These tests also formed the basis of the current USAF's 'not one pound for air to ground'/'go supersonic or go home' mentality, as well as the Key West Accords which stripped the Army of all its aircraft (which is why the US Army uses so many helicopters, it's all they are allowed), and ironically what caused the Marines to walk out of the conference and the Navy for once followed the advice of the Marines. The Army could design a plane to fit its needs, and the USAF would ignore them and try to do the job with an aircraft they had. Note I said try, When McNamara tried to make all services use the same plan, he championed the F-111, and everyone wound up using the f-4 Phantom, the Navy's plane.
So Dr Clarke basically got his Phd out of spite? I wildly approve of this. EDIT: Also, 1:24:28 Mitchell made such a mess of inter-service diplomacy that Ernest "Angriest Man Ever To Put On A Uniform" King was involved in FIXING IT? And I thought the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy were bad.
The modern phrase for this sort of behaviour is "Main Character Syndrome" and it sounds like Billy Mitchell had it bad. Also, this reminded me very strongly of the leadup to the Revolt of the Admirals. History certainly likes to rhyme.
All the bombers that could do a cross ocean run without tanker support would never do it without tanker support because they are too valuable to risk without tanker support available.
True, but Dr Clarke’s question also misses that we do _have_ ultra-long range strategic bombers that can threaten across oceans, it’s just that they’re called “missiles”. Which is not something most people were realistically predicting in the interwar period.
I think that the friction between the USN and Army transcendes Mitchell. The disputes over responsibility for coastal ASW into WWII shows that this friction was more than bombing capital ships. By the way, in the United States there is a vital strain in professional history for Public historians, historians outside of university.
I suppose if the US Army and USN had been able to better cooperate between the wars then one natural consequence might be that they discovered that Mitchell's advocated style of bombing wasn't a very good anti-ship tactic. But I think failure of services to cooperate is always a terrible disadvantage, and it's hard to believe that Japan was the worst afflicted of the major combatants in that sphere of the war in this regard.
By theway, did you ever read my book, U-Boat Assault on America: Why the US was Unprepared for War in the Atlantic? Thank you for another engaging video on an intersting subject. By the way, what did you think of the Gary Cooper movie"The court-martial of Billy MitcheL'?
One thing worth noting about the DH-4s and likely the SE-5as in the Army Air Force. They were likely US-license built models with Liberty engines. In the case of the DH-4 this was considered "lipstick on a pig" the DH-4 wasn't all that great, so the better engine was a bit of a waste, whereas it would have improved the DH-9 to 9A performance if it had been the model chosen. I'm surprised that they brought any Cambrinos back from the Italian front (there HAD been a US unit flying them, LaGuardia was in it). In fact, the only intact one is in the Air Force Museum in Dayton (given over when the Italian discoverers determined just how much work a restoration was. Dayton also has a DH4 and a "liberty" Se5. No 400 though..
Most of the "pop history" type books I read as a kid directly tied Mitchell's tests to the level bombing doctrine going into WWII. I know that he was hardly alone in his support for what eventually become the "bomber mafia" but I kinda wonder if, in retrospect, when an officer is court martialed for the sorts of reasons Mitchell was, maybe their ideas should be re-evaluated as a form of sanity check.
1:21:40 rubbish - this is all a shibboleth True believers know that the reason Mitchell was wrong was because he did not deploy the Mighty and Glorious Blackburn Blackburn
Ironically I think Mitchell’s actions, and the rift it generated between the US Army and Navy, may have put US naval aviation in a better place than it might have been. I think there must have been a lot of pressure to consolidate the air services in the Depression era, to save money, which could have led to a UK style withering of dedicated naval aircraft design and supply. But after Mitchell there was _no_ way the USN was going to let fleet aviation out of it’s control. Without that parochialism, they may have been persuaded that it was a good idea (particularly if it meant they could squeeze a bit more funding for more traditional fleet elements).
Doesn't really matter if the ships hull is buckling... I believe some were open due to damage & access for assessment reasons, but honestly it doesn't matter because of the focused volume of hits.
In regards to your question at the end of your video: I think that there's a tendency in the US military, in particular, for tribalism. (I think it's endemic to the human condition, but I'm less certain about other militaries than I am about the US military.) Even without Mitchell, level bombing would have had its proponents and power, and as the dominant paradigm, Mitchell's efforts were useful as a public persona and voice to be a stalking-horse for it. But my gut-feeling is that the Bomber Mafia would have had their way all the same. But like you were saying about how Mitchell was a true-believer and a patriot who was sure he was right, there are a lot of those. With scarcity of resources, particularly post-Depression, the idea of having to spread those resources towards concepts that a true-believer was certain were NOT RIGHT would feel utterly wasteful - and so to be fought against by any means necessary. I think that the US Army's similar recalcitrance against a heavy tank or mobile anti-tank armor platform was a similar bit of unitary - and flawed - thinking. Having said that, my understanding is admittedly very superficial. As an aside, it's amusing to me that Nazi Germany can provide some wonderful DON'T DO THIS examples for both the pro- and con- of this kind of thinking in my mind. The demand that all strike aircraft have a dive-bombing capability after Hitler became fixated upon the successes of the Stuka in the early years seems one horrible example for how failing to recognizing changing circumstances can cripple a military; at the same time, the sheer breadth of development programs later on seems similarly wasteful of resources. Though, I admit part that latter is that anything like the Me-163 that is predicated upon using T-Stoff operationally seems like it should never have gotten off the drawing board. (I have certain prejudices. I admit it.)
