#FilmReview – Masters of the Air, Episodes One and Two

#FilmReview – Masters of the Air, Episodes One and Two

By Dr Luke Truxal

Editorial note: On 26 January 2024, Apple TV+ launched the much-anticipated series Masters of the Air. This series follows the actions of the US 100th Bomb Group during the Combined Bomber Offensive in the Second World War. As the series is being aired, our Book Reviews Editor, Dr Luke Truxal, the author of Uniting against the Reich (2023), will critically review each episode.

The first two episodes of the Apple TV+ television series Masters of the Air are a great introduction to the air war for those less familiar with the subject. Yet, they also treat the subject with the seriousness that scholars of the air war demand from media portrayals. Stylistically, the episodes blend the storytelling style of the famous documentary Target for Today (1944) with the drama of the more famous film Twelve O’clock High (1949). Other films on air power, such as Top Gun (1986), tend to romanticize or glorify air-to-air combat. The episodes do not do that. Instead, viewers better understand the nature of combat in the skies above Europe. This one-two-punch season opener stands strong on its own. This was a very promising start for Masters of the Air.

These were two great episodes for those unfamiliar with the air war in Europe. The first episode centres around the US 100th Bomb Group, which became famous for the high losses that it suffered during the summer and fall of 1943. For those who wish to spoil themselves, read the book the series is based on, Don Miller’s eponymous Masters of the Air, or Harry Crosby’s memoirs A Wing and a Prayer. John Orloff, who created the series, uses the 100th Bomb Group as a vessel to tell the larger story of the American experience in the air war. The opening scenes show young pilots and their aircrews eager to enter combat. By the end of the first episode, they return, having experienced the true horrors of fighting high above the skies in subzero temperatures.

Their first mission to Bremen begins as an introduction to what a typical mission is like for the aircrews. Gale Cleven and the rest of the aircrews are woken up in the pre-dawn hours for all the work that takes place before a mission. As the time gets closer to the start of the mission, viewers can feel the tension building slowly until the aircraft take off. During the mission, viewers get a taste of the dangers aircrews faced, such as forming up in cloud cover, flak, and German fighters. The combat scenes in this episode are fast-paced and intense. Fighters whiz by the formation in the blink of an eye, and gunners struggle to keep up with the speed of combat. Keep in mind that German pilots approached from the front to limit the ability of the bomber formation to concentrate its guns on the fighters. Doing so significantly increased the closing speed between the fighters and the bombers. Masters of the Air is not the Memphis Belle, where combat is long and prolonged. It is quick, brutal, and deadly. This episode is a great educational tool for what a typical mission could look like.

I thought the second episode did a great job of highlighting the personal relationships between the ground crews and the British civilians living near the base at Thorpe Abbotts. We see the close bonds the children near the airfield had with the ground crew. At one point, a group of children helped the ground crew clean up oil on the runway after the planes took off. For many children, these bonds lasted a lifetime. This provides viewers insight into the American and British cultural interactions during the war.

Masters_of_the_Air__Photo_010203
Raff Law and Samuel Jordan in the second episode of Masters of the Air. (Source: Apple TV+)

No depiction of the air war on film is perfect. There are some areas where the second episode struggled, but these are few and far between. Judging by online reactions, the most controversial scene involved the doctrinal debate between American and British airmen in the pub. I believe this scene did a good job of educating the public about the doctrinal differences between the two sides without having to dive into the high-level strategy meetings that occurred on this topic. The episode also demonstrates that the two allies are quite passionate about their beliefs on how best to prosecute the air war. However, the second episode failed to grasp the attitude with which the British expressed their concerns over daylight precision bombing. The British had tried and failed to carry out their own precision bombing campaign at the beginning of the war. Their experience led them to adopt night area bombing. As the more experienced partner in the alliance, the British were concerned that the Americans might be unable to maintain the attrition rate that a daylight campaign demanded. The Americans were, however, more than willing to sustain a much higher attrition rate to execute daylight precision bombing. Instead, the writers wrote a scene that wreaked of animosity between the two groups of airmen. Had the writers changed the tone of the scene, then they might not be facing the blowback that they are today. It was one scene, but even today, the emotions of the air war still run high.

Overall, the first two episodes of Masters of the Air started the series well and educated viewers about the ugly nature of the American strategic bombing campaign from the perspective of the airmen. This episode gave the audiences the basics of what to expect from typical American raids. As a result, they set the stage for the raids that would begin to stand out more in 1943, such as the upcoming 17 August 1943 Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission, a disaster for the Eighth Air Force. Masters of the Air has done an excellent job setting up the rest of the series. Now, viewers will see whether the series can maintain its form going into the darker days of the air war in the following episodes.

Dr Luke Truxal is an adjunct at Columbia State Community College in Tennessee. He completed his PhD in 2018 from the University of North Texas with his dissertation ‘Command Unity and the Air War Against Germany.’ His previous publications include ‘Bombing the Romanian Rail Network’ in the Spring 2018 issue of Air Power History. He also wrote ‘The Politics of Operational Planning: Ira Eaker and the Combined Bomber Offensive in 1943’ in the Journal of Military Aviation History. In addition, Truxal is researching the effectiveness of joint air operations between the Allied air forces in the Second World War. He can be reached on Twitter at @Luke_Truxal.

Header image: Austin Butler as Major Gale ‘Buck’ Cleven in episode one of Masters of the Air. (Source: Apple TV+)

#Podcast – “A Bridge to 21st Century Spaceships”: An Interview with Astronaut Tom Jones

#Podcast – “A Bridge to 21st Century Spaceships”: An Interview with Astronaut Tom Jones

Editorial Note: Led by Editor Dr Mike Hankins, From Balloons to Drones, produces a monthly podcast that provides an outlet for the presentation and evaluation of air power scholarship, the exploration of historical topics and ideas, and provides a way to reach out to both new scholars and the general public. You can find our Soundcloud channel here. You can also find our podcast on Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts.

