Talk:Billy Mitchell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposed daughter article

The section on the Sinking of the Ostfriesland has grown so large and detailed that I propose creating a new article for it and rewriting a short summary here. Please give your opinions on this and I will proceed (or not) if consensus appears within three weeks. Thanx.--Reedmalloy (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the material isn't so large yet as to cause problems within this article. Binksternet (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

specification comment

"His relations with superiors continued to sour as he began to attack both the War and Navy Departments for being insufficiently farsighted regarding airpower."

Really? "insufficiently farsighted"? Does that mean nearsighted? Given that it amounted to Mitchell's chief complaint on post-War aviation development in the US Military, perhaps we should flesh it out a little more... or at least use a better description of his complaint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.229.214 (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

comment

I am curious about the following statement under the section titled "Post-War Demotion", particularly in reference to the U.S.S. Alabama. I live in Alabama and have visited the battleship. In reading the statement, it seems to imply that he sunk the Alabama. Is that correct?

"In 1921, he successfully sank numerous ships, including one of the world's largest war vessels, the German battleship Ostfriesland and the U.S. battleship Alabama."

Any information you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, Carla D. Clayton

Carla, there have been multiple USS Alabamas, a 74 Gun third rater, two post-dreadnought battleships, and the current USS Alabama, a nuclear ballistic missle submarine. There has even been a CSS Alabama and an RSCS Alabama. Stargoat 15:20, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My mistake. One a post dreadnought, one a pre-dreadnought. Stargoat 16:07, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Similarly, I would like to see greater elaboration in this paragraph: why was the test bombing considered "under war conditions" if the ships were captured? Was the Alabama that was sunk obsolete and thus used for target practice? Ground 15:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Admittedly it's a little confusing. But it was Mitchell's claim (not the test) that battleships could be sunk "under wartime conditions." (Hopefully the addition I have made to the paragraph explains better.) The battle here was political between the Air Service and the Navy. Both had valid points of view--the movie, for instance, doesn't explain why what amounted to rules of engagement had been established before the test: to allow the Navy to make damage assessment. By breaking the rules, Mitchell gave the Navy cause to attack the results. It took Pearl Harbor to prove the admirals were wrong. --Buckboard 11:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

---

In the book Alternate Generals, edited by Harry Turtledove, there is an alternate history story about Billy Mitchell. I wonder if there is some way to work this into the article, like Belisarius#Belisarius_in_fiction?

In the story, "Billy Mitchell's Overt Act" by William Sanders, Gen. Mitchell's history is changed when he is seriously injured in 1925. During his convalescence, he determines to avoid directly confronting his superiors, thus avoiding the court martial that occurs in reality. In the alternate history, Gen. Mitchell is appointed to command the 18th Bombardment Wing based at Hickam Field in the spring of 1941. He is thus at the right place and time to prevent the attack on Pearl Harbor.

William Sanders' homepage

--Jrv 15:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The problem with that idea, is that General Mitchell was required to move air power forward, sometime it takes a martyr to get things done. I think that he set back the USAF a few years by his actions, but overall it brought about a hard core group that founded the modern Air Force after the war. In particular is helped create SAC, which was the right place and time for the cold war. PPGMD

I strongly disagree with your assessment that it "set back the USAF a few years". The issue was who controlled the air force--the airmen or the ground forces (to a great extent, that battle continues today). The ground forces had won World War I doing it "their way" and were in firm control. They had already soundly defeated a proposal in Congress to create a separate AF ala the RAF. It took Mitchell's fall, the perserverence of his acolytes, the tragic accuracy of his predictions, the contribution to victory in WWII by the USAAF and George C. Marshall to overcome the Army General Staff. Even then the Navy was "kicking and screaming" all the way to the creation of DoD in September 1947. Without the Mitchell factor, which set the debate in motion and put key people like Arnold and Spaatz in position, it may have taken much longer than it did, if ever, to have a USAF. --Buckboard 11:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Mitchell's rigged test may have given confidence to the LR patrol & ocean bombing theorists, leading to the belief B-17s could sink ships underway (proven completely false in the event). It may also have, thus, contributed to the attack on the Philippines (where numbers of B-17s were increased as a "deterrent" to Japan) & Pearl Harbor (in response to the "deterrence" of Philippine B-17s...). His martyrdom, like Douhet's, may have given heart to strategic bombing zealots, who clung to the theory even when it was demonstrably not working. And it's certain rigged training (bombing in perfect conditions at Muroc) led to unwarranted confidence in precision bombing. Trekphiler 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The political battlefields were chosen by the Army general staff and the Navy, not the Air Corps. The B-17 came about in the manner it did because the Air Corps was forced to jump through their hoops--tell Germany and Japan strategic bombing did not work...Precision bombing was not a viable concept in 1940, but the groundwork laid beginning in 1921 led to its use and irrefutable value today.--Buckboard 11:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle conditions

