No. 2 Squadron SAAF – 23rd March 1943

I have been busy the last few days hence the lack of posts on this project. Thankfully I am not doing it in ‘real time’ to the event so it is not a major issue. Here is the entry for 23 March.

“BOMBING HIGHLY SATISFACTORY”. This message, transmitted back from Army Headquarters, was expression of appreciation for the work done by the Kittyhawks of our wing in a bombing raid on an enemy strong point about 30 miles North West of MEDININ and just in front of the MARETH LINE. The enemy strong point consisted of a hill with gun emplacements, commanding a road up which our troops were endeavouring to advance. Nine of our aircraft with Lt.Col. LOFTUS leading in the tenth Kittyhawk, took-off at 0630 hours fully armed. They were followed by Kittybombers of No. 5 Squadron and No. 4 Squadron provided top cover of fighters.

The enemy strong-point was located and our aircraft dived from 8000′ to drop their bombs, some of the pilots strafing in their dive. Bombs were all in their target area and direct hits on emplacements were registered. One bomb is thought to have hit an ammunition dump as “quite a pyrotechnic display resulted”.

An indication of the success of the bombing was the fact that the Americans, who were to have bombed after us, were not called upon to do so. Over 30 per cent of the enemy emplacements were put out of action, it was learned, and the position was taken. From all aspects this was a most successful operation, as the enemy were taken completely by surprise and there was no A.A. Fire from the target are to speak of, when our planes swooped down.

The main road to FOUM TATAHOUINE passes our camp and with the recent thrust towards the GABES GAP, this road has lots of interest. This evening under the cover of darkness, tanks and supply vehicles began rumbling up and numbers of our personnel stood at the road “watching the tanks go by” – a heartening spectacle for us.

TNA, AIR 27/22 ‘No. 2 Squadron SAAF Operations Record Book’ 22 March 1943

A Case Study in Army-Air Force Co-Operation

My post blogging of the Battle for the Mareth Line, which I have fallen behind with, was based upon research I had done in preperation for a conference I attended last year. I have been playing around with word press and I have just realised I can upload PowerPoint so I thought I would upload so people can have a look. The paper I am writing for the conference publication is based on this presentation.

A Case Study in Army-Air Force Cooperation

Ross

No. 2 Squadron SAAF – 21st March 1943

Here is the second post for operations on 21 March.

Eleven of our pilots were early on the job this morning when they took the air shortly before eleven o’clock. They were flying as close cover to 18 Bostons who were to bomb a road in the enemy lines, and they were led by Lt.Col. LOFTUS. The operation was without event. There was no movement observed on the road and the Bostons did not release their loads.

A repeat performance was staged three hours later by the Bostons and our aircraft, eleven stong led by Major ARMSTRONG on this occasion acting as medium cover. The road was bombed but results were not observed by our pilots, who reported no enemy aircraft and only medium A.A. fire from the target area.

After lunch the aircraft took off for HAZBUB MAIN and the remainder of the squadron proceeding thither by road, the entire squadron was encamped at the new landing ground by nightfall.

General MONTGOMERY’s personal message to the Eighth Army was received to-day. As usual his message made interesting and heartening reading.

Another nocturnal call was paid by the jerry tonight. One enemy bomber flew very low over our camp in the moonlight the rear-gunner firing a few bursts at some of our transports but without causing any damage. Bofors shells in pursuit of the intruder flew low over tent-tops in the camp, also, however, without causing any damage.

No. 2 Squadron SAAF – 20th March 1943

Here is the first entry from the Squadrons ORB. At this time the Squadron was equipped with Cutiss Kittyhawks.

Operations started with a rush to-day, the squadron acting as close, medium and top cover to the light bombers in consecutive operations. There were 32 sorties and a total of some 48 hours operational flying.

Good bombing results by the Bostons were observed by our pilots on the first operation, led by Lt.Col. LOFTUS. The target appeared to be dug in enemy positions. A.A. fire was intense but no other enemy opposition was encountered by our aircraft which returned safely.

The medium cover operation also called on an dozen aircraft from this unit but the “engine-trouble Gremlin” was busy on this operation and only eleven took off, Capt. HAUPT***** leading. Over the target area, another two “moscowed”. (Miscued?)

Bombing was carried out by the 18 escorted Bostons South of Mareth from a height of 7000′. Cloud obscured the bombing results. Heavy and accurate A.A. fire was put up and one of the Bostons, apparently hit, was observed to go in, two parachutes being observed to open.

In the last operation, Major ARMSTRONG took eleven as top cover for a third formation of Bostons bombing in the Mareth area. Our aircraft flew at 13,000′ and bombing results were not observed. Another Boston was hit by A.A. fire and went down in flames, and again two parachutes were observed to open. No enemy air opposition was encountered on any of the days operations.

“A” party received unexpected instructions to move to HAZBIB MAIN (Medinin area) at lunch-time this afternoon and by this evening were setting up at our new landing ground. What with flares, A.A. fire, and an enemy twin-engined bomber strafing the road adjoining the new camp, our personnel had a slightly unpleasant introduction to their new home.

TNA, AIR 27/22 ‘No. 2 Squadron SAAF – Operations Record Book’ 20th March 1943

Post-Blogging the Battle of the Mareth Line – Introduction

Inspired by Brett Holman’s experiment of post-blogging the Sudeten Crisis I have decided to have a go at some thing similar, albeit over a much smaller time frame.

I am going to post about the experience of No. 2 Squadron SAAF during the Battle for the Mareth Line in late March 1942. I am doing this by using their Operations Record Book. The ORB is effectively a daily record of events with a squadrons. It is the RAF’s version of a Regimental War Diary or a Ships Log. They tend to be variable in quality. However, for some inexplicable reasons No. 2 Squadron appear to have had an administrative officer who revelled in detail. As such the ORB give a very good outline of air operations in and around Marethduring the period of the battle. The post will start on 20 March as this was the day that the main attacks by XXX Corps went in against the Mareth Line. Aerial operations had actually begun almost a week earlier and some ground operation had taken place in the few day before the main attack with the intention of clearing the outpost of the Mareth Line. However, we are dealing with the two main operations of the battle, Operations PUGILIST and SUPERCHARGE II.