From Balloons to Drones is excited to be joined by veteran astronaut Tom Jones to talk about the history of the US Space Shuttle Program. Having flown in space on four shuttle missions, Jones shares not only his own perspective but also reflects on the entirety of the shuttle program based on the interviews and research that informed his new book, Space Shuttle Stories: Firsthand Astronaut Accounts from All 135 Missions (2023), from Smithsonian Books.

71eU0F+tHzL._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_

Tom Jones is a veteran astronaut, planetary scientist, pilot, author, and speaker who completed four space shuttle missions and three spacewalks in helping build the International Space Station. Jones has authored six books, including Sky Walking: An Astronaut’s Memoir, and has written for aerospace magazines such as Air & Space Smithsonian, Aerospace America, Popular Mechanics, and The Planetary Report. A senior research scientist for IHMC, he appears regularly on television news as an expert commentator for space exploration and science stories.

Header image: Space Shuttle Atlantis takes flight on its STS-27 mission on 2 December 1988, utilising 375,000 pounds of thrust produced by its three main engines. The engines start in 3.9 seconds of ignition and go to static pump speeds of approximately 35,000 revolutions per minute during that time. (Source NASA)

#FilmReview – Episodes 1 and 2 of Masters of the Air

#FilmReview – Episodes 1 and 2 of Masters of the Air

By Dr Brian Laslie

Friday, 26 January, the long-awaited first and second episodes of Masters of the Air, based on the excellent eponymous book by Don Miller, premiered on Apple TV+. When I say long-awaited, rumours and articles have swirled around the series for over a decade, dating back to 2012.

I was lucky to see the first episode early last week as part of pre-screening at the US Air Force Academy. As From Balloons to Drones was created to discuss just such a series in the public realm, I wanted to provide a quick commentary with my thoughts from the first episode.

The oft-watched, oft-quoted, and something of related series that Masters of the Air will be inevitably compared to is 2001’s Band of Brothers. When Band of Brothers released on 09 September 2001 (yes, at its first showing on the evening of the ninth, the world was less than 48 hours away from the events of 11 September), 57 years had passed since the events of the show. Many unit members were still alive in their late seventies or early eighties. As most remember, each episode either began or ended with the veterans telling their stories. This is, sadly, impossible for Masters of the Air. I do ponder how Major Gale ‘Buck’ Cleven, Major John Egan, or Lieutenant Colonel Robert ‘Rosie’ Rosenthal might have reacted to having themselves portrayed in the series. These real-life men never lived to see themselves portrayed in film, another bitter reminder that the Second World War generation is all but gone now.

342-FH_001236
Bombs being dropped on enemy installations at Wessling, Germany by Boeing B-17 Flying Fortresses of the US 100th Bomb Group, 12 August 1943. (Source: US National Archives and Records Administration)

In my two viewings of episode one so far, two words continually play in my mind: Poignant and terrifying. Masters of the Air has succeeded where other more recent films have failed – at least for me –  the actors portraying these real men (I cannot bring myself to refer to them as ‘characters’) do so without entering the realm of parody. The protagonists thus far, Buck and Bucky, seem like mid-twenties officers of the time, and I hope their character development continues in future episodes.

So far, the attention to detail seems well in hand. The men gearing up for the missions, the checklist, and the startup process for the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortresses is something too oft missed in other aerial films where pilots and crews hop in and zoom off to the wild blue yonder with nary a wave at the ground crews. The maintainers and mechanics also have their moments so far, and it is nice to see some recognition for the men who kept the planes in the air.

Obviously, the series uses CGI for the aerial battles but has used existing B-17s where possible. With only one episode down and knowing that the air battles are to increase in size with the number of aircraft and defenders, it has, thus far, demonstrated well the speed of attacking aircraft. Some critics have noted that the air battles are chaotic and difficult to follow. It is hard to tell who is who with the masks up and gear on, and the enemy fighters fly by in a blur with the gunners twisting to get off a few shots, but to my eye, there is realism here: the speed and chaos of air combat amongst the bomber crews is well done.

I cannot tell as of yet if Masters of the Air will live up to the hype, but as a historian, I have already found myself enjoying the series both for its storytelling and its accuracy. I also note that my air power colleagues have talked of little else this week and spent an inordinate amount of time talking to other interested parties, including media outlets (it’s a good time to be an air power historian). Knowing that the Tuskegee Airmen and Stalag Luft prison camps will be seen in future episodes only heightens my eagerness for more.

Thus far, I commend all parties involved in bringing the show to the screen. If this series inspires a younger generation to explore their past, ask questions about history, and look to learn more, it will have done its job.

Meanwhile, those of us already immersed in reading, researching, and publishing should use the series as a moment in time to explain what went on in the skies over Europe – and all over the world – during the Second World War: both the good and the bad, the glory and the horror, the rhetoric and the reality of the Masters of the Air.

Dr Brian Laslie is a US Air Force Historian and Command Historian at the United States Air Force Academy. Formerly he was the Deputy Command Historian at North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM). A 2001 graduate of The Citadel and a historian of air power studies, he received his Masters’ from Auburn University Montgomery in 2006 and his PhD from Kansas State University in 2013. He is the author of Air Power’s Lost Cause: The American Air Wars of Vietnam (2021),  Architect of Air Power: General Laurence S. Kuter and the Birth of the US Air Force (2017) and The Air Force Way of War (2015). The latter book was selected for the Chief of Staff of the Air Force’s 2016 professional reading list and the 2017 RAF Chief of the Air Staff’s reading list. He can be found on Twitter at @BrianLaslie.

Header image: A formation of Boeing B-17 Flying Fortresses of the 100th Bomb Group flies over a blanket of clouds en route to their target at Warnemunde, Germany, 29 July 1943. The aircraft shown is the  B-17 ‘Alice From Dallas’. Source: US National Archive and Records Administration)

#Podcast – “The Americans were clearly defeated in 1943…”: An Interview with Dr Luke Truxal

#Podcast – “The Americans were clearly defeated in 1943…”: An Interview with Dr Luke Truxal

Editorial Note: Led by Editor Dr Mike Hankins, From Balloons to Drones, produces a monthly podcast that provides an outlet for the presentation and evaluation of air power scholarship, the exploration of historical topics and ideas, and provides a way to reach out to both new scholars and the general public. You can find our Soundcloud channel here. You can also find our podcast on Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts.

