1910s AD

Air Force Journal of Logistics, Fall, 2004 by Roger G. Miller

One must be aware of a significant point. During World War I, the US Army essentially built two separate and different air forces: the first, a training air force in the continental United States, the second, a combination training and combat air force in Europe. A comparison of the chaotic development of maintenance training by the Air Service in the United States with the more logical development of maintenance training by the Air Service, AEF, in France--though it was still something less than a smooth process--indicates the importance of the Royal Flying Corps/Air Service, AEF relationship to US combat capability.

As America prepared to enter World War I, one thing was clear--it was incapable of sending a modern army to fight in Europe. As a result, an American presence on the Western Front could be attained only through substantial assistance from the Allied powers. From a ground warfare perspective, preparation and training would be, for the most part, in French hands. However when it came to aviation, the story would be different. The US Army turned to the Royal Flying Corps in its preparations for combat in the air. In doing so, it began a tradition of mutual cooperation that has endured on many fields of conflict to the present time. In the award winning "The Tail to Tooth Ratio: Royal Flying Corps and Air Service Cooperation in Maintenance Training During World War I," Miller examines the various approaches to maintenance and specialist training and the close interaction between US and British forces. He highlights the successes and failures in developing maintenance and maintenance training programs.

Royal Flying Corps and Air Service Cooperation in Maintenance Training During World War I

Little need exists here to detail the size, strength, and capability of the US Army at the time the United States declared war on the Central Powers in April 1917. Simply put, in every way possible, the United States was incapable of sending a modern army to fight in Europe. A British military mission that reached Washington DC a few weeks after the declaration accurately summarized the situation in four laconic, well-chosen words: "They are quite unprepared." (1) Seldom has the British talent for understatement been more appropriate. This situation, especially in the eyes of British and French leaders, would be complicated over the next year by the American determination to field a separate, independent army and stubborn refusal to amalgamate with the Allied armies. (2) We could spend hours discussing the controversy over amalgamation, but suffice to say that Secretary of War Newton Baker's instructions to the commander of the American Expeditionary Force (AEF), General John J. Pershing, issued on 26 May 1917, were clear and firm: "In military operations ... you are directed to cooperate with the forces of the other countries employed against the enemy, but in so doing, the underlying idea must be kept in view that the forces of the United States are a separate and distinct component of the combined forces, the identity of which must be preserved." (3) And, as European leaders would soon discover, probably no American general between "Mad" Anthony Wayne and "Stormin" Norman Schwartzkoff could be determined more relentlessly to follow instructions--especially those he agreed with--than "Black Jack" Pershing. (4) Thus, the essential question was reduced to how best to organize, train, equip, and deploy an independent army, starting from almost nothing. The answer, readily apparent to all competent observers, was that a timely American presence on the Western Front could be attained only through extraordinary assistance from the Allied powers.

Since the United States would receive the vast majority of its modern war materials from France, the AEF would be assembled and learn its trade in the heart of France, and the Americans would take their place in the trenches on the eastern part of the Western Front, distant from the British army, it was logical that much of its preparation and training would be in French hands. Where ground warfare was concerned, this logic pretty much held true. When it came to aviation, however, the story was a good bit different. Despite the fact that the Air Service, AEF (5) ultimately would accept more than 4,800 aircraft from the French and less than 300 from the British and despite the establishment of aviation instruction centers throughout France, the US Army turned to the Royal Flying Corps (RFC) (6) in its preparations for combat in the air and, in doing so, began a tradition of mutual cooperation between the Royal Air Force and the US Air Force that has endured on many fields of conflict. (7)

Several reasons underlay this development. Most important, undoubtedly, was the common language and heritage. The close presence of Canada and the role it played in the RFC training program offers another reason. Still another was the compatibility of British methods. One suspects, for example, that the British phased system of flight instruction and RFC stress on disciplined air tactics appealed more than the French Roleur system and emphasis on individual flying, though both systems were used. And one also must remember the affinity that quickly developed during the war among British air leaders like David Henderson, Lord Tiverton, and Sir Hugh Trenchard with Air Service leaders like Benjamin D. Foulois, Mason Patrick, and Henry H. Arnold, not to mention a persistent gadfly, who haunted higher military circles, named William "Billy" Mitchell. (8)