Tag: Pre-First World War

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.

Love At First Sight? US Army Aviation before the First World War

Love At First Sight? US Army Aviation before the First World War

By Alexander Reineke

After the Wright Brothers made their first flight in December 1903, it took the US Army several years to start paying attention to heavier-than-air aviation.[1] While lighter-than-air platforms, in the form of observation balloons, had been in use with the US military since the US Civil War, the novelty of heavier-than-air aviation in the form of aeroplanes eventually engaged the minds of military thinkers around the United States and all three combat arms – infantry, cavalry, and the field artillery.[2] Officers from these combat arms offered similar but often diverging takes on the new invention. By examining articles published in professional journals of the period, this article considers how the US Army received and thought about the aeroplane’s application before the outbreak of the First World War.

The Infantry

For the infantry branch, the aeroplane introduced the possibility of lifting the fog of war from the battlefield in the form of easier, faster, and more reliable scouting opportunities. In 1909, Captain John R.M. Taylor, an infantry officer and prolific military theorist of the period, wrote in the Journal of the United States Infantry Association – later the Infantry Journal – that combat had changed little since the US Civil War two generations earlier. Primarily, artillery still functioned as artillery, cavalry as cavalry, and infantry as infantry. Ranges and lethality had increased, but the overall way wars were fought had, he argued, largely remained similar – American theorists at this time tended to look to the experience of the US Civil War as the first modern war, excluding European definitions, which often included the Crimean War and the Franco-Prussian War.[3] However, the aeroplane offered a third dimension to the battlefield in the way that ground-based scouts – be it a group of skirmishers or a cavalry troop – could not replicate.[4]

Taylor’s article, using a counterfactual based on Major-General George McClellan’s campaigns in 1862, suggested that the former might have won the war if he had had reconnaissance aeroplanes. Taylor believed that while the aeroplane was still in its infancy, the same had been said about the automobile a decade prior. Moreover, he envisioned the aeroplane and the airship taking their place in the order of battle as soon as the next great war alongside automobiles in the aid and support of the three combat arms as screening and attack forces.[5]

While Taylor theorised about mechanised warfare broadly, the Massachusetts National Guard experimented with its application during their manoeuvres in 1909. Importantly, as Captain John Sherburne reported in the Infantry Journal’s pages, the Massachusetts National Guard improvised the use of ‘two automobile trucks as mounts for two light guns of naval type.’[6] Moreover, these were used as part of an ‘auto truck platoon’ by one opposing force during the manoeuvres. These experiences led Sherburne to hypothesise about the possibility of guns on such vehicles as potential anti-air assets, thus showing how even in the early years of aviation, officers were already thinking through the challenge of countering the threat from the air.[7]

In 1910 and 1912, respectively, Captain G.L. Townsend, a career infantry officer, and Captain Paul W. Beck, one of the US Army’s first pilots, summed up the mood in the infantry in the pages of the Infantry Journal by arguing for a compromise between enthusiasts and critics of early aviation. They argued that while aeroplanes and airships had not yet matured as platforms, it was the job of the peacetime army to pay attention to new developments and create doctrine and institutions. This was so that aeroplanes might be used in war both through trial and error and through observations of potentially hostile nations’ use of aviation, with particular attention paid to the zeppelins of Imperial Germany even as they remained in their infancy.[8]

The Infantry Journal’s editorial board, presided over by US Civil War veteran and former US Army Chief of Staff Lieutenant General John C. Bates and made up of reform-minded career officers who wished to modernise and professionalise the Army, broadly agreed with the ideas and proposals of these Townsend and Beck. Moreover, they believed that once fully developed, the aeroplane would become a great asset to infantry soldiers as a scouting force where cavalry could not reach. Nevertheless, they tempered the mood of aviation enthusiasts by recommending that any work on aviation be postponed to a time when war would be on the horizon. Aviation, as they argued, was too costly at the time. In the end, it all came down to funding. For the price of a squadron of aeroplanes or airships, machinery operating on the bleeding edge of technological progress, the US Army could fund and outfit several regiments or even divisions of infantry:

In the time required for us to create a field army after the declaration of war, and until such an army were in readiness both aeroplanes and aeroplanists would be useless, we should have time to build more aeroplanes and train more aeroplanists than probably any nation will ever use in war. The aeroplane can do us no greater military harm than driving out of mind again that our need now is the same as always — merely men, not machines, even though they be new machines with all the fancied terrors that superstition and ignorance give to things unknown. The invention of gunpowder was once expected to end war (as were the torpedo and the submarine).[9]

Given this attitude, the infantry, always searching for more funding, applied the same logic to aeroplanes as critics of standing armies had done to the infantry: aviation units did not require costly training. They could be raised at a moment’s notice. This obfuscated the real reason: the US Army had no money to investigate the potential of aviation.[10] Despite being stretched thin in manpower and funding; numerous infantry officers had become advocates for aviation. First among them was First Lieutenant Benjamin Foulois, the US Army’s first official aviator and a lifelong air power advocate and pioneer, who wrote in 1908 that in ‘all future warfare, we can expect to see engagements in the air between hostile aerial fleets.’[11]

110303-D-LN615-005
Signal Corps No. 1 in front of its hanger at Fort Sam Houston in 1910. (Source: United States Air Force)

The Cavalry

The cavalry, by contrast, saw its role as the US Army’s eyes and ears threatened by the invention of the aeroplane. Having already acknowledged that its days of charging enemy positions and dispersing troops were long over, the American cavalry had reinvented itself first as a frontier constabulary, a scouting force, and, in its current iteration, a force of mounted infantry ready to fight as infantry, to protect the flanks of the advancing army, and to chase fleeing enemy infantry.[12] Already criticised by the infantry and artillery branches who doubted the viability of horse cavalry against modern weapon systems, the cavalry were determined to keep their role as scouting and routing forces. It was no wonder that in the Journal of the United States Cavalry Association in 1909, the well-respected horsemanship expert Edward L. Anderson dubbed the Wright Brothers’ aeroplane and automobiles as abominations.’[13]

In a 1911 article in the Journal of the United States Cavalry Association on the reorganisation of the cavalry branch, Brigadier General Walter Schuyler, a long-serving cavalry commander since the American Indian Wars, saw the aeroplane and any other form of modern technology like the radio or the automobile as auxiliary forces that would help the cavalry increase its reaction time on the battlefield.[14] However, on the other hand, others, such as retired officer E.L. Gilpin saw the cavalry as more than capable of taking on the aeroplane in single combat, believing that while the aeroplane might offer a bird’s eye view of the battlefield, the horse cavalry was the superior scout for detailed information even as they used their carbines to shoot down reconnaissance aeroplanes with superior marksmanship.[15] Even the supporters of the aeroplane among the cavalry belittled aviation enthusiasts as having a ‘child-like faith.’[16] They believed that the maturation of the technology would, eventually, lead to it becoming a great support system. Nevertheless, like its peer, the infantry, the cavalry could not – and would not – see the aeroplane as revolutionary in its current state.[17]

The Artillery

The artillery, meanwhile, precisely saw that. Colonel John P. Wisser, a coastal artillery officer and an accomplished West Point educator and military attaché, became a staunch supporter of the aeroplane, as did many other artillery officers at the time. Reviewing the events of the Russo-Japanese War, Wisser echoed many views held by the infantry’s Taylor. He also believed that the US Army’s overall make-up had not changed since the US Civil War except for longer ranges and increased firepower. By contrast, aviation was still advancing exponentially to the point that an army fighting in the 1910s would have identical infantry and cavalry assets to the previous decade. However, its aviation assets would set it apart from any army of the last 50 years.[18] By 1912, the artillery community concurred with Wisser’s original conjecture and believed they had found in aviation the best tool for mastering indirect artillery fire.

