Strategic Bombing Accroding to Trenchard, Douhet, and Gorrell

1002 Words3 Pages

STRATEGIC BOMBING
Strategic bombing is considered one necessity for a nation’s air force to visualize air supremacy during World War I and World War II. Strategic bombing is defined as “striking deep into enemy territory to destroy war-making capabilities.”
Many theorists speculated different ideas on strategic bombing, including Trenchard, Douhet, and Gorrell. Trenchard’s strategic bomb theory was to focus more on attacking German homelands and to target the enemy nation’s morale. Next, Douhet’s theory is based on Total War Concept and targeted German infrastructures. Lastly, Gorrell’s theory using strategic bombs was to mainly focus on one German city at a time.
From WWI, The German Bombing of Britain and the Allied Bombing of Germany both utilized strategic bombing in its attacks. During 1915-1918, Germans conducted bombing raids against, but made no progress when destroying little war making capabilities, and instead strengthened British morale. To retaliate against the Germans, the Allied Powers began the bombings in 1914 by bombing cities and airfields.
From WWII, strategic bombing became more of a major objective. From the Casablanca Conference on January 1943, the Allied Forces showed that the destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial, and economical system, undermining morale, and destruction of the enemy aircraft industry would help achieve air superiority. As a result, lessons such as targeting the facilities and sources electrical power, terror-bombing civilians was ineffective and did nothing to lower morale, and that bombers needed fighter escorts were learned.
Although it’s negligible outcome on war showed its limit in scope and intensity in World War I, it laid the fundamental foundation ...

... middle of paper ...

... subordinate should report to more than one commander.
This applies to Air, Space and Cyberspace due to the effectiveness and speed one can complete a mission. Without Unity of Command, it would create a confusing, stressful dilemma, which would affect efficiency, time, and productivity of a mission. If a subordinate were under many commanders, the time allocated, for example, of arguing which strategy would be best used for a mission would be more of an obstacle than something productive.
Next, if the goals of both the subordinate and the leader are similar when trying to accomplish a mission, the work environment becomes fast and efficient. Although Air, Space and Cyberspace are somewhat different categories within the U.S. Air Force’s Mission and job validation, Unity of Command would still need to be incorporated into each of them for the Air Force to strive.

Open Document