This series of posts has come our of a paper I delivered last year at a conference on Allied military effectiveness during the war in the Mediterranean. My paper dealt with the Army-Air Force Cooperation during the Battle of the Mareth Line. I am in the process of writing the paper up for publication, which is due out in 2010. However, the detail from the ORB would never make it into the paper in full, hence, why it is going on here.

Gallipoli, Combined Operations and Air Power

Just a bit that I have been working on lately for my thesis. This is part of my attempt to place air power and combined operations in its historical context and explain where the thinking on air powers use in the type of operation came from. Comments always welcomed and wanted.

————————————————————————————-

The experience of the First World War had a profound affect on the development on all aspects of British military doctrine in the inter-war period and this was no less true of Combined Operations.[1] In October 1919 the Army and the Royal Navy held the first Combined Operations exercise at the Army Staff College (ASC) and it was during this exercise that the importance of air power on Combined Operations was first identified. Major General Anderson, Commandant of the ASC, observed that the most important lessons from the First World War was that Combined Operations ‘…will in the future have to be considered as a combined operation involving all three services..’[2]

The key experience for Combined Operations from the First World War came from operations conducted during the Dardanelles Campaign in 1915 and the small raids conducted along the Flanders coast, the most notable of which was the raid on Zeebrugge on 22/23 April 1918.[3] As for Gallipoli, Kenneth Clifford has noted that ‘The lessons of Gallipoli were more than a past experience…’[4] Thus, it would be this operation that would be the guiding hand on the development of British Combined Operations doctrine during the inter-war years.

The Dardanelles campaign was a failure, on that most historians’ agree. In the aftermath of the campaign the Dardanelles Commission was set up in order to examine the purpose and conduct of the campaign.[5] However, despite its exertions and criticisms, the conduct of air power during the campaign was overlooked as a contributory factor to the problems that the forces deployed during the campaign faced.[6] However, air power did not live up to it expectation as, in line with other campaigns of the First World War, air power did not contribute in the war the airmen expected it to. Eric Ash has noted that, Colonel Frederick Sykes, the senior airmen for much of the campaign, ‘…failed to appreciate the technological limits of air power…’[7] During the campaign the main roles for the air forces deployed were those normally associated with air power in the early years of the First World War; tactical reconnaissance (Tac R) and artillery reconnaissance and spotting (Arty R).[8] However, as the campaign progressed, as in other theatres, other roles came to the fore. For example, during November and December 1915 attempts at Battlefield Aerial Interdiction (BAI) were made upon important logistical centres such as Ferejik and Dede Agach in an attempt to dislocate the battlefield from the Turkish lines of communication.[9] Also throughout much of the campaign Turkish troop movements from railheads became targets of opportunities for pilots.[10] In conducting the withdrawal from Gallipoli the two wings of the Royal Naval Air Service (RNAS) were tasked with maintaining patrols overt the peninsula in order to maintain air superiority and stop Turkish aeroplanes from interfering in the retreat; in this they were successful and an important lesson in combined operations learnt.[11]

Despite some limited success near the end of the campaign the experience of air power for much of it had been frustrating. In June 1915, the aforementioned Colonel Sykes was sent to the Dardanelles to assess the use of air power and the problems it was encountering. Through his subsequent report and his command of the RNAS units employed during the campaign several key problems can be identified. The first key problem was one of command relationships. When Sykes went out to the Dardanelles the RNAS commander on the scene was Wing Commander C R Samson, a man noted to be uncooperative and tactless.[12] The relations between both men can be best described by Vice Admiral de Robeck’s communication to the First Sea Lord at the end of August 1915 when he noted that he hoped that Samson and Sykes would work well together but that ‘…an unfortunate publication…has appeared here…’ in which ‘…Samson [was] criticising Sykes.’[13] However, despite this clash Samson did continue to work with Sykes until his departure in November. Despite the emergence of a status quo between Sykes and Samson, relations with other naval officers remained strained and many refused to recognise Sykes’ naval rank, Wing Captain. This problem of command did not help the difficult conditions facing the air forces deployed to Gallipoli.

The RNAS’ main problem was one of reorganisation and reinforcement. The units sent out to support the campaign at its inception were woefully disproportionate to the task at hand. Samson’s squadron, No. 3 RNAS, was the main unit to be initially deployed, was expected to perform a multitude of tasks from spotting to bombing. However, the biggest problem faced by the squadron was one of logistics and organisation. The squadrons consisted of no less than five different types of aircraft which caused many problems when the need for spare parts arose.[14] Also the squadron’s original base of Tenedos was unsuitable for the squadron and eventually the squadron moved to Imbros in July 1915 where a more effective organisation was built up. Sykes also requested the replacement of the ragtag collections of aircraft equipping his command to be replaced and rationalised into single types in order to ease the logistical issues he faced.[15]

Once Sykes dealt with the organisational and logistical issues that his command faced he identified that his force had two objectives. The first was to act as a means of intelligence and communication between the services and secondly, to prevent reinforcements reaching the battlefield. In order to pursue these objectives Sykes came to realise that he also needed to maintain air superiority in order to stop the Turkish air force from interfering with his primary mission. Thus, he recognised that his role was to support the combined operation that was ongoing. For Sykes as an air power theorist this meant he had to think on the strategic and operational level in order to achieve tactical objectives. This meant he needed to build up air power in the region and then utilise it to dislocate the battle space and allow his command to achieve its primary objectives.[16] However, despite the limited success’ already mentioned the campaign ended before air power could have any significant impact upon its conduct. For example, Ash has noted that despite attempts at BAI they were on the whole insignificant.[17]

Yet despite the technological limitation placed upon Sykes’ command many lessons for future combined operations could and were drawn from this experience. The key lessons learnt were, first, that an effective operating base was needed and this was something that would frustrate the services in the inter-war period. Second, once this was established it was noted that for air power to effectively support the land and maritime operations air superiority would be needed, and indeed this would go on to be the primary objective of air power in the 1938 Manual of Combined Operations, which noted that ‘The main aim of air strategy…is therefore to assert the superiority of out air forces over…the enemy…as to prohibit any sustained attack on the expedition…’[18] Third, once this was achieved support operations could operate successfully within the battle space. Thus, the Dardanelles campaign would provide the lessons and context for the development of inter-war Combined Operations doctrine and the application of air power in support of that type of operation. As the Royal Air Force’s official history notes about Gallipoli, ‘For the first time a campaign was conducted on, under and over the sea, and on and over the land.’[19]