It was also an artillery officer, Isaac Lewis, whose light machine gun, the Lewis Gun, was first tested by the US Army as an aircraft-mounted weapons system. In 1912, Captain Charles Chandler and Lieutenant Roy Kirtland took a Wright Model B Flyer up in the sky. They tested the Lewis Gun as an air-to-ground weapon, scoring adequate hits against paper targets and collecting valuable data about air-to-air and air-to-ground combat.[19]

While the artillery arm welcomed the aeroplane and the airship most enthusiastically among the three combat arms, this was likely due to its position as a largely technical and engineering-driven arm that was not in direct competition with the changes military aviation later brought to the battlefield. Indeed, artillery was already seen as an auxiliary to cavalry and infantry operations and relied on accurate reconnaissance to provide just that. While the infantry could not justify the cost at the time and the cavalry felt threatened in its role as the reconnaissance arm of the US Army, the field artillery accepted the aeroplane as another tool that would help them accomplish their mission more quickly as well as more precisely.[20]

Conclusion

US Army aviation remained in its infancy after the outbreak of the First World War. While military aviation faced criticism as a novelty across the US Army, it largely enjoyed at least some measure of support across all combat arms who saw in it a valuable new tool for scouting, transportation, and even what would eventually be called close air support. The American military was quick to experiment with arming aeroplanes and creating ad-hoc anti-aircraft guns, showing they were quick to comprehend, use, and adapt to modern technology. However, fear of change and budgetary concerns remained, sabotaging efforts to experiment with aviation to its fullest extent. Additionally, the combat arms essentially saw aviation as a support arm, severely limiting the military theory that could be developed around the new invention.

Alexander Reineke is a PhD candidate in the North American History Department at Ruhr University Bochum. His thesis, provisionally entitled, ‘Prussia Envy? Alienation and War Preparedness in the Peacetime US Army, 1900-1941, focuses on the peacetime US Army before and after the First World War. He received his MA in History from Ruhr University Bochum in 2019. Since 2020, he has been a member of the editorial staff at AKM Portal für Militärgeschichte.

Header image: A Wight Model A arrives at Fort Myer, Virginia aboard a wagon for testing by the US Army, attracting the attention of children and adults, 1 September 1908. (Source: Wikimedia)

[1] On the development of US Army aviation in this period, see: Herbert A. Johnson, Wingless Eagle: US Army Aviation through World War I (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2001); Laurence Burke II, At the Dawn of Airpower: The U.S. Army, Navy, and Marine Corps’ Approach to the Airplane, 1907-1917 (Baltimore, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2022).

[2]  F. Stansbury Haydon, Military Ballooning during the Early Civil War (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), passim. First published in 1941 as Aeronautics in the Union and Confederate Armies: With a Survey of Military Aeronautics Prior to 1861 by Johns Hopkins University Press.

[3] A.D. Harvey, ‘Was the American Civil War the First Modern War?’ History 97, no. 2 (2012), pp. 272-280.

[4] Captain John R.M. Taylor, ‘Cavalry and the Aeroplane,’ Journal of the United States Infantry Association VI, no. 1 (1909), p. 84; Lori Henning, Harnessing the Aeroplane: American and British Responses to a New Technology, 1903-1939 (Norman, OK: Oklahoma University Press, 2019), p. 35.

[5] Taylor, ‘Cavalry and the Aeroplane,’ pp. 85-7.

[6] Captain John H. Sherburne, ‘Automobile Guns in the Massachusetts Maneuvers,’ Journal of the United States Infantry Association VI, no. 3 (1909), p. 375.

[7] Sherburne, ‘Automobile Guns in the Massachusetts Maneuvers,’ pp. 380-81.

[8]  Captain G.L. Townsend, ‘The Use and Effect of Flying Machines on Military Operations,’ Infantry Journal VII, no. 2 (1910), pp. 246-55; Captain Paul W. Beck, ‘Military Aviation in America. Its Needs,’ Infantry Journal VIII, no. 6 (1912), pp. 796-817.

[9] Anonymous, ‘Concerning Aeroplanes for the Army,’ Infantry Journal VII, no. 3 (1910), p.461.

[10] First Lieutenant Benjamin D. Foulois, ‘Military Aviation and Aeronautics,’ Infantry Journal IX, no. 3 (1912), pp. 314-6; Harvey M. Spaolsky et al., U.S. Defense Politics. The Origins of Security Policy (Abingdon: Routledge, 2010), p. 116.