Were the two battleships in battle condition when bombed in Mitchell's experiments? Aside from not firing back (of course) GraemeLeggett 17:24, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No. The entire test was artificial--the Navy intended it for damage assessment purposes, and Mitchell took advantage of it by violating the rules to prove his point. To those who argue the test was "invalid" because the ship was at anchor, see 7 December 1941, "Battleship Row."

Plagarism?

The following two lines can be found verbatim at the Maxwell AFB site <http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/mitch.html>. Are these plagarised?: Arriving in France in April 1917, only a few days after the United States had entered the war, Lieutenant Colonel Mitchell met extensively with British and French air leaders and studied their operations. He quickly took charge and began preparations for the American air units that were to follow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tvh2k (talk • contribs) 17:24, 26 January 2006.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll try to fix it. --TantalumTelluride 20:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. I've replaced the plagiarism with original wording and cited the source as a reference. Please blow the whistle again if you detect any more plagiarism on Wikipedia. Minor plagiarism (like this case) should be noted on the article's talk page, while major infringements should be reported at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --TantalumTelluride 20:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Government web sites and publications are public domain unless explicitly copyrighted, which the site in question is not. There is nothing wrong with copying the information verbatim. See Work of the United States Government --rogerd 04:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Posthumous Recognition?

What is the meaning of these two sentence?

"In 1955, the Air Force voided Mitchell's court-martial. His son petitioned in 1957 to have the court-martial verdict set aside, which the Air Force denied while expressing regret about the circumstances under which Mitchell's military career ended."

If in 1955, "...the Air Force voided Mitchell's court-martial", why would Mitchell's son petition, in 1957, to have the "...verdict set aside," "which the Air Force denied"? Don't the words "voided" and "set aside" essentially have the same meanings?

Why would one want something "set aside" which has already been "voided"? Possibly the 1955 Air Force action was some other legal term. Does somebody see some legal or technical difference?--TGC55 15:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't and hasn't been voided. I put the actual circumstances down.--Buckboard 11:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Does homages to Mitchell in fiction count? In the Babylon 5 episode called "And the Sky Full of Stars" there is a pilot named after Bill Michell. (The first name is not said on the air put his full name is on his name patch.)

a number of warships were sunk by air attack alone during World War II The same could be said about the 1982 argentine aviation tactics --Jor70 (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Major Error

There is one major error with this article. Gen. Mitchell's name was NOT William Landrum Mitchell. His parents never gave him a middle name. His birth is recorded in Nice's town register as "William Mitchell". Over the years, various sources (the Army, reporters, historians, etc.) all gave him middle initials (C., P., or in this case Landrum, after his father, Landrum being spelled incorrectly here as well, the correct spelling being Lendrum), but all of these are incorrect. If he were in the military today, he would be William NMI Mitchell, for No Middle Initial, which is becoming increasingly common. (source- A Question of Loyalty, Douglas Waller, Harper Perennial, 2004 P.65 paperback edition)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.50.151.8 (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Kreskin Mitchell

The movie credits him with forseeing 1600kph aircraft & transoceanic bombing missions. Any truth to it? Trekphiler 01:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest additions

General MacArthur's contributions (or lack thereof) need a source, as do the comments about receiving a gold medal (could this not have been the Medal of Honor in the next paragraph)? Deleted due to no reference. If someone finds evidence, I'd be happy to hand type it back in myself (I'll actually just cut and paste from previous revisions). Oh, and get a LoginID so we can chat about the subjectBQZip01 09:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mistake?

