Arguments Against Winton's Five Function Of Theory

1607 Words4 Pages

A hundred years ago, on 6 April 1917, the United States joined in World War I and General Pershing led American soldiers into the European battlefields. This war also revealed initial airpower capabilities and a few years later General “Billy” Mitchell wrote, “with us air people, the future of our nation is indissolubly bound up in the development of air power.” With the introduction of airpower into military operations in the beginning of the 20th century, a new era of warfighting emerged in conquered the air domain. Traditional land- and sea- warfare was challenged by airpower´s famous characteristics: speed, range, mobility, and perspective. The definition of air power has eluded theorists, strategists, and advocates since the invention …show more content…

The most important aspect of theorizing airpower is to avoid conflation with capabilities, missions, or detailed processes for its application. Colin Gray contends, that “airpower has never been driven forward by a strategic and militarily mindless technological momentum. Ideas, theory, and doctrine have always been in the cockpit .” This paper will mirror the following definition against Winton´s five function of theory: Airpower contributes lethal and non-lethal effects in and through the air domain for the joint force to achieve national security objectives by compelling an enemy to do our own will. Firstly, this paper will present main characteristics of former airpower theories. Then, it will categorize the provided theory according to the purpose of airpower. Furthermore, the advantages and limitation of airpower will be …show more content…

They sought to develop eternal principles that would apply to all aspects of air warfare, regardless of time and actual capabilities. Especially the early airpower theorists focused on just one part of airpower capabilities and made overpromising predictions about what strategic bombardment could deliver. Furthermore, with the observation of trench warfare in their minds the bomber seemed to be the final solution: fly over the enemy and attack vital centers, fielded forces, cities or industrial complexes for the production of military goods. They emphasized unilateral action against an enemy without imaging anti air countermeasures like anti-aircraft artillery. Furthermore, those airpower theorists had different notion about how to convince an enemy to abandon their political will and objectives. Douhet was convinced, that attacking the civilian population, even with gas, would people lead to overthrow their government. Mitchell was more focused on industrial centers as promising strategic targets. For all those reasons, Tamy Davis Biddle proves in her masterpiece Rhetoric and Reality in Air Warfare that allied strategic bombing did not result in in a decisive airpower victory. Wishful

More about Arguments Against Winton's Five Function Of Theory

Open Document