Dr Luke Truxal is the author of the new book Uniting Against the Reich: The American Air War in Europe from the University Press of Kentucky. In it, he traces how the structure of command over air forces in the Second World War created a mess of problems. Only late in 1943 and into 1944 did these command structures change, enabling air power to become more effective. In this interview, Truxal takes us into the dramatic relationships between leaders like Dwight Eisenhower, Carl Spaatz, and more, showing why, in positions of leadership, personality matters.

41KKUqJT9LL._SL500_

Dr Luke Truxal is an adjunct at Columbia State Community College in Tennessee. He completed his PhD in 2018 from the University of North Texas with his dissertation ‘Command Unity and the Air War Against Germany.’ His previous publications include ‘Bombing the Romanian Rail Network’ in the Spring 2018 issue of Air Power History. He also wrote ‘The Politics of Operational Planning: Ira Eaker and the Combined Bomber Offensive in 1943’ in the Journal of Military Aviation History. In addition, Truxal is researching the effectiveness of joint air operations between the Allied air forces in the Second World War. He can be reached on Twitter at @Luke_Truxal.

Header image: A formation of Boeing B-17F Flying Fortresses over Schweinfurt, Germany, on 17 August 1943. (Source: National Museum of the United States Air Force)

#Podcast – “Women aren’t in combat but they’re being killed”: An Interview with Eileen Bjorkman

#Podcast – “Women aren’t in combat but they’re being killed”: An Interview with Eileen Bjorkman

Editorial Note: Led by Editor Dr Mike Hankins, From Balloons to Drones, produces a monthly podcast that provides an outlet for the presentation and evaluation of air power scholarship, the exploration of historical topics and ideas, and provides a way to reach out to both new scholars and the general public. You can find our Soundcloud channel here. You can also find our podcast on Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts.

2023 marks the 30th anniversary of the announcement of the first female American combat fighter pilots. How did the US go from women not being allowed in military aeroplanes to having women combat pilots? Eileen Bjorkman (Colonel, USAF, ret’d) joins us to discuss these momentous changes. She is a former flight test engineer who has flown in aircraft like the F-4 Phantom and the F-16 Fighting Falcon, and she is the author of Fly Girls Revolt: The Story of the Women who Kicked Open the Door to Fly in Combat (2023), from Knox Press.

the-fly-girls-revolt-9781637585948_hr

Eileen Bjorkman is a retired US Air Force Colonel. She was a flight test engineer during her USAF career, flying more than 700 hours in twenty-five different types of military aircraft, including fighters such as the F-4 and F-16. She is also a civilian pilot and author of The Propeller Under the Bed (2017) and Unforgotten in the Gulf of Tonkin (2020).

Header image: Female fighter pilots assigned to the 36th and 25th Fighter Squadrons join together before flying a historic all-female flight at Osan Air Base, South Korea, on 25 October 2021. The flight is the first time 10 female Airmen have planned, led and flown in a formation together while assigned to Osan AB. Eight pilots are A-10 Thunderbolt II pilots, and two are F-16 Fighting Falcon pilots. (Source: US Air Force)

Call for Submissions: Air Power and 1944 Revisited

Call for Submissions: Air Power and 1944 Revisited

In 2024, From Balloons to Drones will run a series of articles that examines the role of air power during the defining year of the Second World War – 1944.

The year 1944 was the defining year of the Second World War. Events such as the fall of Rome, the invasion of France and the destruction of Germany’s Army Group Centre on the Eastern Front defined the war in Europe. In the Pacific and Southeast Asia, events such as the Battles of Imphal and Kohima and the Battle of the Philippine Sea marked important points in the war. In the strategic air war, the Combined Bomber Offensive in Europe peaked. At the same time, the Boeing B-29 Superfortress was introduced in the Far East and Pacific as the US increased its strategic air operations in this theatre of operations.

2024 marks the 80th Anniversary of the critical events of 1944. At all levels of war, air power played an essential role in the various battles and campaigns of 1944. As such, From Balloons to Drones is seeking submissions for articles examining the varied use of air power in 1944. Articles might, for example, explore the strategic air campaigns of 1944, the use of tactical air power, or the use of carrier-based air power. Possible themes to be explored might include, but are not limited to:

Strategy, Theory and Doctrine | Organisation and Policy | Roles
Operations – Kinetic and Non-Kinetic | Tactics, Training and Procedures
Strategic and Operational Effect | Technological Developments | Ethical and Moral Issues
National, International and Transnational Experiences | Personal Experiences
Memory and Memorialisation

We are looking for articles of between 500 to 4,000 words, but we will accept larger pieces and reserve the right to publish them in parts. Please visit our submissions page for more information on the types of articles published by From Balloons to Drones.

We plan to begin running the series in March 2024, and it will continue for as long as we receive potential contributions. We welcome and encourage submissions from academics, policymakers, service personnel, and relevant professionals.

Submissions should be submitted in Word format and emailed to the email address below with ‘SUBMISSION – Air Power and 1944 Revisited’ in the subject line. Also, please include a 50-100-word biography with your submission. Footnotes can be used, and please be careful to explain any jargon. If you are unsure if your idea fits our requirements, please email us with ‘POTENTIAL SUBMISSION – Air Power and 1944 Revisited’ in the subject line to discuss.

If you are interested in contributing, please email our Editor-in-Chief, Dr Ross Mahoney, at airpowerstudies@gmail.com or contact us via our contact page here.