I believe that there is a in this article. It states that the plane named for Mitchell was the only one named for specific individuals, but the Enola Gay, which dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, was also named for a specific person —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.197.158 (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Good catch, but clarification is in order. Names of specific, individual American aircraft (such as the "Enola Gay" and "Memphis Belle") are common, but these are simply nose art and are unofficial names associated with a specific tail number. The B-25 Mitchell a model of aircraft and all of them are known as "Mitchells." — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Was the "Mitchell" an American official name; some titles like the Sherman tank were British titles for American weapons? Hugo999 (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Road America

I greatly shortened the section about "The Billy Mitchell Bridge", although it is still a couple of lines longer than other entries in the "Posthumously Awarded" section. If it needs to be shorter, please remove it and I'll put it back in, again, shortened even more. Thanks. Srajan01 23:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The bridge is NOT named after the pilot Billy Mitchell. The bridge is named after Bill Mitchell. Here is the link: http://www.mitchellsoftware.com/links.htm He was a designer with GM in the 50s and 60s. I thought too that it was named after the pilot, but it wasnt. Thanks Wxcguy 20:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference section should mention the USS (General?) Billy Mitchell, a troop transport vessel that ferried troops across the Pacific.

68.7.2.216 (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 30 Jan 2008 oclark564@cox.net

1920-1921 Mining Wars, Battle of Blair Mountain, West Virginia

Could someone please add a section about Billy Mitchell's involvement in the WV Mining Wars? I found two articles with information. The first article is from the WV Cultural History website. The second article cites sources at the bottom for verifiability.

From http://www.wvculture.org/hiStory/minewars.html From http://www.eclecticbuzz.com/wvh.htm

Jbeninco (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Years of service

Regarding the years of service infobox entry, precisely when did Mitchell enter the Army: 1897 or 1898? This section of article text confuses me: "Billy Mitchell attended Columbian College, where he was a member of Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity. He then enlisted as a Private at age 18 during the Spanish American War." First, did Mitchell finish college at or before 18 or did he enlist before graduating? Second, he turned 18 in late 1897, but the Spanish American War started in April 1898. When did he enlist? Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Medal of Honor?

Hmm, somehow the info has fallen out of the article over the many edits. Per http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/asaoc.html, a "Medal of Honor" was approved on August 8, 1946 per Private Law 884. But based on this google book information, it is unclear if it was a regular Medal of Honor, a Congressional Gold Medal, or something else. — MrDolomite • Talk 17:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

WWI Service category

He is classed as "American military personnel of World War I" but why isn't this category broken down into Army (including AAF?) and Navy and perhaps Marines ?? Hugo999 (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No reason other than it hasn't been done yet. Be bold. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

1933 film

There's a 1933 major studio propaganda film paid for by William Randolph Hearst which has a pivotal scene in which the American president demonstrates for a gathered crowd of world ambassadors that dive bombers can sink two obsolescent American battleships. In Gabriel Over the White House, the president says something like "Behold the American Navy of the Air!" before the bombing commences. The ships indeed sink, and the stated lesson is that the world leaders no longer have to spend money on battleship building—they can instead focus on less-expensive air defense and begin to pay their Great War debts.

So... here in this article, the usual place to list such a film has the heading "Posthumous recognition" whereas this film was made several years before Mitchell's death. Also, unlike Mitchell, the film does not use level bombers, heavy bombers, to do the deed. Binksternet (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you mean by "the film does not use level bombers, heavy bombers, to do the deed." Most Naval bombers from that era are low-level or dive bombers. Heavy bombers were predominantly land-based and part of the Army Air Forces. In any case, unless someone made some sort of assertion that these were allusions to the actions of Mitchell, I'd stay away from it despite the obvious parallels. We need WP:V and WP:RS for Wikipedia articles. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the aircraft in the film, yes, the film shows small-ish biplane dive bombers (I didn't catch the exact type), but Mitchell, for his battleship sinking demo, used the heaviest level bombers that the Air Corps had in inventory. The film showed every small-ish bomb making a direct hit on the ship's superstructure which of course wouldn't have done enough damage to sink the ship in seconds. I think the issue here is more of WP:SYNTH, unless I were able to find a reviewer making the connection between the film and Mitchell's demonstration. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Concur. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Duplication needs condensing; Incorrect that bombs missed

Rules of engagement and Sinking of the Ostfriesland should be in the same section. It is also incorrect that "bombs missed", they were dropped to impact below the waterline. One of the known facts was that Battleships, and other armored vessels, had their armor above the waterline. Hence the effectiveness of WWI submarine launched torpedoes as well as aiming of large Naval guns at the waterline of target vessel. There should also be diambiguation of "aerial torpedoes": are these torpedoes dropped by airplanes? or air-to-surface missles? Anyway one of the "Rules of engagement" that Mitchell was to follow was that the bombs dropped were to land on top of the ships, where the armor is thickest. Mitchell had the bombs dropped early to hit the hull at/below the waterline, sinking ships but violating the rules. Mitchell may have used "skip bombing" however (see http://www.scribd.com/doc/1462180/US-Air-Force-meilinger ) Ennis Whitehead, one of the pilots participating, is credited. Shjacks45 (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Read aerial torpedo for your answer to that question. The wikilink in the article is intended to disambiguate the concept for the reader.