[1] For example, for the experience of the Army see: David French ‘Doctrine and Organisation in the British Army, 1919 – 1932’ The Historical Journal, Vol. 44, No. 2 (2001) pp. 497 – 515

[2] The National Archives, ADM 116/2086 ‘Letter from Major General Anderson, Commandant Army Staff College to the Secretary of the Director of Staff Duties, War Office, 7/01/1920’ p. 1

[3] The literature on the Dardanelles Campaign is vast. Some of the best treatments of the campaign are: Jenny McLeod (Ed.) Gallipoli Reconsidered (London: Frank Cass, 2004) and Timothy Travers Gallipoli, 1915 (Stroud: Tempus, 2001). For the raids on Zeebrugge and Ostend see Mark Karau ‘Twisting the Dragon’s Tail: The Zeebrugge and Ostend Raids of 1918’ Journal of Military History, Vol. 67, No. 2 (April 2003) pp. 455 – 481

[4] Kenneth Clifford Amphibious Warfare Development in Britain and America from 1920 (New York: Edgewood, 1983) p. 31

[5] Jenny McLeod ‘General Sir Ian Hamilton and the Dardanelles Commission’ War in History, Vol. 8, No. 4 (2001) p. 418

[6] Eric Ash ‘Sir Frederick Sykes and the Air Revolution, 1912 – 1918’ PhD Thesis (University of Calgary, 1995) p. 248

[7] Ash ‘Sir Frederick Sykes’ p. 241

[8] Peter Mead The Eye in the Air: History of Air Observation and Reconnaissance for the Army, 1785 – 1945 (London: HMSO, 1983) p. 112

[9] H A Jones The War in the Air: Being the Story of the part played in the Great War by the Royal Air Force, Volume 2 (London: HMSO, 1928 ) pp. 64 – 72

[10] Ibid

[11] Jones The War in the Air, pp. 72 – 77

[12] Ash ‘Sir Frederick Sykes’ p. 243

[13] Cited in Ash ‘Sir Frederick Sykes’ p. 251 and Brad King ‘Gallipoli: The Royal Naval Air Service and the Dardanelles’ The Joint Imperial War Museum/Australian War Memorial Battlefield Study Tour to Gallipoli, September 2000 (2001) p. 8 

[14] King ‘Gallipoli’ p. 3

[15] Jones The War in the Air, p. 57

[16] Ash ‘Sir Frederick Sykes’ pp. 253 – 256

[17] Ash ‘Sir Frederick Sykes’ p. 256

[18] TNA, AIR 10/1437 ‘Manual of Combined Operations (1938)’ p. 121

[19] Jones The War in the Air, p. 75

The Development of RAF Air Power in North Africa – Conclusion

Here is the conclusion to my work on the RAF’s Desert Air Force. The other two parts can be seen here and here. Much of the conclusion is derived from secondary literary sources notable work about Rommel, Montgomery and Conningham. It would be interesting to one day to dig a bit further and assess the effectiveness of air power North Africa but that is for the future as they say.

 

——————————————

Axis Appreciation of RAF Tactical Air Power:

In order to consider the strategic effectiveness of the developments in RAF tactical air power and its evolving doctrines is too see what affect it had upon the strategies and morale of the opposition. In order to do this several memoirs and papers have been consulted in order to gain a picture of the effect of these operations upon the axis war effort. Notable among these memoirs and papers is The Rommel Papers[1] and Colonel Hans Von Luck Panzer Commander.[2]

Morale is one of the tangibles in military history that is hard to quantify and as such, the effect that air power may have on someone one day may not be the same the next.  Morale can be defined as the:  

…condition with respect to discipline and confidence, pride, fixity of purpose, faith in the cause fought for…’[3]

The morale of the German Army of the Second World War has been an often studied subject in an attempt to understand why the average German fought and once he knew the war could no longer be won why he continued to fight. Edward Shils and Morris Janowitz conducted an early study.[4] This study was conducted by interviewing German prisoners of war and Shils and Janowitz concluded that the soldiers fought because of the following factors: small group ties, proximity to other groups, devotion to Hitler, fear of retribution and the paternalism of officer’s and NCO’s among others.[5] The most important of these factors were the small group ties and the paternalism of officers and NCO’s, if these could be broken then it was concluded morale could be affected. This is what tactical air power sought to do as an aside. By effectively utilising, the development in tactical air operations morale of the enemy could be affected. In using CAS/BAI operations morale was affected by breaking the ties inherent in the small group of units and the paternalism of officers and NCO’s that soldiers had come to trust in war. By breaking those ties, morale would be affected and therefore, the effectiveness of the army as a whole would be reduced.

The commander of Axis forces in North Africa was Field Marshal Erwin Rommel. Rommel had risen to command the DAK after his success during the French Campaign when he commanded the 7th Panzer Division, the so-called ‘Ghost Division, which made an amazing run from the Meuse River to the French coast during that campaign. On the 12 February, Rommel arrived in Africa to take control of the newly formed Deutches Afrika Korps (DAK) and immediately had an impact when he on 31 march his 5th Light Division slammed into British forces at Mersa Brega and eventually forcing the British back into the eastern end of Cyrenaica.[6]

The major source for Rommel’s opinion in this study come from The Rommel Papers previously mentioned. This work was edited by the notable military historian Captain B H Liddell Hart, though it must be noted that much debate has surrounded the work of this historian and his influence on the German Generals,[7] nonetheless he had the aid of Rommel’s wife Lucie-Maria and his son Manfred as well as one of Rommel’s most trusted Generals, Fritz Bayerlain, the future commander of the Panzer Lehr Division who gave exemplary service during the Normandy campaign as well as in North Africa, which helps make this work a good reference for Rommel’s opinions.

Rommel had a great respect for the ability of the Allies to be able to bring to bare their industrial might onto the battlefield especially in the realm of air power. He commented at the Battle of Alam Halfa in September 1942 that:

…non-stop and very heavy air attacks by the R.A.F., whose command of the air had been virtually complete, had pinned my army to the ground and rendered any smooth deployment or any advance by time-schedule completely impossible.[8]

Here we see the effect of both CAS and BAI operations on Rommel’s strategic deployment of his forces. Not only were BAI attacks crippling his army of the much-needed fuel, it needed for his offensives but also CAS operations were causing casualties at the front. Rommel comments that the majority of his casualties, both in personnel and vehicles were caused by the operations of the DAF. He also admits that he had come to the realisation that an army could not effectively operate when the enemy enjoyed command of the air. Something, which was a central tenant of British and allied tactical air operations, gain command of the air and then subject the enemy to attacks from CAS/BAI operations. Rommel admits that he learnt two points from this encounter; these points were to be reinforced later at the Battle of El Alamein and during the campaign in Normandy. The points were that:

(a) the paralysing effect which air activity on such a scale had on motorised forces; above all, the serious damage which had been caused to our units by area bombing.

