on leave now, so hopefully I can get in the garage and start mucking out boxes in search of my airpower stuff. ;) In the meantime, if you havent already I would recommend reading 'Command of the Air' by Giulio Douhet. Although he wrote it in 1921, clearly much of his inspiration will have been from what was - for him - very recent history.

He was a vociferous exponent of the independent air force, which even today is somewhat under threat - at least in the UK. As our defence budget gets ever more tight, there are (mischievous, in my view) loud voices from the Army and RN advocating that we disband the RAF and absorb it into the other 2 Services - AT/AAR and RW to the Army and MR/AD/GR/CAS to the RN.

I'd be interested in your thoughts as a non-military scholar. :)
User avatar
By MB.
#13273978
Hey Cartertonian,

'Command of the Air' by Giulio Douhet.


I have heard much about this document, clearly it is of great significance and I must acquire a copy somehow.

at least in the UK. As our defence budget gets ever more tight, there are (mischievous, in my view) loud voices from the Army and RN advocating that we disband the RAF and absorb it into the other 2 Services - AT/AAR and RW to the Army and MR/AD/GR/CAS to the RN.


Oh well clearly this is a catastrophic mistake. ;) I cannot really comment though as I am not familiar with the plans for integration.
By pugsville
#13274030
Mistake? Dont know could be arguable. Teh development of independant air force lead to a almost sole focus as strategic bombing as being the sole role of the air force. This leas to a lack of co-operaton with the army and development of ground support, or naval support. The Fleet air arm had pretty primitive air planes for most of the war (the Japanese and Americian navies having direct control over their aircraft did better at developing aircraft), the lack of understanding of the role of ground support.

Many air force leaders in many countries focused on stragetic bombing as the main role of the air force (of what ever nation) as this was carried out independatly of other forces and was seen as a way of having independence of other forces.

Just runningthe devils advocate I think it was most likley a good thing but there ARE arguments/
User avatar
By MB.
#13274032
Is there something wrong with a strategic bombing focus leading up to and heading out of WWII?
User avatar
By Siberian Fox
#13274133
pugsville wrote:Teh development of independant air force lead to a almost sole focus as strategic bombing as being the sole role of the air force. This leas to a lack of co-operaton with the army and development of ground support, or naval support.


I beg to differ. It was one choice of method to deal with a war situation where the army was not immediately able to deliver victory. Take a look at the Luftwaffe. The Germans went in the complete opposite direction, focusing on tactical support for the army to the total exclusion of strategic bombing. When the Germans found the need for strategic bombers they didn't have the right aircraft available. The British on the other hand also possessed plenty of ground attack aircraft and small bombers in addition to a large strategic bomber force.

I don't believe a focus on strategic bombing by the RAF was because the RAF was a seperate service.

Going back to the First World War, the Germans pioneered strategic bombing despite aircraft being in the possession of the army and navy, not a seperate service.
By pugsville
#13274146
The situation coming out of WW1 played out in several countires, with many of the leading proponets of air forces concentarting on strategic bombing. mostly this was poltical as it was the mission that air force did on it's own and therefore desirable , as the development of this as the core mission of teh air force made it independant.

Startegic bombing till mid/late ww2 was almost totally ineffective, it consumed a vast amount of resources, long range strategic bombers were much more expenisive compared to other aircraft and required large crews. Would the recources have been better used elsewhere? A small amount of the effort devoted to strategic bombing for example could have been very effective in the battle of the north atlantic which was competing poorly for the long range resources of british aircraft. Conversely it could be argued that the early war experince of strategic bombing led to devlopments that were so useful later in the war (good strategic bombers and long range fighters).

the Royal navy was effective almost excluded from the british aircraft development programme and the fleet air arm flew mainly old fairly obselencent aircraft for most of the war. (This was in part that all the air minded people were in the air force and the running of the navy left to people with little air mindedness, as well as the respective says in aircraft development) There was a similar gap in the linkage of the RAF and the british army, with little understanding of the requirements required on either side for effective ground support.

The battle for independence in the RAF led to a insular atomspshere inside the RAF (and conversely a lack of air minded personal outside the RAF) which led to the near total embracement of strategic bombing and the neglect of other tasks, both in developing the skills and technique (and even the awareness of the skills and techniques required) as well as teh devlopment of the required aircrat for the tasks. (Late war the fact that fighters with rockets and such turned into great close support aircraft was fortunate as if specielist aircraft were required that had not been considered let alone devloped, the mosquito was a freak rogue devlopment and most of the medium bobmers american)

The traditions of the Royal Navy and the British Army were also a large factor, as both were not really pro-change orginizations. It could have been that if the RAF had not been formed the relatively small air forces in these orginizations could have been given the short end of the stick by these very conservative orginizations and the development of british aerial forces across the range of capilbitlies could have been very much worse than what was achived under the independant RAF.

The existance and independence of the large air forces with the Japanese Navy and the US Navy (rather than seperated out into a totally seperate force) meant that air minded leaders were kept within their organizations and they had a say in the development of aircraft and an outlook that was looking at other missions than strategic bombing.

I think the RAF was the better way to go, but there are a number of issues to be looked at if you want a serious answer to the question rather than just taking teh simple obivious answer without looking a bit deeper into the consequences of the alternate courses of action.
User avatar
By MB.
#13274544
Needless to say this conversation should be split...
User avatar
By Dr House
#13274851
I don't see why. It's not very far off-topic.
User avatar
By MB.
#13274852
Because this thread is about the development of Allied airpower during WWI.

Can't be neatly split, sorry - SD
User avatar
By MB.
#13277424
I read that the Allies developed radio controlled planes during the first world war, is this true?

:?:
User avatar
By Siberian Fox
#13278002
pugsville wrote:he situation coming out of WW1 played out in several countires, with many of the leading proponets of air forces concentarting on strategic bombing. mostly this was poltical as it was the mission that air force did on it's own and therefore desirable , as the development of this as the core mission of teh air force made it independant.


Oh I would agree that the driving force behind the RAF's focus on strategic bombing was political, and I wouldn't dispute that the resource required may have made other aviation roles suffer. I was meaning that having an independent air service in of itself did not necessitate ignoring the tactical role, but I take your point.

In the case of the formation of an independent air-force in Britain, one might not wish to underestimate the anger of the British public for the bombing by Germany during WWI. This not only created strong political pressure for the diversion of resources for air defence, but also for revenge. Initially Britain simply did not have suitable aircraft available for retaliation, or I'm sure they would have much sooner. The political desire to launch a revenge bombing campaign against Germany was one of the driving forces behind the creating of the RAF concurrent with better organised defence against enemy strategic bombing.

Eventually the allies did manage to start strategic bombing raids before the end of WWI...

William Weir, Secretary of State for Air, to Hugh Tenchard, Commander of the independent air force:
"If I were you I would not be too exacting as regards accuracy in bombing railway stations in the middle of towns. The German is susceptible to bloodiness, and I would not mind a few accidents due to inaccuracy."
:eek:
User avatar
By MB.
#13279949
Thank you for all the links, pugsville! Appreciated, greatly.

SF wrote:was one of the driving forces behind the creating of the RAF concurrent with better organised defence against enemy strategic bombing.


Another major concern was engine procurement for the two services.

Hugh Trenchard wrote:"...and I would not mind a few accidents due to inaccuracy."


One finds it hardly surprising that Sir Arthur Harris was a product of the Trenchard school.

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]