About the near misses, there are two sentences in the article which help define how serious and how intentional the near misses were: "Alexander Seversky, a veteran Russian pilot who had bombed German ships in the Great War, joined the effort, suggesting the bombers aim near the ships so that expanding water pressure from the underwater blasts would stave in and separate hull plates. Further discussion with Captain Alfred Wilkinson Johnson, Commander, Air Force, Atlantic fleet aboard USS Shawmut, confirmed that near-miss bombs would inflict more damage than direct hits; near-misses would cause an underwater concussive effect against the hull." I think this is suitable. Binksternet (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Walter Lees

The article states, "One of Mitchell's flight instructors was Walter Lees, an aviator from Mazomanie, Wisconsin." Is there some reason this is significant? Mitchell apparently had other flight instructors, but why is it noteworthy to mention Mr. Lees? Eastcote (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Father of the US Air Force

I'm not sure how appropriate this descriptor is for Billy Mitchell, especially as the lead sentence. The reference cited is a quote from one person, Senator Bass -- if he is the only person to refer to Mr. Mitchell as such, then it seems like an overstatement here. I will be working on the Mason Patrick page over the next few weeks and there are plenty of researchers who would describe him as "the father of the US Air Service." After all, Mitchell was Patrick's employee.Lcro1 (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no conflict. Bass is the father of the Air Service, comprising close air support of the Army. Mitchell is the father of the independent Air Force in the USA. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

No, my point is that I'm not sure describing Mitchell as the 'father of the US Air Force' is accurate to either the history or the public conception. On inspection of the quote describing Mitchell as 'father of the US Air Force," it comes from a Senator Bass, a nephew of Mitchell who was seeking recognition for Mitchell, and therefore it may not be a reliable source. I think it would be more appropriate to refer to him as an 'early advocate of US air power' or something a little more objective. Lcro1 (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, Mitchell isn't mentioned once on the United States Air Force page. If he was it's father, he certainly was an absent parent. Lcro1 (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I meant 'Patrick', not 'Bass'. Sorry. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Mitchell's absence from the USAF page, that is something which can be fixed with a little typing.

Let's see what other reliable sources say about Mitchell being the father of the USAF:

• "...he remains the individual who can most be termed the founding father of the United States Air Force..." Johnny R. Jones (2004) William "Billy" Mitchell's Air Power, page xi. ISBN 9781410215574
• "Mitchell, now known as the 'Father of the U.S. Air Force,' fought against the short-sightedness of top military leaders regarding air power after World War I." Burke Davis (1967) The Billy Mitchell affair, page 87.
• "Mitchell is regarded as the father of U.S. military aviation." Van Lee (2005) Vin Rouge, Vin Blanc, Beaucoup Vin: The American Expeditionary Force in WWI, page 143. ISBN 9781411623156
• "Mitchell remains the single most famous, significant, and controversial figure in the history of American airpower... If Mitchell was not the father of naval air, as some have written, he was at least its godfather." Roger G. Miller (2009) Billy Mitchell: "Stormy Petrel of the Air", page 45. ISBN 9781437912845
• Argument that Mitchell can be considered the father of US Naval Aviation. Samuel F. Wells (November 1963). "William Mitchell and the Ostfriesland: A Study in Military Reform," The Historian Volume 26, pages 38–62.
• "One of the earliest Airmen—often called the father of the Air Force—earned a reputation as a prophet because of his perceptive insights. More than 20 years before the Air Force became a separate service and long before the term air superiority entered Airmen's parlance, William 'Billy' Mitchell..." Roger Burdette (Winter 2005) "The Air Force of the Future", Air & Space Power Journal, page 17.
• "He is considered the founding father of the U.S. Air Force." Alan Axelrod (2000) The Complete Idiot's Guide to World War I, page 324.
• "Along with Mitchell and Arnold, Spaatz is considered one of the founding fathers of the United States Air Force." Walter Boyne (2002) Air Warfare: an International Encyclopedia, page 586. ISBN 9781576073452
• "If any man can be said to be the father of the United States Air Force, it is Billy Mitchell." Air Force Magazine, Volume 68, 1985, page 159.