(b) The British bid to secure complete command of the air and to exercise it to the full.[9]

Therefore, Rommel appreciated the effect the DAF’s operations had upon his ability to wage war against the Eighth Army. As he himself recognised the ability of the DAF to have command of the air meant they could attack Rommel’s forces wherever and whenever they liked.[10] This superiority was converted into the effective use of air power as a supplement to the ground operations of Eighth Army as would be seen later on at El Hamma. Thus, by limiting how Rommel could utilise his forces, because of the lack of air cover he had and his apprehension over attacks by the DAF shaped the North African campaign into a shape, which conformed to British favour.

Field Marshal Kesselring, the German C-in-C in the Mediterranean also recognised the growing ascendancy of British air power in the region and how with its effective application conjunction with the army it proved decisive in destroying the Axis forces in the region. As he comments, ‘With a…powerful air force behind it the Eighth Army was capable of tackling the most arduous tasks…’[11] therefore, again we can see how a high ranking German officer realises the effect the successful application of RAF tactical air power was effecting Axis operations.

Colonel Von Luck’s memoir also offers some interesting insights into the growth of RAF air power in the region. For example, just after the First Battle of El Alamein he comments that a sandstorm kept the ‘…superior RAF from being used…’ and that this was a good thing as it gave his unit a respite from continual strafing and bombing from BAI missions.[12] Accordingly, German sources relate to the observer that in North African campaign, the British with their advances in tactical air power were able to affect their own forces and shape the campaign in their favour. By the end of the end of the campaign, when enjoying air superiority, the DAF was able to attack German troops and supplies whenever they wished, thus limiting German movements.

Consequently, the German sources show how they appreciated the effect the developments of RAF tactical air power were having upon their operations. These effects varied from effecting their supply situation through BAI to preventing the Luftwaffe supporting their own operations, and how the use of CAS missions forced changes in their operational planning and affected the morale of their troops.

British Appreciation of Tactical Air Power:

By the end of the campaign in North Africa, the DAF had evolved into effective tactical air asset and the main component of Coningham’s NATAF. It had begun it’s life in the late 1940’s as a grouping of odd equipment with not much to go on but trial and but had by the last surrender of Axis forces in Tunisia, ‘…an essential part of the whole war effort…’[13] 

Because of the successful co-ordination of the Eighth Army and the DAF, Coningham drafted a pamphlet, subsequently issued by Montgomery, extolling the virtues of effective co-ordination between the army and the air force. It raised certain points relating to the performance and command of tactical air power. Its most important paragraph commented that:

…it follows that control of the available air power must be centralised and command must be exercised through Air Force channels. Nothing could be more fatal to successful results than to dissipate the air resources into small packets placed under command of Army formation commanders with each packets working on its own plan. The soldier must not expect or wish to exercise direct command over air striking forces. [14]

This paragraph summarises the attitude that was to prevail for the rest of the war between the RAF and the British Army. If it had not been for the developments in the desert, and these were as discussed many and varied, this position would never have come about and it is possible at the failures discovered in France may well have continued throughout the war. As Coningham himself noted on the North African campaign, ‘…it was here that the machine which was to sweep North-Wets Europe was forged and tested.’[15]

Therefore, all of the developments forged in North Africa not only shaped the nature of that campaign but also helped to shape the nature of allied strategy and tactics for the invasion of Europe. It lay the foundation of how the allied armies and the supporting tactical air forces would operate. Even though some of the techniques would be refined by the end of the war, they all had their roots in the developments of North Africa. Without the willingness for the army and air force, officers in the theatre willing to overcome the issues with which they were presented then they would not have been conquered. Perhaps the best epitaph for the role the DAF played in North Africa comes from Montgomery who wrote that:

I don’t suppose any army has ever been supported by such a magnificent air striking force. I have always maintained that the 8th Army and the R.A.F. in the Western Desert together one fighting machine, and therein lies our great strength.[16]

British developments not only affected the planning of operations by the Eighth Army but also changed the ideas of Britain’s new erstwhile ally, America. As Michael Bechthold has commented the key for the reorganisation of American forces after the Kasserine Pass debacle was a:

…reorganization… [and]…adoption of the British Eighth Army-Western Desert Air Force model of ground-air cooperation which had proven successful in combat.[17]

The US Army Air Force entered the North African campaign with the manual FM 31-35, Aviation in Support of Ground Forces. This argued that air power be subordinated to the ground commander. This idea was found wanting at Kasserine when American forces were penny pocketed and destroyed. After this, Coningham, in his new role as C-in-C NATAF, instated reforms on the army tactical aviation arms along the British model. This led to the adopting of FM 100-20, Command and Employment of Air Power. This manual extolled all the lessons learned by the DAF in the Western Desert and applied it to USAAF. The system was to be used by both air forces throughout the war, and while problems did occur they were generally overcome but:

This would not have been the case without the experience of North Africa and the successful example of the Montgomery-Coningham team.[18]

 


 

[1] Basil Liddell-Hart (Ed.) The Rommel Papers (New York: De Capo Press, 1953)

[2] Hans Von Luck Panzer Commander: The Memoirs of Colonel Hans Von Luck (London: Cassell, 2002)

[3] Anon The Wordsworth Concise English Dictionary (London: Wordsworth, 1994), p. 627

[4] E. Shils and M. Janowitz ‘Cohesion and Disintegration in the Wehrmacht in World War II’ Public Opinion Quarterly, 12 (Summer 1948). A section of which appears in Lawrence Freedman (Ed.) War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994) pp. 143-144

[5] N. Kinzer Stewart ‘Military Cohesion’ in Freedman L (Ed.) War, p. 146

[6] During this action, Rommel managed to bag O’Connor and his staffs, so quick were his advances. For detail on these early action see Williamson Murray and Alan R. Millet A War To Be Won, p. 101

