[Skip to Content | Skip to Navigation | Skip to Lesson Index]

[ASPC Main Menu | Help | Back | Next]

Lesson Index: [ Introduction | Lesson Objective | Overview | Strategic Bombardment | Pursuit Aviation | Air Corps Tactical School | Airpower Debates | Ascension of Bombardment | GHQ Air Force | GHQ Air Force Organization | Roles for GHQ Air Force | Response to Roles Proposal | GHQ Air Force—Pros & Cons | GHQ Air Force Stimulates Doctrine | Planning for War | AWPD-1 | AWPD-1 Objectives | Response to AWPD-1 | Field Manual 100-20 | FM 100-20 Concepts | FM 100-20 Centralized Control | Impact of FM 100-20 | Airpower Evolution | Increasing Autonomy | Doctrine Evolves | USAF as Separate Service | Summary | Quiz ]

Title: Response to Roles Proposal

Action: The screen begins with a collage showing soldiers marching onto the battlefield with various images of planes overhead, as well the title to the following bulleted text. Show each bullet as it is mentioned in the narration:

General Staff paper received mixed reviews

Voice: Although the General Staff paper subordinated the idea of strategic aviation, the Office of the Chief of the Air Corps accepted the general thrust of the proposals. Despite the protests of airmen,the bulk of the proposals in the General Staff paper were retained and incorporated into Training Regulation 440-15, Fundamental Principles Of Employment Of The Air Service. On the other hand, the more hard line officers at the Air Corps Tactical School decried the limited role of strategic aviation and the overall dominance of surface support in the proposals.

Action: Hide the collage and present a picture of Mitchell standing in his aviator gear:

Voice: While many within the War Department considered the GHQ Air Force an excellent compromise to the problem of air organization and employment, some air leaders, such as Billy Mitchell, attacked the plan as “subterfuge,” which only “divided aviation into more parts.”

[Back: Roles of GHQ Air Force | Next: GHQ Air Force—Pros & Cons]