It appears that it is not just relatives of Mitchell who regard him as the father of US airpower in some fashion, or place him in an elite group at the top. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is an impressive list. I may still prefer "regarded as a founding father of the US Air Force." Perhaps Gen. Patrick's page is just so puny by comparison that his legacy seems overshadowed --which incidentally does reflect the Mitchell-Patrick dynamic. There is a line of thought that Patrick 'saved' the future of US air power despite Mitchell, not because of him. Lcro1 (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of objectivity, though, I will go on record saying I have a bit of a bias against Mitchell (as if that weren't clear :)Lcro1 (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Certainly Mitchell is a flawed "father", leaving the babies to be raised by men such as Patrick, Spaatz, Hap Arnold, Rear Admiral William A. Moffett, Rear Admiral Bradley A. Fiske, etc. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A further note on the article re the battleships sunk by aerial action alone

Under the subheading Posthumous Recognition the article lists 16 battleships destroyed by aircraft alone. These include HMS Prince of Wales destroyed by the Imperial Japanese Air Force in the Gulf of Thailand, using torpedoes. Her consort, the battlecruiser HMS Repulse was also destroyed, making 17 capital ships sunk by air power rather than 16. I submit that the Repulse is relevent in the context of Mitchell's argument that aircraft had the potential to destroy battleships. Incidentally, Prince of Wales and Repulse were caught at sea, fully operational, with enough sea room for any evasive manoevres they could think of, and with all their anti-aircraft systems working: they were sunk in short order. Their loss proved beyond all doubt that Mitchell was right, because they had every chance to defend themselves and could not.Cleckheaton (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

When I first put the list of battleships into the prose paragraph, I consciously chose to limit the list and not put battlecruisers, or heavy cruisers, or regular cruisers in there. The list would get too large and unwieldy, and the impact would not be so precise, as it was against battleships alone that Mitchell made his strongest points. I think the the Prince stands for the sinking of both ships in this list. Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I take your point that Mitchell very specifically said battleships. Since a line must be drawn somewhere, it was logical for you to draw it there. I don't know how many others of the faster, more lightly armoured battlecruisers were sunk by airial action alone, but I would be surprised if HMS Repulse was the one and only. That's before we start getting into allied cruisers sunk by the Germans in the Battle of Crete, or by the Japanese in the Java Sea and elsewhere. Aircraft carriers were in their infancy when Mitchell was writing and lecturing, but the many aircraft carriers destroyed by aerial bombardment aren't totally irrelevent either. I accept the logical decision to exclude HMS Repulse et al because they weren't strictly battleships, and Mitchell did say battleships. But I would like to suggest that an extra reference to the various other important fleet units destroyed by aircraft, not necessarily listing them, but just pointing them out, would add value to the article by emphasising the broader point. Years before real warfare demonstrated the fact, Colonel Mitchell foretold that the fast and suitably armed aeroplane would totally revolutionise doctrines of naval warfare. He suffered rotten and malicious victimising bad treatment because he was telling important and powerful people such as President Coolidge things they really didn't want to hear. History has shown who was right and who was stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleckheaton (talk • contribs) 09:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