I wish I still had some of the literature from Air Force ROTC that sang the praises of Mitchell. It's hilarious how much they blindly still believe his bullocks.
I think it ironic that Mitchells biggest legacy is the B17, which it is impossible to see the USAAF in WWII without. Thanks to the obsession with level bombing the USAAF procured a long range bomber to defend against foreign fleets but which proved to be perfect for the European bombing campaign. Without this obsession for level bombing of ships I can't imagine the US developing a heavy bomber prior to entering WWII. That would have had a huge impact on the bombing campaign & as a result the war in Europe.
Wait a minute...if Mitchell had convinced the powers that be that the navy was a waste of money and should be scrapped...well for starters there'd have been no Pearl Harbour. The Japanese navy could have concentrated on attacking British and Dutch colonies with no fear of American retaliation and would the USA even have gotten involved? In fact, if America had had no effective way to enforce an oil embargo, would Japan have even been backed into a corner that it felt it needed to react to with force in the first place? ANYway...question. I have often wondered why the USAAF developed the B17 as a naval attack aircraft and I had never realised we can thank Mitchell for that, and the fact the army never developed a good dedicated twin engine torpedo bomber too, although at Midway the B26 was used in this role. Also, at Midway the B17s that were used were, according to doctrine, too few in number for the job and attacks by groups of four aircraft at altitudes of up to 25,000 feet were statistically unlikely to achieve anything. It was only once the Japanese carrier force was all but destroyed that the B17 felt confident enough to attack from 3,500 feet but by then the job had already been done. Outside of this action I am unaware of the B17 ever being used against ships the way it was supposed to be. Meanwhile, when the Japanese used level bombing against the battleships of Force Z they initially had no effect, finding as the Americans had that attempting to hit a fast maneuvering ship was extremely difficult. I'm not sure at the end of the day if it was a viable tactic that failed due to insufficient force, or if it was never a viable tactic to begin with and Mitchell simple led the Army Air Force down a dead end path. I'm inclined to go with the latter but at least the B17 eventually found its true calling in the skies of Europe.
There seemes to have been a long chain of bad assumptions, wishfull thinking and out right ignoring reality by a lot of people. Just look at what happened with early ww2 bombing in europe. One relativly recent USairforce review estimated that only 1% of the explosives droped by 8th Airforce had a significant impact on the war effort prior to the 1943 changes, as most bombs completly missed the target area... Most bombs that landed in the area did not even hit critical buildings, and most of the bombs that actualy hit critical buildings that had machinery, the Bombs used were either to light to damage machinery or foundations, or were detonated or broken up by hitting the roof. Now take thoes same aircraft and try to drop on smaller targets that could manuver out from under the drop point. The entire US and early war analysis proved, ironically just how garbage a lot of the things that they assumed going in was. They kept assuming that somehow the future was going to somehow prove them right, without actually looking at how reliant the proof they had was. One incident they ignored just how much damage had been done by nature, and never thought to figure out how much explosives would have to be placed to replicate floodwater that is literally ripping 2+ tons of machinery off a foundation and use them as bulldozers.
Neither outcome of these tests was good for the US military overall, the Army and Navy NEED to work together and no single weapons system has ever been enough to protect a large nation. I would, however, say the breach of trust and its exacerbation of the already extant inter-service frictions was more influential and damaging. There are so many prominent air power theorists of the 1920s obsessed with strategic level bombing as the primary way of fighting war that the obsession with level bombing was likely to appear anyway without constant oversight from (and tactical exercises with) the rest of the Army.
Problem with Army and Navy there has always been in service issue, and some people look for a reason to put down, the other service, Billy Mitchell is a good idea man, this causes him to have a clip on both shoulder, when you do not do thinks his way. This causes some people in the navy to believe the army is all like that, and therefore destroys the trust between service. This affect will last for a while, but Billy Mitchell was one on many service personnel who rubbed the other service up the wrong way, so he did not help the issues, and may have made it worse, however he did not cause it. It seem the name Billy Mitchell has continue to be I'm a right personality lovevalleybaptist.com/media/speaker/Evangelist+Billy+Mitchell hehehe
Billy Mitchell was right. There are no more truly armored ships. The B-52 is set to fly for how long? And anyone saying "level bombing" is just coping.😂
I just discovered your channel and so far I'm loving it. However, please for the love of God balance your audio or stop yelling. Its genuinely almost painful when you yell
Believe it or not up until the recent software update people said they couldn't hear me & now without changing a single dial, now I'm too loud... when I get a few hours (ie after move is done and I'm in my new office I'm going to work it all through... and hopefully fix it, but yes it's been interesting
Interesting. I would offer advice, but I know fuck all about audio. I'm just that guy bitching about something without offering a solution lol haha. Just wanted to be sure the issue was on your radar