[11] Benjamin D. Foulois with Carroll V. Glines, From the Wright Brothers to the Astronauts. The Memoirs of Major General Benjamin D. Foulois (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company 1968), p. 44.

[12] Louis A. DiMarco, War Horse. A History of the Military Horse and Rider (Westholme, PA: Yardley 2008), pp. 289-298.

[13]  See Anonymous, ‘Editorial,’ Infantry Journal I, no. 3 (1905), pp. 174-81 and similar analyses of the use of cavalry in the Russo-Japanese War published in the service journals between 1904 and 1906. Edward L. Anderson, ‘Horses and Riding,’ Journal of the United States Cavalry Association XIX, no. 72 (1909), p. 729.

[14] ‘Cavalry Reorganization,’ Journal of the United States Cavalry Association, Vol. XXII, No. 85, p. 23; Henning, Harnessing the Aeroplane, pp. 33-4.

[15] E.H. Gilpin, ‘Armament and Equipment of the Cavalryman,’ Journal of the United States Cavalry Association XXII, no. 85 (1911), p. 82.

[16] First Lieutenant Daniel L. Roscoe, ’The Effect of Aeroplanes Upon Cavalry Tactics,’ Journal of the United States Cavalry Association XXIV, no. 101 (1914), p. 856.

[17] Roscoe, ’The Effect of Aeroplanes Upon Cavalry Tactics,’ p. 857.

[18] Colonel John P. Wisser, ‘German Ideas on Tactics,’ Infantry Journal VII, no. 3 (1910), pp. 377-80.

[19] C.H. Powell, ‘The Lewis Automatic Gun,’ Infantry Journal IX, no. 1 (1912), p. 44.

[20] Colonel John P. Wisser, ‘The Tactical and Strategical Use of Dirigible Balloons and Aeroplanes,’ Cavalry Journal XXI, no. 81 (1910), p. 414.

#Podcast – The Origins of Air Power in the US: An Interview with Dr Laurence Burke II

#Podcast – The Origins of Air Power in the US: An Interview with Dr Laurence Burke II

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 podcast, we interview Dr Laurence Burke II, the Aviation Curator at the National Museum of the Marine Corps. We ask how did the US get from the first flight of an aeroplane in 1903 to full-fledged military-capable aeroplanes in only short few years? Burke takes us through the people that made that journey happen. He explores the different approaches to the airplane made by the US Army, Navy, and Marines Corps, and why each of them went about exploring military aviation in a unique way.

9781682477298

Dr Laurence Burke is the Aviation Curator at the National Museum of the Marine Corps. He earned an undergraduate degree from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, a master’s in Museum Studies from George Washington University, and, in 2014, a PhD in History and Public Policy from Carnegie Mellon University. Since then, he has taught history at the United States Naval Academy as a post-doc and then was Curator of U.S. Naval Aviation at the National Air and Space Museum for several years before starting the job at Quantico.

Header image: A Wight Model A arrives at Fort Myer, Virginia aboard a wagon for testing by the US Army, attracting the attention of children and adults, 1 September 1908. (Source: Wikimedia)

The Aero Club Which Never Was: Gentlemanly Aeronauts versus The New Breed

The Aero Club Which Never Was: Gentlemanly Aeronauts versus The New Breed

By Dr Michele Haapamaki

The accepted anecdote is that the Aero Club of Great Britain was imagined during a hot air balloon outing over the lush countryside of Kent in 1901. Its instigators were Frank Hedges Butler, officially a partner in his family wine merchant business but more of a gentleman adventurer, his daughter Vera Butler, and the young Hon. Charles Rolls – who would lend his name to the famous automotive company and become one of the first licensed pilots in Britain. The organisation they founded would serve as a sort of gentleman’s club for aviators and gained the patronage of the King in 1910 – thereafter referred to as the Royal Aero Club.

