FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1922
1922 - 0016.PDF
which obviously come from some one with a supposed grievance. As to the " Military Dictatorship," Sir Hugh Trenchard is, admittedly, an old Army officer, but has he ever let his better acquaintance with the Army override the claims of the Navy ? Frankly, we think not. If proof were needed it may be adduced from a list of ex-naval officers who hold important posts in the R.A.F., compiled by Major Blake and published in the P.M.G- of January 6. It is sufficient, without going into details as to the posts held, to mention the names: Air-Commodore Steele, Commodore Briggs, Air-Commodore Lambe, Air- Commodore Swann, Air Vice-Marshal Vyvyan, Air- Commodore Scarlett, Group Captain Clarke Hall, Air-Commodore Masterman, Air-Commodore Samson and Wing-Commander Cave-Brown-Cave. All of these officers, with naval records, hold important and responsible positions. Is that an indication of Military dominance ? Moreover, it may as well be stated "for the benefit of those who are not aware of the fact, that while the squadrons working with the Army have had to use war types of machines, the Navy has had up-to-date machines, designed and built since the Armistice. Does that indicate that the water-tight compartment Navy is being treated as a Cinderella as regards materiel ? The whole truth of the matter is that the Admiralty has practically and persistently refused co-operation with the R.A.F., generally on the flimsiest of grounds, as, by way of instance, that the officers could not be spared (for training) so long away from the sea. As regards the allegations of lack of organisation : When the end of the War brought about an enormous reduction in the Army and Navy as well as in the R.A.F., an entirely new organisation had to be planned. It is inevitable that in the consequent upheaval mistakes might be made. Were none made by the Army, or even by the infallible Navy ? There was this difference, however, that in the Navy there were centuries of experience and precedent to draw upon. Sir Hugh Trenchard was faced with the enormous difficulty of having to create, where the wiseacres at the Admiralty had merely to see what their predecessors did in the past under similar circumstances and carry on for another few decades as before. As we have said already, mistakes may have been made in the initial stages of R.A.F. organisation, but taking it as a whole we think there has not been much with which to be dissatisfied. Upon occasion, we have in a friendly spirit crossed swords with Sir Hugh Trenchard, and shall no doubt do so again when necessity arises, but the indiscrimi nate allegations in the Pall Mall Gazette are upon a totally different plane, are an outrageous travesty of the facts and not worthy the reputation of a newspaper with so great a past. Major Blake, in his communication against the attack, makes several excellent points, such as, for instance, with regard to the allegation that the esprit de corps of the R.A.F. has almost disappeared. He says : " A ' Distinguished Officer ' who deplores the lack of esprit de corps and then attacks the service to which he belongs is certainly not competent to criticise." Some of the statements made are merely ludicrous. For instance, " At all times the influence of inefficient officers is bad," Precisely. This has upon occasion been found to be so, even in the Navy. And it was realised by the R.A.F. when the time came for reductions. Hence they were allowed to leave JANUARY 12, 1922 the R.A.F. and to become " distinguished officers " lamenting the lack of esprit de corps, and the lack of appreciation in a chief who simply would not see what excellent fellows they were. " Many accidents have been due to ignorance." There is a volume of deep thought behind that statement. When the bows of a destroyer cave in because the ship is too hard pressed, it is not due to the ignorance of the designer in failing to get his stresses right. Surely not. It cannot be ignorance, because the designer was an Admiralty man, and therefore omniscient. And so the supposed " chaos " meanders on until it arouses doubt even in the uninformed by its very absurdities. . . In the same issue of the P.M.G., Rear-Admiral Sir W. R. Hall makes a plea for single control of the Navy and its air arm. On the whole, the claims of the gallant Admiral are moderately stated, and at any rate they are straightforward and honest. That they come from a retired officer of a service which promises to become in time obsolete amply explains the views expressed. One may take it that the gallant Admiral has not had the opportunity of obtaining a very intimate knowledge of the " air arm," and hence he cannot be expected to see the matter other than from the restricted and purely Naval point of view. His statement that " the present scheme does not work " (with the Navy) is already answered by the fact that its alleged failure to work is entirely due to the hostility of the Admiralty and its refusal to give it a chance to prove that it will work. He contends that it will be a long time before aircraft will be in a position to keep the seas without the assistance of the Navy. Perhaps, and perhaps not. But on the other hand it will certainly not be long, if not already here, before the Navy will be totally unable to keep the seas without the assistance of the " Air Arm." The article in the P.M.G. has drawn -£n.R-i\-F- from Sir Cecil Lambert, Director of Kejoinaer Personnel R AF) ^ extremely able - defence, during which Sir Cecil refers to a few only of the things accomplished by the R.A.F. since the Armistice. Sir Cecil, it will be remembered, was Fourth Sea Lord in 1913, and as such was responsible for drawing up the organisation which was adopted for the R.N.A.S. As he says, " the Navy as a whole did not take kindly to the Air Force at its inception, and even after war broke out rather despised than encouraged it. Finally, in 1917, the then Board of Admiralty threw the whole thing overboard, and in the spring of the following year the separate Air Force came into being, and supremacy in the air was at last attained." The italics are ours, and comment is, we think, superfluous. There we have, in a nutshell, the whole story of the Navy's attitude from the commencement, and incidentally proof of the fallacy of letting the Navy again run its own air service. Sir Cecil says, with regard to the alleged failure of the " Naval partnership " or co-operation between the Navy and the R.A.F. : " There are practically no Naval officers with any knowledge of airmanship, but this is in no way the fault of the Air Ministry. The Admiralty were asked to lend or have a quota of officers seconded each year for four years' training in aviation. The offer was refused on the inadequate ground that naval officers could not be spared so long away from the sea ; on the other hand, arrange ments have been made for ensuring that Air Force
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