Header image: Rows of fuel tanks in front of a B-29 Superfortress of the 40th Bombardment Group assigned to the US Twentieth Air Force in China, c. 1944. (Source: Wikimedia)

Eleftherios Venizelos and the Evolution of Greek Military and Naval Aviation, 1909-1918

Eleftherios Venizelos and the Evolution of Greek Military and Naval Aviation, 1909-1918

By Manolis Peponas

Greek military and naval aviation development would have been delayed if Eleftherios Venizelos had not become Prime Minister of Greece in 1910. Venizelos’ rise to power resulted from Greece’s failures in several areas. Greece, in 1909, was facing several issues, including financial problems, continuous military failures, especially the humiliating defeat in the Greco-Turkish War of 1897and the incapability of the political elite to respond to the masses’ demands, including better preparation of the armed forces, reduction of taxes, and financial stabilisation. Also, in the early 20th Century, Greece remained concerned about the intentions of the Ottoman Empire, especially after the reforms introduced in the wake of the Young Turk Revolution of 1908. These events provided the context and motivation for the early development of Greek air power.

The Goudi Coup and Eleftherios Venizelos

In October 1908, junior Greek Army officers who felt disappointed in the military policy of the Greek government, especially the lack of preparation that had led to defeat in the Greco-Turkish War of 1897, formed the Military League. Their key demand was an increased military budget and modernisation of the Greek Army. Rapidly, the organisation became very powerful, largely due to frustrations within the Greek Army and society. Despite the lack of overt political ambition and a desire to focus on military affairs, the young officers gained the support of the people of Athens. So, on 15 August 1909, the Military League organised a coup that began in Goudi barracks. Prime Minister Dimitrios Rallis resigned on the same day, and his successor, Kyriakoulis Mavromichal, began negotiating with the rebels. Despite the success of the coup, the country’s social problems remained unsolved.[1]

The months after the coup passed without any progress. On the one hand, while the Military League was powerful, it did not wish to create a military junta. However, the government had minimal freedom to act. Also, social problems, such as poverty, lack of education, and social inequalities, presented substantial obstacles, and few politicians could handle them. One who could handle them was Venizelos, a little-known lawyer who lived in Crete, then an autonomous region under the authority of the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. The revolutionary officers – several of whom were Cretans – called him in Athens on 28 December 1909. There, Venizelos crafted a compromise between the Military League and the politicians to create a prudent political program for his regime. After that, on 15 March 1910, the Military League dissolved itself, expressing the opinion that there was no longer a need to exist. Some months after that, on 6 October 1910, Venizelos was elected Prime Minister.[2] Venizelos dominated Greek politics, serving as Prime Minister seven times before he died in exile in 1936.

Soon after his election, Venizelos, viewed as a man of action rather than an intellectual, aimed to transform Greece into a modern European state.[3] The new parliament passed several laws to improve education, protect individual freedoms, secure civil rights, and boost the economy. Also, realising that a new conflict against the Ottoman Empire was approaching, Venizelos sought to reorganise the Greek military. He held the portfolios of the Military and Naval Ministries. One of his first decisions was to invite a French delegation under General Joseph-Paul Eydoux and a British one under Rear-Admiral Lionel Grant Tufnell. Eydoux led the French Military Mission that arrived in Greece in January 1911 to oversee changes in the Greek Army, including improvements in organisation and tactics, training, and procedures. Grant led the British Naval Mission, which undertook similar work with the Greek Navy. Furthermore, in February 1912, the Greek parliament approved a new bill that divided Greece into four military regions. Each region could generate two divisions in wartime.[4]

The First Greek Pilots

As early as 1909, Russian aviator Simon Utoskin appeared in Greece and flew with his Farman aircraft in the Palaio Faliro region. However, this effort had no connection to official Greek policy.[5] The first flight in Greece was carried out by businessman Emmanouil Argyropoulos, who arrived in Athens with a Nieuport IV.G plane in January 1912. On 8 February, he took off from Rouf aerodrome in the presence of King George I and Venizelos. The Prime Minister followed Argiropoulos on his second flight and baptised his plane, Alkyon).

The arrival of the French Military Mission in 1911 was the key driver in establishing military aviation in Greece. Eydoux, a École Supérieure de Guerre graduate, was a passionate man with progressive ideas about how to modernise the Greek Army. In cooperation with Venizelos, Eydoux examined the possibility of establishing a Hellenic Air Service for the Greek Army that followed the standards of the French Army, which had formed its air service in 1909. Venizelos supported the idea and permitted the young officers to go to France for flying training. First Lieutenant Dimitrios Kamperos, First Lieutenant Michail Moutousis, and Second Lieutenant Christos Adamidis arrived there in the last months of 1911. They formed the nucleus of the Hellenic Air Service established in 1911, and they were trained at Henri Farman’s flying school at the Etampes aerodrome. At the same time, the Greek government ordered some of its first MF.7 Longhorns, which arrived in Athens some months later.[6]

The MF.7, a two-seater aeroplane, was designed and built by Maurice Farman in 1910. It was almost 12 meters long, with a wingspan of 15 meters. It used a 70hp Renault 8C V-8 air-cooled piston engine and could reach a speed of 95 kilometres per hour. Its service ceiling was 4,000 meters. Farman used the prototypes initially for training purposes in his flying school. Furthermore, he and other experienced pilots like Maurice Tabateau, Eugène Renaux, and Farman won several Michelin Prizes flying this aircraft type. France, Greece, Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, Mexico, Belgium, Norway, Japan, Denmark, and Russia operated them during the First World War.[7]

Dimitrios_Kamberos
First Lieutenant Dimitrios Kamperos, the first military aviator in Greek history, c. 1912. (Wikimedia)

Kamperos was the first military aviator to return to Greece after the first phase of his training in France. On 13 May 1912, he performed his first flight in Greece during the military exercises before the First Balkan War broke out. Two days later, he flew at a height of approximately 1,000 meters, performing reconnaissance missions in nearby lands of Attica region. Both Eydoux and Venizelos watched his landing. The latter constantly expressed a great interest in the Hellenic Air Service, communicating personally with the pilots and trying to cover their training demands. On 27 May, Venizelos baptised the first four planes that arrived in Greece, giving them the names Dedalus, Aetos (Eagle), Gyps (Vulture), and Ierax (Hawk). The public celebrated the ritual, and several wealthy businesspeople were willing to purchase planes.[8]

Kamperos stayed in Athens for three months; in August, he had to return to France for the second training phase. That period was enough for him to perform several daring flights. Also, in June 1912, he modified a Farman plane into a seaplane and landed it without difficulties in front of Venizelos and other officials. Simultaneously, Kamperos’ colleagues continued their training in France. The detachment numbered six pilots: Moutousis, Second Lieutenant Panoutsos Notaras, Adamidis, First Lieutenant Loukas Papaloukas, First Lieutenant Markos Drakos, and Kamperos. The process was interrupted in September because Greece entered the First Balkan War, and the aviators were obligated to return to their motherland.