He was a nut who assumed that naval warships would be swept from the seas by land based aircraft. This was tested in WW-II and the result was that naval air swept the skies of land based aircraft. Just look at the attempts of the USAF to plan some way of being part of the upcoming Taiwan-war when it's clearly going to be PLAAF vs USN. Hcobb (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You show a profound lack of knowledge of the topic, both in general and in detail, to make such a judgment. Mitchell was an air power advocate, not an advocate of "land-based air power". In 1919 he was a proponent of "floating bases" that would have 900' decks, substantial speed, and operate in pairs as part of maritime expeditionary forces. Moreover, Mitchell's battleship stunt, whatever one's view of it, was the paradigm shift in the Navy that led to the development of carrier air power sooner--much sooner--than later. It was a cheap "war defeat" that cost the Navy nothing except the realization that the battle line was rapidly becoming obsolete. Your second assertion is simplistic and confuses cause with effect. The aircraft that the Navy "swept from the sky" were primarily naval aircraft, just as the AAF's battles for air supremacy were against land-based air forces. Each service had its value and both succeeded in their purpose. The third statement is simply not worth acknowledging.--Reedmalloy (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Naval air power proved decisive in the Pacific and really Mitchell can't be blamed for not predicting this at a time when aircraft carriers barely existed. Land-based aircraft did radically alter the naval balance of power in the NW European theatre: the Royal Navy home fleet could not operate in the North Sea; Arctic convoys to Russia were gravely mauled by the Luftwaffe; land based aircraft destroyed the Tirpitz, the Lutzow, the Admiral Scheer. They destroyed HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse in an action which decisively weakened the British and Commonwealth forces in the Far East and left Singapore virtually defenceless. This was a massive and historic defeat for the British. It was a single land based aircraft armed with a glider bomb, precursor to the smart bombs used today, which utterly crippled HMS Warspite, leaving this battleship permanently damaged and fit only to be used as artillery support for land operations.

Shore based aircraft were not and are not a negligible quantity. Colonel Mitchell was not a nut.Cleckheaton (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Mitchell was no nut. The only reason U.S. naval air was powerful enough to do anything in WWII was in reaction to his ship-sinking demonstrations. The smarter navies of the world saw their fatal weaknesses in Mitchell's demonstrations—they responded by organizing air fleets. Cleckheaton, perhaps there should be an article called List of ships sunk by air power or some such. A list like that could feature every ship sunk or put out of action by air. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, Fleet Problem XIII in February 1932 had over 100 aircraft "attack" and destroy the Pearl Harbor base, but the umpires ruled that such a mission was "too dangerous" to be viable, in one of the most egregious examples of the Navy refusing to believe in the shift to airpower. Nine years later the Japanese would overrule the umpires. Mark Sublette (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Counting the number of battleships actually destroyed by air power to validate Mitchell’s theory is overly simplistic. The number doesn’t matter. That a battleship could be destroyed by air power under combat conditions, even if only one had actually been destroyed, was proof enough. That fact profoundly limited the function of battleships in combat. Take for example the Battle of Samar. Admiral Kurita withdrew from the action after a heroic attack by a small U.S. surface force and a few aircraft, even though none of his battleships had been seriously damaged. He aborted the mission in large part because he thought Halsey (i.e., a major air power) was nearby. In other words, although the I.J.N. battleships were not sunk, the threat of being sunk by U.S. air power prevented them from being used in the Battle of Leyte Gulf. In short, air power may have destroyed only a limited number of battleships, but the threat of air power severely blunted the effectiveness of virtually all battleships.

Taking a look at this concept from a hypothetical point of view, say six battleships are heading for a mission, but two of them are sunk by submarines. The other four continue on and effectively complete the mission. In another attack by six battleships, aircraft destroy one battleship, but because of the threat to the rest of the fleet, the remaining ships abort the mission and turn back. So, which force was more effective? Counting destroyed targets, the submarines were more effective, two to one. But in neutralizing an enemy attack, the aircraft were more effective. Bottom line, counting destroyed targets alone does not tell the whole story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.233.125 (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Rank

There is inconsistency between the rank shown in the table and the narrative. The 1920 promotion to brigadier general is shown as if it were a permanent promotion, rather than a temporary promotion associated with his assignment. His return to the grade of colonel upon reassignment is not reflected in the table. Although the narrative is not clear as to whether his resignation was in lieu of his suspension, or of the entire verdict of the court martial, it appears that the sentence of demotion was effective before his resignation and should be included in the table. Finally, his posthumous promotion should also appear in the table. --Lineagegeek (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the top American combat airmen of WWI?

In the section concerning his WWI service, there is a sentence stating that Mitchell was "[r]ecognized as one of the top American combat airmen of the war alongside aces such as his good friend, Eddie Rickenbacker." This is difficult to fathom since there appears to be no dispute that he did not have enough air combat victories to even qualify as an "ace", let alone enough combat victories to be considered one of the top American combat airmen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_I_flying_aces_from_the_United_States — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.7.59.17 (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Billy Mitchell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114165732/http://www.history.navy.mil:80/library/online/navybomb2.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/navybomb2.htm
• Added archive http://archive.is/20120719062320/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.af.mil%2Fnews%2Fstory.asp%3FstoryID%3D123020472 to http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123020472

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)