Besides establishing some of the first training fields for flyers, the Aero Club was the sole body tasked with granting pilot’s licenses prior to the First World War. All the men who would join the newly formed Royal Flying Corps or naval flight units first obtained this qualification at their own expense. In the postwar years, the Club was the political and social centre of British flying, hosting annual dinners for the winner of the King’s Cup Air Race. The heydey of the Aero Club is now identified with the apex of British aerial achievement in the interwar years. The early Club, however, invested little energy promoting new technical or scientific developments in the direction of heavier-than-air flight, instead of fulfilling its initial brief as a leisure and sport-oriented ballooning for gentleman amateurs. Hedges Butler seemed preoccupied with rural ballooning competitions and his hobby-horse idea of a volunteer Army Balloon Corps, which initially gained half-hearted endorsement by the War Office but was scuttled prior to the First World War.

large_0000002
The Wright brothers aircraft at Farnborough being inspected by a small group of soldiers, c. 1910. (Source:  © IWM (RAE-O 615))

A little-known controversy over the Aero Club and a rival club which was never formed is a fascinating way to access larger questions about the development of heavier-than-air flight in early British aviation. Aviation historians will be familiar with the debate over whether ‘official’ Britain – be it government or quasi-official institutions – exhibited a characteristic, haphazard approach to the development of national aviation. Critics, both contemporary and historical, have argued that this lassitude allowed British ‘wings’ to fall behind other nations. Among other shortcomings, the British government may have been amateur in efforts to contact the Wright Brothers or probe their technology.[1] Hugh Driver, in his detailed history of early British military aviation, argued that the lengthy emphasis on ballooning by the Aero Club had ‘a material effect on the development of aviation generally’.[2]

Prior to the inception of the Hedges Butler Club, motor engineer and founder of the Automobile Club of Great Britain and Ireland, Frederick Simms, was the first to distribute a prospectus for an aeronautical club based on the existing French model. Its primary goal was directed towards the pursuit of heavier-than-air flight and in support of inventors. (Though it should be noted that at the time the French Aero Club also had an early emphasis on ballooning and dirigibles.) Simms was also a successful businessman who acquired rights to the UK manufacture of the internal combustion engine. He founded several eponymous companies, developing the magneto spark plug. As outlined by Driver, ‘Simms had the prior claim to found an aero club as such’.[3] Not only was he the founder of the Automobile Club in 1897, but he was also interested in heavier-than-air flying machines as early as 1896 – cooperating with Hiram Maxim’s attempt to build a steam-driven aeroplane.

His proposed group – the ‘Aero Club of Great Britain and Ireland’ – was intended as a spur to the development of ‘aerial navigation’. With characteristic enthusiasm, he claimed:

I am convinced that it only wants a Club or Society on modern lines to bring together the many British enthusiasts [to solve] this great problem.[4]

The Aeronautical Society, in existence since 1866, would have seemed – at least in theory – to fit the bill. However, it too was established as a ballooning Society and was in a somewhat moribund state at the turn of the century. At the time of Simms prospectus there indeed was a perceivable gap in organised enthusiasm for flight. After several acrimonious exchanges, Simms’ idea lost out to rival Aero Club. Simms and Hedges Butler were probably already acquainted, the latter having been appointed an honorary treasurer of the Automobile Club in 1898. It is therefore doubly unfortunate that the acrimony over the Club remained unresolved.

Class identity was one of the most salient characteristics of the Aero Club. In short, the emphasis was understood to be on the ‘club’ aspect of the name. It consciously modelled itself on the gentleman’s clubs of Pall Mall and St. James and acquired grand premises to match. Stanley Spencer, the aeronaut who piloted the three founders on the balloon outing when they conceived of the Club, was barred from membership due to his status as a ‘professional’. Many engineers, such as Simms, did not adapt readily to the image of an Aero Club man. He was an uneasy attendee at the first meeting of the Club on 3 December 1901 and was not placed on either the Organising or Balloon committees. The hierarchy and direction of the club were firmly established, ensuring that Simms was effectively sidelined from the new organisation, with the result that his prodigious energy (and those of like-minded men) for aeroplane flight was not utilised. To add insult to injury, Simms was asked for a £10 contribution to a balloon fund which he, understandably, refused.