Greek Military Aviation and The Balkan Wars

In 2011, historian Marc Biondich described the diplomatic and military history of the Balkans as a product of:

The complex multicultural and ethnolinguistic mosaic, which was produced over the centuries by a combination of geography and political history, has come under astonishing duress over the past two hundred years. Indeed, the Balkans as a term and spatial category were born in the modern era, conceived in the nineteenth century as a post-imperial space and legacy of Ottoman decline emerging from the confluence of revolution, war, and Great Power fiat.[9]

During the 19th Century, several national movements developed in the Balkans to challenge the domination of the Ottoman Empire. The creation of small nation-states in the region did not appease their ambitious leaders, including Eleftherios Venizelos, who desired to expand their countries’ borders. This ambition led to the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, a series of conflicts that significantly reshaped the map of the region. During the Balkan Wars, Greek pilots had the opportunity to gain experience and show their skills.

In September 1912, the four Greek pilots who remained in France were ordered to return to Greece. They formed the nucleus of the recently established Aviation Company based in Larissa. This unit reported to the Hellenic Air Service. Having initially only four Henry Farman aircraft, the Aviation Company conducted mainly reconnaissance missions. In one of them, Kamperos threw hand grenades at his enemies, although he did not manage to cause any casualty. At the same time, new personnel arrived in Larissa because the government allowed civilians with a pilot diploma to enlist in the Aviation Company. The most significant was Argyropoulos, one of Greece’s few experienced aviators. The government also ordered new Maurice Farman aircraft from France. These decisions helped increase the efficiency of the Aviation Company.

The Greek Army occupied Macedonia’s most significant city, Thessaloniki, on 26 October 1912. That caused the pause of the air operations. However, the Aviation Company moved to Epirus in December to participate in the siege of Ioannina. There, the Greek pilots did not limit their action to reconnaissance missions; they also bombed the Turkish positions and provided supplies to their isolated fellow soldiers. After the liberation of Ioannina, Adamidis landed inside the city, highlighting the successful service of the Aviation Company.[10]

Velos-_24_January_1913
The Greek Destroyer Velos collects the Henry Farman aircraft of First Lieutenant Michael Moutoussis and Lieutenant Aristeidis Moraitinis after the first air-naval operation, c. 1913. (Source: Wikimedia)

Overall, the Balkan Wars significantly impacted Greek military policy regarding aviation. Notably, after the signing of the Treaty of Bucharest in 1913, which ended the Balkan Wars, the efforts to reinforce Greek military aviation continued. Venizelos and the other leading members of his government took the opportunity to understand better the potential of a well-organised Hellenic Air Service with modern aircraft and experienced pilots. It is also noteworthy that Venizelos did not lose his heart when Argyropoulos died in a crash in the Lagadas region on 4 April 1913. This was the Aviation Company’s first loss. Finally, at the beginning of 1913, Moutousis moved to Limnos, where, with Lieutenant Aristides Moraitinis, he organised and experimented with a recently purchased French seaplane for several missions.

Greek Military and Naval Aviation in the First World War

When the First World War began, Greece was politically divided. On the one hand, Venizelos believed the country should be allied with Britain and France because it would allow it to expand Greece’s borders further. On the other side, King Constantine I expressed the opinion that Greece should be neutral, securing whatever it had gained after the recent Balkan Wars. This dispute led to a ‘quiet’ civil war that ended with the deposition of King Constantine I in 1917. After that, Venizelos, supported by Britain and France, declared war on the Central Powers.[11]Meanwhile, Kamperos continued his hard work. He led the Hellenic Air Service, which managed the logistics of military aviation, including the financial administration and the training of the pilots. Also, operationally, an Aviation Company and squadron based in Palaio Faliro, near Athens, reported to the Hellenic Air Service. However, both operational units lacked personnel, aircraft, and fuel. The same thing happened at the Hellenic Naval Air Service until 1917.

In Thessaloniki, where he had organised a rebel government in 1916-1917, Venizelos attempted to merge the air services of the Greek Army and Greek Navy; however, he was unable to achieve his aims due to the backlash of many officers who were afraid that they would lose their autonomy. Nevertheless, Venizelos reorganised the Hellenic Air Service. In September 1917, a specific department was established within the Army Ministry to improve the efficiency of the Hellenic Air Service by undertaking the bureaucratic tasks previously undertaken by the later. There, experienced French personnel supported the Greeks in developing the Greek Army’s aviation capabilities, while an aircraft manufactory was also created. From December 1917 to June 1918, three squadrons were established.[12] These were 531, 532 and 533 Squadron. The former was a fighter unit equipped with Nieuport 24bis and Spad VII/XIIIBreguet 14A2/Β2, while the latter two were bomber-reconnaissance units equipped with Breguet 14A2/Β2.

The Hellenic Air Service participated in several confrontations during the First World War. At the Battle of Skra in 1918, Greek pilots located Bulgarian artillery batteries and guided Greek artillery fire, including counter-battery operations. Additionally, the 531 Squadron, equipped with Spad VII/XIII aircraft, participated in several dogfights against the more experienced Germans to battle for control of the air. However, the most significant role of the army’s squadrons was its participation in fruitful reconnaissance missions and the escort of Entente’s (mainly British) bombers that operated against the Ottoman coasts.[13]

Between 1917 and 1918, the Hellenic Naval Air Service, which had been established in 1915, developed rapidly under the command of Moraitinis, a pro-Venizelist officer who had not hesitated to offer his service to the British in 1916, long before King Constantine I was deposed. The Hellenic Naval Air Service simultaneously trained and took part in several missions, something beneficial for its pilots. One of the most notable moments of the Hellenic Naval Air Service came on 21 March 1917, when Moraitinis bombed the German airdrome of Drama. Moraitinis impressed even his opponents, who witnessed his tremendous action. Moraitinis and his peers also bombed Bulgarian logistical hubs storing food several times and conducted numerous reconnaissance missions. Notably, most of those activities were executed at night under challenging circumstances.