[7] For an insight into the debate about Liddell Hart’s influence on the German Generals both pre war and after the war see Azar Gat ‘British Influence and the Evolution of the Panzer Arm: Myth or Reality? Part I’ War in History, 1997, Vol. 4:2, pp. 150-173 and Azar Gat ‘British Influence and the Evolution of the Panzer Arm: Myth or Reality? Part II’ War in History, 1997, Vol. 4:3, pp. 316-338

[8] Basil Liddell Hart (Ed.) Rommel Papers, p. 283

[9] Basil Liddell Hart (Ed.) Rommel Papers, p. 284

[10] Basil Liddell Hart (Ed.) Rommel Papers, p. 328

[11] Albert Kesselring The Memoirs of Field Marshal Kesselring (Novato, CA: Presido Press, 1989) p. 132

[12] Hans Von Luck Panzer Commander, p. 107

[13] Roderic Owen The Desert Air Force, p. 180

[14] Bernhard L. Montgomery Some Notes on High Command in War (8th Army, Tripoli: 1943). Cited in Richard P. Hallion Strike from the Sky, p. 162

[15] Arthur Coningham, Air Marshal Sir, KCB, KBE, DSO, MC, DFC, AFC ‘The Development of Tactical Air Forces, (lecture) May, 1946′ Royal United Service Institute Journal, 91 (1946: Feb/Nov) p. 216

[16] Cited in Roderic Owen The Desert Air Force, p. 181

[17] Michael Bechthold ‘A Question of Success: Tactical Air Doctrine and Practice in North Africa, 1942-43′, The Journal of Military History, Vol. 68, No. 3 (July 2004) p. 821

[18] Michael Bechthold ‘A Question of Success’ The Journal of Military History, p. 852

The Development of RAF Air Power in North Africa – Main Body

This is the second piece of my analysis of RAF tacical air operation during the north african campaign.

———————————- 

The main body of this work will aim to analyse the various factors, which led to the supremacy of the DAF over the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica during the North African campaign. It will do this by looking at the following factors of tactical air power:

  1. The Equipment of the DAF
  2. Command and Control of the DAF
  3. Air Superiority
  4. Intelligence and Reconnaissance
  5. Air Interdiction

Before looking at these factors a discussion of the nature of the war in the Western Desert is necessary because as one author has commented nothing ‘…anything like it before’ in human history had been fought over.[i] This area of the world had not seen battle for over three thousand years. This was mainly because of the conditions that were prevalent in the area. It was dry and arid and while man had learnt to spend some time there, he could not survive there permanently.  With the coming of colonialism and industrialism this all changed. Egypt became a protectorate of the British Empire and Libya was born out of Cyrenaica and Tripolitania in 1936.[ii] With this, the protagonists were set, especially when Fascist Italy declared war on 10 June 1940.

The Western Desert was a battlefield with two flanks, the Mediterranean Sea and the Sahara desert. Between this lay the coastal desert over which British, Australian, New Zealanders, Poles, Indians, Ghurkhas, Free French, South Africans, Greeks, Germans, Italians and Libyans would fight. They would bring with them the all which modern warfare could supply them with. The greatest feature of this area is the coastal escarpment west of Mersa Matruh. The Western Desert is an illusory place, at first; it appears flat but in fact provides many hidings places for vehicles.[iii] It was the perfect battleground for modern combined arms warfare and would provide the learning ground for many ideas relating to this modern form of warfare. A form of warfare, which tactical air power, was intrinsically linked. Thus, because of the nature of the Western Desert, the battles ebbed and flowed across Libya and Egypt and only in 1942 with the help of American aid; Britain was able to push the German-Italian armies back towards Tunisia. As Bungay comments the fighting was much more akin to fighting on the high seas rather than warfare on land.[iv] Thus air power linked in very well with this style of fluid warfare, but many important lessons would have to be learnt before it was decisive.

The Equipment of the DAF

One of the major issues facing the RAF’s air war in North Africa and the Western Desert, and one, which held back early attempts to provide the army with air support, was the lack of necessary equipment for the task. As one historian has commented, ‘The Army had to be content with what the RAF could make available…’[v] This position was born out of the failure of inter war planning for the air force’s needs in terms of adequate airframes for army support. Some discussion did occur between the staffs on what aircraft would be right for tactical air operations, these discussions led to the ordering of the Brewster Buffalo and Vultee Vengeance but by time these started to arrive they were diverted to the Far East as the DAF had already settled upon the fighter-bomber concept.[vi] Why this occurred needs to be examined and the answer can be found in the equipment that was provided to the DAF, and its parent formation, the Middle East Command, in the period 1940-1942.

On the outbreak of war against the Italians in 1940, the Middle East Command under Air Chief Marshal Longmore, KCB, DSO, was equipped with what can only be described as a motley collection of aircraft. This state was the same as No. 202 Group, the DAF forebears, and as Phillip Guedella commented, Longmore, and Air Commodore Collishaw, were in effect ‘…bluffing a full house with a couple of pairs…’[vii] In 1940 the command was equipped with aircraft that were already obsolescent by 1940. No. 202 Groups principal equipment was the Gloster Gladiator biplane fighter and the Bristol Blenheim I light bomber. The Gladiator while gallantly gaining fame during the siege of Malta was woefully inadequate for the pressures of modern warfare due to its limited turn of speed and limited firepower, which placed it at odds with the all-metal monoplanes, armed with eight machine guns, which the enemy was typically equipped.[viii] The Blenheim was, like the Gladiator, outdated by its design. The Battle for France showed up the limitations of this design in that it carried a small bomb load and was also too lightly armed, which made it vulnerable both to flak and enemy fighters, which made it inadequate for Battlefield Aerial Interdiction (BAI) operations, it was also outpaced by enemy fighters whom it was envisaged that it could outpace when it was originally developed in the thirties.[ix] Despite these limitations, it soldiered on for a time in No. 202 Group and took part in the first successful operation against the Italian air base at El Adem.[x] This raid taught the DAF an important lesson in that it resources could easily be wound down easily;

The experience of this first raid on the Western Desert showed that much caution would have to be exercised if our slender resources were not to be depleted by constant casualties.[xi]

This early raid therefore showed the importance of superiority both in the air and in logistics, which would be one of the deciding factors of the campaign.