Minutes of early Aero Club meetings, indeed, provide little indication of interests beyond ballooning. A certain Mr A. Verdon Roe was elected to membership in 1906, only for the name to be soon withdrawn. The Club did institute a ‘Technical Committee’ later that year with Charles Rolls, Simms, and John Moore-Brabazon as members. The latter was to become one of the best-known among the early generation of British aviators, though he learned more from time spent in Paris among French pioneers.

large_0000001
British Army Aircraft I during the first sustained flight. Cody began building the British Army Aircraft I in 1907 with the design similar to the kites and glider that he had successfully flown. Cody made the first sustained flight (lasting 27 seconds and for a distance of around 1390 feet) on the 16th October 1908. (Source: © IWM (RAE-O 995))

It is, however, one thing to make observations about the Aero Club and its early focus and yet another to conclude that they had any substantial impact on the larger course of British aircraft pioneering. There are substantial points to be made for a counterview. David Edgerton is well-known for his consistently presented case that the British aeronautical industry was thriving and well-supported in the Edwardian years and prior to the First World War.[5] Some evidence for this is the fact that the first flight on British soil, by the flamboyant American showman Samuel Cody, was in an army aircraft produced by the Balloon Factory at Farnborough.

Others have suggested that British aviation needed to take its own course in its own time, and in fact benefited from a lack of meddling from ‘boosters’ of different varieties. For the most part, no amount of progress was ever enough for some aviation buffs who tended to be of strong and unmoderated feeling; it could be argued that the hand-wringing was merely that. Aviation journalists, such as C.G. Grey of The Aeroplane, traded on histrionics over the fate of the British nation due to some aerial oversight or another by both government and, on occasion, private industry.

There is also the view that there was little of concrete import that an Aero Club could have produced in the pursuit of heavier-than-air flight in the early 1900s. Indeed, when it did become a reality on European soil with the 1908 demonstrations of the Wright brothers at Le Mans, France, the Club soon pursued these capabilities. They established one of the first aerodromes at the Isle of Sheppey, near the mouth of the Thames, and partnered with the Short Brothers – who brought characteristic British inventiveness to the manufacture and testing of new aircraft.

One conclusion we may reach is that discussion about the omissions of the organisations such as the Aero Club, both then and now, suffice to highlight the level of anxiety within British aviation circles – whether the basis for these worries was real or imagined. Was it inevitable that any such Club conceived during the Edwardian years would be (at least initially) unimaginative, snobbish, and genteel? Perhaps so. The episode of the duelling Clubs does provide an illuminating insight into the early world of British aviation, which the self-taught engineers and inventors were just on the cusp of breaking into. Those of the Hedges Butler ilk would soon be superseded by a new aviation elite which was, while not entirely a meritocracy, certainly closer to it than the sporting aeronauts would have imagined.

Dr Michele Haapamaki obtained her PhD from McMaster University (Hamilton, Canada) and is the author of The Coming of the Aerial War: Culture and the Fear of Airborne Attack in Inter-war Britain (I.B. Tauris, 2014). She is currently writing a book on culture and early British aviation. She Tweets @IdleHistorian.

Header Image: A close-up of Cody in the cockpit of Cody aircraft mark IB. The cloth seat as opposed to a plough seat along with the control that Cody is moving differentiate this from the other marks of aircraft that Cody built. According to the caption, this was the aircraft that Cody intended to fly from London to Manchester in. Due to a mechanic failing to close a tap between the sump and the freshly filled oil tank the engine ceased up after fifteen minutes of flight. Fortunately, Cody was able to land safely. Shortly afterwards this aircraft was scrapped and Cody started work on a new one. (Source: © IWM (RAE-O 1075))

[1] See; Alfred Gollin, No Longer an Island: Britain and the Wright Brothers, 1902-1909 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1984) and The Impact of Air Power on the British People and their Government, 1909-14 (London: Macmillan Press, 1989)

[2] Hugh Driver, The Birth of Military Aviation: Britain, 1903-1914 (Woodbridge, Suffolk: The Boydell Press, 1997), p. 32.

[3] Ibid, p. 33.

[4] Ibid.

[5] David Edgerton, England and the Aeroplane: An Essay on a Militant and Technological Nation (Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan, 1991).