In 1918, the Hellenic Naval Air Service cooperated several times with the British Royal Navy, escorting the latter’s ships operating in the region. One of those missions was the last for Sublieutenant Spyridon Hampas, who had the misfortune of facing the German ace Lieutenant Emil Meinecke. Meinecke had at least seven aerial victories while also training the Turkish pilots. The Germans buried his victim, Hampas, with military honours at the British Chanak Consular Cemetery. He was one of the 18 members of the Corps who lost their lives during the conflict.[14]

At the end of the First World War, four Hellenic Naval Air Service planes flew into Istanbul on 4 November 1918 under the command of Moraitinis. It was a great honour for the Greek airmen because the city was centuries ago the capital city of the Byzantine Empire. After landing at Saint Stefanos’s airdrome, they continued their flight, demonstrating a Greek flag. Unfortunately, that was one of Moraitinis’ last missions as on 22 December 1918, the Breguet 14 he was piloting crashed accidentally near Mount Olympus. He was only 27 years old.[15]

Venizelos_WWI_1918
Venizelos reviews a section of the Greek army on the Macedonian front during the First World War in 1918. He is accompanied by Admiral Pavlos Koundouriotis (left) and French General Maurice Sarrail (right). (Wikimedia)

Conclusion

Moraitinis and, before him, Argyropoulos were two of the most notable Greek airmen who died during their service. However, these losses did not stop the evolution of Greek military and naval aviation. All Greek politicians, including Venizelos, envisioned that their country should dominate in the air. Greek pilots had proved their merit during and before the First World War, operating under difficult circumstances. For example, Greek military and naval aviators operated under challenging operational and organisational circumstances, faced more experienced German aviators and executed dangerous missions. Fortunately, some aviators, such as Kamperos and Moutousis, remained in the Hellenic Air Service and Hellenic Naval Air Service, training their successors.

The question remains, however, as to why Greek military and naval aviation succeeded. First, there was the charisma of the Hellenic Air Service and Hellenic Naval Air Service personnel. Men like Kamperos were both soldiers and leaders who loved danger. So, the other pilots admired them and were ready to obey their orders. More importantly, however, Greek politicians, especially Venizelos, showed an early interest in developing Greek military and naval aviation – Venizelos could be considered the real ‘father’ of Greek military aviation. Notably, Venizelos’ decision to request French and British military advisors was an essential step in developing Greek military aviation. Finally, through Greece’s participation in various wars of the 1910s, Greek pilots learned how to fly and manage an air service under wartime conditions: the theatres of the Balkan Wars and the First World War could be considered the real training schools for them.

Emmanouil (Manolis) Peponas is a PhD candidate at the Department of History and Archaeology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. He completed his BA and MA studies with honours at the University of Ioannina. As an experienced freelancer, he has worked for remarkable institutions and publishing companies. He is the author of seven books and several articles. His research interests focus on the contemporary military, social and diplomatic history of the Balkans.

Header image: Greek aviators of the Hellenic Naval Air Service at San Stefano aerodrome after the capitulation of the Ottoman Empire, 1918. (Source: Wikimedia)

[1] Mark Mazower, ‘The Messiah and the Bourgeoisie: Venizelos and Politics in Greece, 1909–1912,’ The Historical Journal 35, no.4) (1992), pp. 885-904.

[2] Mazower, ‘The Messiah and the Bourgeoisie.’

[3] Mazower, ‘The Messiah and the Bourgeoisie,’ p. 904.

[4] Thanos Veremis, Military Interventions in Greek Politics, 1916-1936 [Οι επεμβάσεις του στρατού στην ελληνική εξωτερική πολιτική 1916-1936] (Athens: Alexandria, 2018), p. 39.

[5] ‘Hellenic Air Force History: First Steps,’ Hellenic Air Force.

[6] Konstantinos Topalidis, ‘The History of the Air Force in Greece, 1919-1940’ [‘Η ιστορία της Πολεμικής Αεροπορίας στην Ελλάδα, 1919-1940’] (MA thesis, University of Macedonia, 2016), p. 14.

[7] ‘The Maurice Farman Biplane.’ Flight IV, no. 27 (6 July 1912), pp. 603-6.

[8] Topalidis, ‘The History of the Air Force in Greece,’ p. 15.

[9] Mark Biondich, The Balkans: Revolution, War, and Political Violence since 1878 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 1.

[10] Topalidis, ‘The History of the Air Force in Greece,’ pp. 16-20.

[11] George Kaloudis, ‘Greece and The Road to World War I: To What End?,’ International Journal on World Peace 31, no. 4 (2014), pp. 9-47.

[12] Topalidis, ‘The History of the Air Force in Greece,’ pp. 28-29.

[13] Douglas Dakin, The Unification of Greece 1770-1923 (London: Ernest Benn, 1972), p. 218.

[14] Topalidis, ‘The History of the Air Force in Greece,’ pp. 30-2.

[15] Jon Guttman, ‘Air Attack Over the Dardanelles,’ historynet.com, 23 September 1998.

#Podcast – “They weren’t told they were being recruited for space”: An Interview with Dr Cathleen Lewis

#Podcast – “They weren’t told they were being recruited for space”: An Interview with Dr Cathleen Lewis

Editorial Note: Led by Editor Dr Mike Hankins, From Balloons to Drones, produces a monthly podcast that provides an outlet for the presentation and evaluation of air power scholarship, the exploration of historical topics and ideas, and provides a way to reach out to both new scholars and the general public. You can find our Soundcloud channel here. You can also find our podcast on Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts.