The final aircraft equipping No. 202 Group at this time was the venerable Westland Lysander, an aircraft that would go on and gain fame in the shadow operations of the Special Operations Executive. It was developed as an army co-operation platform that would perform Tac R and Arty R operations. It was to prove an unsuitable type for the operations it was asked to perform because just like the previous two aircraft it was totally outclassed even by 1940. The Official History described it, as being unsuitable because it had not, the range required or the protection needed for the hazardous operations it was required to perform.[xii] Therefore, it was quite common to find the Lysander squadrons also equipped with a modern fighter with which to escort it. This was a distinct dilution of the DAF’s effort.

The lack of adequate aircraft in 1940-41 led the DAF to re-evaluate what it sought from a platform that was needed to provide support army operations. These considerations had to take into account two important aspects. First, the aircraft had to be able to gain superiority in the air, an important pre-requisite to effective tactical operations. It then also had to be able to deliver a payload in Aerial Interdiction (AI) operations. This coming together of requirements led the DAF to settle upon the idea of the fighter-bomber concept because as Ian Gooderson comments, ‘…the desirability of providing fighter aircraft with a measure of striking power against…targets was acknowledged…’[xiii] Though it must be remember this owes much to the RAF’s rejection of the dive-bomber as an effective weapon as well.[xiv]

The first attempt to create fighter-bombers came with the order that Hawker Hurricane I’s which had recently been deployed to the desert should be used to strafe enemy targets on their way back from fighter sweeps. The deployment of the Hurricane came about because of the inadequacy of Gladiator in dealing with enemy fighters. In this role, the Hurricane proved adequate but it was to gain more fame as an AI platform. The arrival of the Hurricane II had a profound effect upon CAS operations as it was significantly up gunned and armed with heavier cannon’s, which led to its better use in CAS. The development of the MkII owes much to the Air Fighting Development Unit (AFDU), which worked on upgrading it to carry two 250lb bombs on under wing racks, MkIIb, and to carry four 20mm cannons, MkIIc.[xv] These modified version of the Hurricane became operational in the DAF by early 1942, before then the DAF modified its Hurricane I’s with under wing racks capable of carrying up to eight 40lb fragmentation bombs. These developments led the Hurricane to be a very successful CAS platform and gave the ground commanders what had been described as a ‘…reassuring…capability on call…’[xvi]

The other significant CAS platform in the DAF was the Curtiss P-40, this aircraft being the first major example of American aid to Britain’s war effort in the Western Desert. The Warhawk represented a good combination of what was need in a fighter-bomber, the ability to handle itself and the ability to absorb damage.[xvii] The P-40 was so successful a platform that at the height of the Second Battle of El Alamein the P-40 squadrons were flying on average four sorties a day.

The arrival of the Supermarine Spitfire in theatre gave the DAF something, which it had been lacking, a high performance interceptor that could take on enemy fighters, and most importantly win.[xviii] Thus, the Spitfire was important for the DAF’s inventory as it gave it the chance to challenge for air superiority over the battlefield and so enable the DAF to give uninterrupted support to the ground forces. The Spitfire other most important role was in the area of Tac R over the battlefield. Because of its high speed, it was perfectly suited to this job.

As for larger aircraft used in the BAI role, the mainstays of the DAF were the Bristol Beaufighter and the American trio of the Douglas Boston, Martin Maryland and Baltimore. While these aircraft could carry a useful bomb load and attack targets deep inside enemy lines they all shared one failing. That is, due to their nature they were large and easily attacked by enemy fighters and in high intensity air space where neither side enjoyed air superiority they became vulnerable, and they only became effective when either escorted by fighters or when the DAF enjoyed local air superiority, most notable just after the Battle of El Alamein, where these aircraft performed superb work attack the retreating Panzerarmee Afrika.

Thus, as has been seen as the North African and Western Desert theatre gained importance in British strategy so did its allocation in superior airframes to improve its equipment. Thus, these improvements led to a gradual superiority over Axis aircraft and led to developments of tactics most notable with the new fighter-bombers.

Command and Control of the DAF

One of the major issues brought up by the RAF’s failing in the Battle for France was lack of command and control of its constituent formations that were operating in support of the army. This became especially prevalent when the German Panzers moving up to encircle Dunkirk split Barrett’s command. North Africa provided an opportunity to solve this issue of how to control tactical air power effectively and to get them to support the army in as quick a time as possible.

While most of the credit for the eventual success in the desert has usually been credited to Air Vice Marshal Arthur ‘Mary’ Conningham.[xix] There had been some thoughts on the subject before his arrival in July 1940. One area that has traditionally been quoted as being owed to Conningham is the co-location of command headquarters. In fact, this was already the state of play in the desert because when Major General O’Connor took over the Western Desert Force in June 1940 he found his headquarters at Maaten Baggush co-located with that of Collishaw’s No. 202 Group.[xx] Thus even before effective communications had been formed for the ground troops and airmen the higher commanders already had a working headquarters which eased some of the problems which had been discovered in France, most notable the dislocation of the air headquarters from that of the BEF. Thus, the co-location of similar higher formation headquarters continued throughout the war, a system that owes its innovation to the early attempts of the ‘colonial’ officers to work together rather than issues rose in co-operation by the ‘home’ officers of the service who disliked working together.[xxi]

The next significant advance in command and control came during 1941 with the development of the ‘Forward Air Support Link’ (FASL) system in September/October 1941. In effect, this development saw the reduction in response times from the RAF to Army requests because the old system relied on information being passed through corps headquarters and then being forwarded to RAF units proved o out of date to be used.

Much of the credit for the development of the FASL and Air Support Control (ASC) goes to Major General Penney and Group Captain Mann, both of whom were the respective chiefs of the signals section of the Army and RAF in the Middle East.[xxii] The aims of these two officers was to provide a series of channels through which information could be passed and through which all the essential ground and air elements were linked into a comprehensive system.

