Air power is the most difficult of military force to measure or even to

express in precise terms.

Winston Churchill

Introduction

1. Hugh Trenchard (1873-1956) commanded Independent Air Force in

France during World War I and had been Chief of the Air Staff of the
RAF for almost a decade. Brigadier General William Mitchell (1879-1936)
was the first American airman to command air forces in WWI. Later from
1921 to 1925, he served as Assistant Chief of the Air Services.
Trenchard and Mitchell are considered among the pioneers of Air Power
theorist. Their theories have been discused under suitable headings.

Offensive Nature of Air power

2. Both Trenchard and Mitchell always preferred offensive role of Air power.
Trenchard believed that the act of the offensive was essential because it granted
a “moral superiority” to the attackers. Howoever, he also conceded that some
form of defence (interceptors and antiaircraft guns) could be useful “for the
morale of own people”. Mitchell believed airpower was inherently offensive in
nature. He asserted that offense is the stronger form of the war so air power
must be used for strategic offensive. In present era, we find that offensive action
has become one of the fundamental principles of war. Though the concept of air
power has expanded tremendously entailing offensive, defensive and support
roles, offensive capability of an air force is always considered paramount in
achieving victory.

Support of Ground forces

3. During World War I , Trenchard emphasized destruction of targets of

military significance to cut the supplies and infrastructure to the opposing
army in support of friendly ground forces. This kind of air campaign
envisioned by Trenchard could be said as the forerunner of today’s
Battlefield Air Interdiction. Mitchell initially gave much attention to the
collaboration of air with surface forces; but as time passed, support to
surface forces receded to a secondry position in his estimation. His
prophecy that first battles of future wars will be air battles turns true in
today’s world eg. Gulf War in 1990 and Iraq invasion in 2003.

Strategic Bombing
4. Initially dubious of strategic bombing,Trenchard later became the ardent
supporter of strategic bombing after the World War I. For bombing, he
insisted on following international law and supported targets like bridges,
supply depots, production factories, armament industries etc. Unlike
Douhet, Trenchard did not support bombing on enemy population centres.
Mitchell asserted that victory could be achieved by bombing enemy vital
centers like industry, infrastructure, and even agriculture and thus
breaking the enemy’s will to fight. Theory of Startegic Bombing as
originally put forward by Douhet, Mitchell and Trenchard, now also known
as ‘Theory of Rapid Dominance’, has been proved true on most of the
occassions in the past e.g. nuclear strikes on Japan, 1953 Korean War,
1999 NATO operation allied force against Yogoslvia, 1990 Gulf War and
2003 Iraq invasion by USA. However, Luftwaffe bombing during Battle of
Britain, Israel bombing on Lebnon and Palestine in 2006 and 2008
respectively remained unable to break morale of victim population.

Air Superiority

5. Trenchard and Mitchell both believed the essentiality of air superiority to

conduct military operations. Before World War I Trenchard thought that
strikes on enemy air field was enough to gain air superiority but later he
realized that air to air combat is also required to achieve air superiority.
Mitchell believed that air superiority was a prerequisite for all other military
operations. He agreed with Douhet to destroy the enemy air force on the
ground but also considered air combat as a suitable and sometimes
essential measure to achieve air superiority. He said that the nation which
won control of the sky will be “practically certain to win the
whole war”. Years after, we have witnessed many events when opposing
air forces fought to gain air superiority proving ideas of Mitchell and
Trenchard. A clear example is Israel pre-emptive strike (June 1967) on
Egyptian Air Force in which almost 300 Egyptian aircarft were destroyed
on ground. The attack guaranteed Israeli air superiority for the rest of the
war.

Independent Air Force

6. Trenchard initially opposed the idea, however, after WW-I he became

advocate of an independent air force and colonial control through use of
Airpower instead of ground power. Mitchell conceptualized Airpower,
organized into a separate, equal (to Army and Navy) and autonomous air
force under a unified department of defense.To him, Air Force would be
the primary force in warfare, with the navy playing a secondary role, and
there would be an even lesser role for the army. Idea of an independent
air force exists in totality in present era. Independent Air Force has
 become the essential part of Defence Forces of a country and without it no
country should think to win a war.

Force Structure

7. Trenchard gave a very high priority to bomber unit however, he always

saw a role for fighters. Mitchell stressed both the fighter plane and the bomber
He thought that escorts fighters for bombers were essential to ward off the
enemy’s fighter. Mitchell disdained the effectiveness of anti-aircraft artillery.
Mitchell and Trenchard had presented their theories before the invention of radar.
Due to advancement in aviation technology, today’s modern air forces have far
more sophisticated and complicated force structures than originally conceived by
Mitchell and Trenchard.

Conclusion

8. Mitchell and Trenchard had presented their theories when the Airpower
was in its infancy. Since then years have passed but many of their ideas are still
applicable which shows the vision and insight of these theorists.