The American spaceflight program is a popular, inspirational story that many of us are familiar with, but what about the Soviet Union’s space program? To explore it, we’re joined by Dr Cathleen Lewis, Curator of International Space Programs and Spacesuits at the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum and author of Cosmonaut: A Cultural History (2023) from the University of Florida Press. She tells us not only about how the Soviet space program worked but its cultural effect on the people of the Soviet Union and how it has been remembered since then.

We apologize for an audio problem with one of our microphones that we were unaware of until editing, when it was too late to fix.

11162022163216_500x500

Dr Cathleen S. Lewis is the Curator of International Space Programs and Spacesuits at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum, specializing in Soviet and Russian history. She co-edited Spaceflight: A Smithsonian Guide and Air and Space History: An Annotated Bibliography.

Header image: Visitors at the 38th Paris International Air and Space Shown at Le Bourget Airfield line up to tour a Soviet An-225 Mriya aircraft with the Space Shuttle Buran on its back. (Source: Wikimedia)

#Podcast – “The airplane just blew up into several pieces!”: An Interview with Lee Ellis

#Podcast – “The airplane just blew up into several pieces!”: An Interview with Lee Ellis

Editorial Note: Led by Editor Dr Mike Hankins, From Balloons to Drones, produces a monthly podcast that provides an outlet for the presentation and evaluation of air power scholarship, the exploration of historical topics and ideas, and provides a way to reach out to both new scholars and the general public. You can find our Soundcloud channel here. You can also find our podcast on Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts.

In our latest interview, we talk to  former United States Air Force F-4 Phantom pilot Lee Ellis who was a prisoner of war in the ‘Hanoi Hilton’ in Vietnam for over five years. However, in the time since, he noticed that he and many other POWs had gone on to experience dramatic love lives. Ellis joins us to discuss his new book, Captured By Love: Inspiring True Romance Stories from Vietnam POWs.

<div style=”font-size: 10px; color: #cccccc;line-break: anywhere;word-break: normal;overflow: hidden;white-space: nowrap;text-overflow: ellipsis; font-family: Interstate,Lucida Grande,Lucida Sans Unicode,Lucida Sans,Garuda,Verdana,Tahoma,sans-serif;font-weight: 100;”>

61gdD3VMsEL._AC_UF894,1000_QL80_

Lee Ellis is the Founder and President of Leadership Freedom® LLC and FreedomStar Media®. He is an award-winning author, leadership coach, and expert presenter in the areas of leadership, teambuilding, and human performance. Early in his career, Lee was a United States Air Force fighter pilot flying fifty-three combat missions over North Vietnam. In 1967, he was shot down and held as a POW for over five years in Hanoi and surrounding camps. For his wartime service, he was awarded two Silver Stars, the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star with Valor device, the Purple Heart, and POW Medal. Lee resumed his Air Force career, serving in leadership roles of increasing responsibility, including command of a flying squadron and leadership development organizations, before retiring as a colonel. Lee has a BA in History and a MS in Counseling and Human Development. He is a graduate of the Armed Forces Staff College and the Air War College. He has authored or co-authored five books on leadership and career development.

Header image: A US Air Force McDonnell F-4C Phantom II from the 497th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 8th Tactical Fighter Wing, rolls out on takeoff from Ubon Royal Thai Air Force Base, circa 1967. It is configured for the MiGCAP escort role with AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missiles under the fuselage, and AIM-9B Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and extra fuel tanks under the wings. (Source: Wikimedia)

#ResearchNote – Project Suntan: The Huge Hydrogen Aircraft That Might Have Blown Up Southern California

#ResearchNote – Project Suntan: The Huge Hydrogen Aircraft That Might Have Blown Up Southern California

By Dr Michael W. Hankins

I am fascinated by aircraft designs that ‘could have been.’ Maybe it’s just my nostalgia for childhood drawings of imaginary aeroplanes, but I love looking at the concept for the out-of-the-box ideas that never made it off the drawing board. Recently, I was researching at the beautiful Huntington Library archives, combing through the papers of Ben Rich, who ran Lockheed’s Advanced Development Projects division, ‘Skunk Works,’ between 1975 and 1990. ‘Skunk Works’ handled Lockheed’s top-secret programs, such as the U-2. I came across his files on the CL-400, also known as Project Suntan.[1] This had nothing to do with the project I was working on, but I found the files fascinating and wanted to share some of what I found here on From Balloons to Drones.

In 1955, most people dancing to Bill Haley’s new hit song ‘Rock Around the Clock’ had little idea that the Central Intelligence Agency and US Air Force had partnered with Lockheed to design a secret spy plane to fly 70,000 feet above the Soviet Union, the U-2. However, even as the U-2 began flying, Clarence ‘Kelly’ Johnson, then chief engineer at Lockheed’s Burbank, California plant, suspected that the U-2 would not last long – it was an effective aeroplane but vulnerable. Johnson wanted a follow-on to the U-2 that could fly even higher, further, and faster.

Lockheed turned to the advantages of high-energy fuels, specifically liquid hydrogen (LH). With a much greater energy density, hydrogen was more powerful (and hazardous). On paper, it seemed like an LH-powered aircraft could have everything Johnson needed: very long range, very high altitude, and supersonic speed. Rich led the project, working under Johnson at the ‘Skunk Works.’

Rich recalled, ‘between 1955-1958, [Lockheed] developed and built all the components and systems necessary for a liquid hydrogen-fueled airplane.’ Designing aircraft to use this unique fuel source presented major challenges. As Rich noted: ‘The hydrogen fueled airplane has very little flexibility in design configuration […] since fuel requirements dictate a long fuselage with attendant balancing and C.G. [center of gravity] travel limitations.’

Nevertheless, the concept went through a series of iterations. The original CL-400 was a two-seat reconnaissance plane, 160 feet long with a 10-foot diameter. The wings resembled Lockheed’s F-104 Starfighter, and the plane’s vertical fin was retractable. It was designed to cruise at 99,500 feet, going Mach 2.5, for a maximum range of 2,200 nautical miles.