In essence, the system worked on the principle that FASL parties were co-located with the brigade and division headquarters in the desert and would relay information given to them by reconnaissance aircraft to the corps headquarters. At the corps headquarters was located an ASC team, which would then request air support to the appropriate group headquarters through the Rear Air Support Link team (RASL), this was dependent upon the nature of the operation, either CAS or BAI. The aircraft then on route would receive further information about their targets on route from the FASL at brigade or division headquarters.[xxiii]

The first test of this system came during the CRUSADER offensive of November 1941. This offensive, while enjoying some success, due to the refinement in the command and control of the RAF, still suffered from some of the old problems of aircraft being too late. Though it must be noted was not the fault of the new system, but much rather as Terraine has pointed out the problem of the system being develop too soon before an offensive, and that it was too

…late for teaching two Services to change the habits of a lifetime, with a major operation impending…[xxiv]

The end of 1941 also saw another bow being added to the DAF string in terms of refining response times and controlling the units at its disposal. This was the arrival of No. 2 Army Air Support Control (AASC) team, this unit had been working with Barrett’s Army Co-Operation Command and had been developing similar theories to what the DAF had been putting into practice, it was therefore sent out to the Western Desert to gain some practical experience, though it would not become operational until the Battle of Gazala in May 1942.[xxv] The arrival of this unit helped to decrease the reaction time of CAS missions. For example, during OPERATION CRUSADER the reaction time of the DAF was in the region two hours where as by the time of the Gazala battles this had reduced to just thirty minutes.[xxvi]

Thus, these developments in North Africa led to a system that would be used for the rest of the war. It may well end up being refined, with the development of systems such as CABRANK and ROVER, which would help refine the reaction times of the tactical air forces, but in essence, the theory was still the same as that used in North Africa. Thus as Gooderson comments:

…as a result of a combination of theory, experimentation…and practical experience in North Africa, a British air support system had been created by the end of 1942.[xxvii]

It may also be noted that these eventual ‘development’ in FASL has its roots in some of the inter war operations in colonial control and some of the theoretical writing that was alluded to in the introduction, for example as Portal commented on operations in Palestine:

…small bodies of troops were often held up by the fire of armed bands occupying strong positions. When this occurred, a W/T [Wireless] message was sent by the troops and so good was the organization what at almost any point in Palestine a formation of bombers would arrive within fifteen minutes of the origination of the message.[xxviii]

Air Superiority Operations of the DAF

The importance of air superiority in any combined operations seeking to achieve success is paramount. Air superiority is not to be achieved for its own but as one author has commented it ‘…is not its own object but a precondition to success in other operations…’[xxix] Thus, without air superiority all other operations can and will face significant losses that can not be sustained, so in order to pursue effective support missions it must be the prerequisite of any tactical air forces to achieve some form of air superiority, be it even just a local advantage. This was a lesson learnt early on by the DAF, especially after the arrival of Luftwaffe in 1941. However, it must be noted that the importance of air superiority was learnt early on during OPERATION COMPASS when the RAF managed to sweep the Regia Aeronautica from the skies.[xxx] Coningham confirmed this idea of air superiority coming first before any type of operations in his lecture to the Royal United Service Institute in 1946 on the ‘Development of Tactical Air Forces.[xxxi]

The major issue for the DAF in gaining effective air superiority lay in the quality of it’s equipment, because as eluded to in the section dealing with equipment the DAF was low on the list for effective aircraft that may be able to challenge for command in the air. For example, even by the time of CRUSADER the majority of DAF fighter squadrons were equipped with Hurricane I’s, which was then completely outclassed by the main fighter of Fliegerfuhrer Afrika, the Messerschmitt ME 109F, the Hurricane II and P-40 Tomahawk could only just hold there own against it.[xxxii] It would not be until the arrival of the Spitfire in theatre that a continual cover of air superiority could be achieved over the battlefield. This had occurred by the time of OPERATIONS LIGHTFOOT and SUPERCHARGE at El Alamein in late 1942.

Two of the methods in which air superiority can be achieved, with the exception of the destruction of the enemy in the air, is through AI operations, which will be discussed later, and through a good logistics and maintenance system in order to achieve the highest possible rates of serviceability of aircraft. Through this superiority over the enemy can be achieved. The superiority of the DAF over Fleigerfuhrer Afrika was aided in no small way by the arrival in theatre of Air Vice Marshal G G Dawson who took over as the Air Officer Commander in Chief (AOC-in-C) of maintenance.[xxxiii] Partly due to his political influence, he had worked with Lord Beaverbrook at the Ministry of Aircraft Production; Dawson was sent out to the Middle East to ascertain the state of affairs in theatre. His recommendations were so sweeping that he was permanently posted to the region and from this point on worked tirelessly to improve the state of affairs in terms of supply, maintenance and serviceability. His reforms in the maintenance led to greater rates of serviceability; for example, during OPERATION CRUSADER the DAF was able to field five hundred and fifty planes to Fliegerfuhrer Afrika’s two hundred and twenty eight.[xxxiv] Also by the time of the Battle of Gazala serviceability rates had improved from sixty seven percent to eighty-two percent.[xxxv] Thus as John Ellis comments:

These enormous advantages in logistical support, mobility and reinforcement were slowly but surely translated into a crushing aerial superiority…[xxxvi]

Another aspect, which was vital for the attainment of air superiority, was the question of re-supply. North Africa became a problem theatre in terms of re-supply because normally all supplies in peace time came to the command via the Mediterranean Sea by way of Gibraltar and Malta, but with war the Mare Nostrum, as Mussolini termed the Mediterranean, effectively became shut off because of the activity of the Regia Marina and the Luftwaffe, in the form of Fliegerkorps X on Sicily, and the Regia Aeronautica who wrecked havoc with allied convoys in the area. Because of this, most aircraft delivered to the DAF came via the Takoradi air route, starting in the Gold Coast on the Africa’s east coast. Aircraft were delivered to the port in crates and at this point were rebuilt to flown on a route which took them over Nigeria, French Equatorial Africa, the Sudan and finally into Egypt.

Up to 1943 over five thousand aircraft were dispatched to Egypt via this route, as Guedalla comments ‘…victory in Egypt came by the Takoradi Route…’[xxxvii] Tedder even commented, after coming to the Middle East Command via the route, that it was ‘…a first class piece of improvisation…’ and that all involved were ‘…imbued with the urgency of passing every aircraft up the line as quickly as possible…’[xxxviii] Thus the improvement in the delivery of aircraft and their maintenance and serviceability had a lot to do with the establishing of DAF air superiority that would eventually aid in the defeat of the Axis forces in North Africa.