CL-400-14
An illustration showing the relative size comparison of the C-400-14 with a Boeing B-52 Stratofortress and a Lockheed Constellation (Source: The Huntington Library, California, Ben Rich Papers, Box 3, Folder 1, Projects – Engineering – CL-400)

That was just the beginning. Variant designs on the CL-400, Rich says, ‘were studied from the standpoint of achieving maximum range rather than maximum altitude.’ As evident from the accompanying series of plan drawings, the original CL-400 was near the size of the massive Boeing B-52 Stratofortress bomber, but increasing its range meant increasing the fuel capacity. So, the designs got bigger. Much, much bigger.

CL-400-12
Drawing of the CL-400-12. (Source: An illustration showing the relative size comparison of the C-400-14 with a Boeing B-52 Stratofortress and a Lockheed Constellation (Source: The Huntington Library, California, Ben Rich Papers, Box 3, Folder 1, Projects – Engineering – CL-400)

The CL-400-12 was more than double the size of a B-52 and designed for a 4,720 nautical mile range with four engines blasting it to Mach 2.5. Rich’s notes simply stated that ‘the aircraft size is quite large.’

CL-400-13
Drawing of the CL-400-13. (Source: Drawing of the CL-400-12. (Source: An illustration showing the relative size comparison of the C-400-14 with a Boeing B-52 Stratofortress and a Lockheed Constellation (Source: The Huntington Library, California, Ben Rich Papers, Box 3, Folder 1, Projects – Engineering – CL-400)

The CL-400-13 took the idea even further with a cone-delta design and forward canards. The aeroplane was almost the length of one football field, with a gross take-off weight of 376,000 pounds. Nevertheless, it could cruise at Mach 4 for a total range of 9,000 nautical miles. The CL-400-14 was similar in size to the -13 but used four smaller engines instead of two big ones.

CL-400-14 1
Drawing of the CL-400-14 (Source: Drawing of the CL-400-13. (Source: Drawing of the CL-400-12. (Source: An illustration showing the relative size comparison of the C-400-14 with a Boeing B-52 Stratofortress and a Lockheed Constellation (Source: The Huntington Library, California, Ben Rich Papers, Box 3, Folder 1, Projects – Engineering – CL-400)

Hydrogen, as readers familiar with the Hindenburg disaster will attest, is also very dangerous. Lockheed had an approach to address the danger: try to cause a series of hydrogen explosions. Rich’s notes explained that ‘Numerous hydrogen ignition tests were made so as to get a feel for the damage potential in such an explosion, and it was found that the danger was not nearly as great as expected. Explosions were generally mild, and hydrogen fireball radiation was much less than that from a comparable kerosene fire.’ They tried to create an explosion 61 times, and only twice (when purposefully mixed with oxygen and ignited) did it cause ‘a bona fide explosion.’ Lockheed engineers were convinced LH could be handled safely – even more critically since the top-secret nature of the program meant that if there were an uncontrollable fire, they would not be able to call the fire department.[2]

Lockheed built a massive facility to test methods to produce, store, and transport the large quantities of liquid hydrogen necessary to operate a fleet of huge, LH-guzzling aeroplanes a few hundred yards away from the Burbank Municipal Airport. Dr Russell Scott, a leading expert on liquid hydrogen from the U.S. Bureau of Standards, visited the facility and said, ‘My God in heaven, you’re gonna to blow up Burbank.’[3] Ultimately, the logistical challenges of operating a fleet of LH aircraft proved insurmountable at the time. After examining the international basing requirements for the necessary fuel, Johnson gave up on the project. He called the Secretary of the Air Force, James Douglas, and said, ‘I’m afraid I’m building you a dog. My recommendation is that we cancel Suntan.’[4] Today, U-2s are still flying, and the Burbank site, which was once the home for testing and production of classic Lockheed aircraft, has been turned into a giant shopping complex featuring a Best Buy and Wal-Mart. In a way, maybe Burbank did blow up.

It is tempting to write off this story as a historical footnote, but the story of Suntan has three important takeaways: First, failure is important. Just because the project never went to production does not mean it was insignificant. With the aerospace industry currently looking into the potential use of hydrogen fuel, projects like this are still relevant. Second, failed designs still have a strong influence on those that succeed. Going through the process of designing these aircraft and thinking through potential solutions taught these engineers a lot. Many of the design elements first experimented with on the CL-400 went on to have a strong influence on the design of later aircraft – especially the A-12, the forerunner of the SR-71 Blackbird.

Finally, the CL-400 shows the importance and power of imagination. These planes might seem wild, but the effort shows that engineers could push themselves to think outside the box. This reveals the mindset underneath American Cold War aviation design – that it often gravitated to the massive or even outlandish, but it is also inspiring. I am not an aircraft designer, but I hope that in my own life and work, I am pushing myself to think beyond the boundaries of what I think might be possible, explore new ideas and see where they lead.

Dr Michael Hankins is the Curator for US Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps post-World War II Aviation at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum and the author of Flying Camelot: The F-15, the F-16, and the Weaponization of Fighter Pilot Nostalgia (2021). In addition, he is a former Professor of Strategy at the USAF Air Command and Staff College eSchool, and a former Instructor of Military History at the US Air Force Academy. He earned his PhD in history from Kansas State University in 2018, and his master’s in history from the University of North Texas in 2013.

Header image: An artist’s impression of the CL-400 in flight. (Source: The Huntington Library, California, Ben Rich Papers, Box 3, Folder 1, Projects – Engineering – CL-400)

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all information, quotations, and images in this article are taken from: The Huntington Library, California, Ben Rich Papers, Box 3, Folder 1, Projects – Engineering – CL-400.

[2] John L. Sloop, Liquid Hydrogen as a Propulsion Fuel, 1945-1959 (Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1978), p. 149.

[3] Ben Rich and Leo Janos, Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1994), p. 173.

[4] Rich and Janos, Skunk Works, 177.