The Importance of Intelligence and Reconnaissance in DAF Operations:

Hostile armies may face each other for years, striving for the victory which is decided in a single day. This being so, to remain in ignorance of the enemy’s condition simply because one grudges the outlay of a hundred ounces of silver in honours and emoluments, is the height of inhumanity

Sun Tzu, The Art of War[xxxix]

The importance of intelligence and reconnaissance has been recognized since the earliest times. To attempt to go and wage war without knowing your enemies intention has been considered by al the great military thinkers of history as imprudent. The advent of air power in the twentieth century gave the commander an extra dimension to his intelligence gathering. During the campaign for North Africa and the Western Desert, intelligence and reconnaissance took on a two-fold importance. Firstly, intelligence enabled the DAF to effectively target Axis supply columns and deprive Rommel’s Panzerarmme Afrika much of its necessary supplies. Much of this work was done with information gained from ULTRA. Secondly, reconnaissance operated by the Tac R squadrons of the DAF helped shaped the nature of the Eight Army’s operations by pointing out concentrations of enemy forces.[xl] As Brad Gladman points out:

The skilful use of intelligence was crucial to the effective application of air power in north Africa…because of the unique environment of the Western Desert[xli]

The intelligence assets of the DAF can be split into three distinct categories, strategic, operational and tactical, of which the first two are the most useful for an analysis of air power in North Africa.[xlii]

The major impact of ULTRA based intelligence came in the BAI campaign waged by the DAF on Rommel’s supply lines reaching back as far Tripoli. Early on in the campaign, before the effect of ULTRA, the main method for targeting Axis supplies was to hit the supplies at there point of origin, the ports, but this was limited by the aircraft used, the Blenheim I, which could only reach Tobruk. Thus, this became a major target for operations early on instead on Benghazi, which offloaded a far greater amount of Axis shipping.[xliii] The Official History then goes on to admit that this is a waste of effort by the DAF mainly because of the inadequacy of it’s equipment.[xliv]

An excellent example of strategic intelligence comes in the analysis gathered by the intelligence sections of the Eighth Army and RAF Middle East on the reconstruction of Panzerarmee Afrika’s supply situation at the time of OPERATION CRUSADER. The intelligence gathered via capture enemy documents provided information on how supplies were being shipped via steamers from Tripoli to Benghazi and then loaded on to trains to a railhead near the front line.[xlv] This knowledge gathered could then be passed on to the DAF’s reconnaissance assets, which could then confirm its validity and then could be passed on to units for a strike against the targets. The major use of strategic intelligence enabled the DAF to tailor its assets to specific mission and to determine whether the operation ‘…was worth the price…’[xlvi] Strategic intelligence was gathered in several ways from the use of ULTRA based intelligence to Signal intelligence through ‘Y’ units. DAF and British Army units dealing in low grade German Wireless and Radio Traffic (W/T and R/T) were able to pass information along to units involved in the DAF AI campaign.[xlvii] Information also came in via interrogation reports, which came in via the Combined Services Detailed Intelligence Centre (CSDIC) in Cairo.[xlviii] Here Prisoners of War (POW) were debriefed and information gathered for intelligence purposes which then could be utilised in shaping DAF operations against Axis supply lines.

ULTRA, the codename for the Enigma decrypts, despite not being of direct operational value to the DAF, did play a vital role in formulating the DAF’s strategy in regard of its AI operations. It also informed the commanders of the effect the operations were having on the enemy position in relation to its supply situation.[xlix] ULTRA also helped reveal which ports were most commonly used by axis shipping therefore helping the DAF to concentrate its effort on these ports and the supply routes, which emanated from them. ULTRA also had a reverse effect upon the British commanders in North Africa and the Western Desert, especially the DAF commanders. The debacle of OPERATION BREVITY had been brought around by utilising one form of intelligence to intensely and therefore, by relying on this form of intelligence the operation ran into certain operational difficulties.[l] The post operation analysis led to the blame being place, as commented, on the use of one singular sources of intelligence, a position, which would not be repeated again. For example, post BREVITY, the DAF made greater use of its reconnaissance and intelligence assets, strategic and operational, to confirm information.

As for operational intelligence, or reconnaissance, there are a few good examples, which show its effectiveness on the battlefield, and how it helped shaped operations. Operational intelligence was often guided by information gathered via strategic intelligence. Early on in the campaign operational intelligence showed its worth during OPERATION COMPASS No. 208 Squadron provided over flights of the camps south of both Bardia and Sidi Barrani and with these photo mosaics.[li] These photos enabled General O’Connor plan the direction of his attacks on the camps. For example at the camp at Nibeiwa, O’Connor was able to dictate that the advancing amour and infantry enter the camp from the west and thus would lie in the middle of the Italian Army, and consequently would be sheltered from attacks by the Regia Aeronautica. The reconnaissance also showed that this entrance to the camp was un-mined and therefore, the advance would not be slowed down by mine clearing operations.[lii] Therefore, the use of operational intelligence was able to shape the operations of the ground forces and without which the opening phases of COMPASS may have come out differently.

The other example of the influence of operational intelligence was in finding targets for BAI operations. The Operations Record Book of 285 Air Reconnaissance Wing provides a useful example of its effect. Its passage for 26 August 1942 comments that:

‘…a reece had been made of the road east from Gambut, locating two convoys moving east one of these was later attacked by Beaufighters with good results.’[liii]

No. 285 Wing was the main reconnaissance element in the DAF and provided copious amounts of information, which helped shaped the DAF’s AI operations. In terms of No. 208 Squadrons, one the component units of the wing, the Official History comments that the ‘…Eighth Army and the Desert Air Force had good reason to be grateful…for the information it stove so hard to obtain.’ [liv] Therefore as can be seen intelligence and reconnaissance assets were vitally important to the DAF’s campaign in north Africa as it not only shaped the nature of it’s campaign but also its reconnaissance operations helped shaped the nature of Eighth Army’s operations too.

Air Interdiction Operations of the DAF

This section will deal with the pure mechanics of how missions by the DAF were conducted against Axis forces in North Africa. Aerial interdiction can be split into two distinct sections, BAI and CAS, both of which can shape the nature of a campaign. Before moving on some definition of what these terms actually mean is necessary. The RAF’s most recent doctrinal manual, AP 3000, defines BAI as:

An air operation conducted to destroy, neutralize or delay the enemy’s military potential before it can be brought to bear effectively against friendly forces at such a distance from friendly forces that detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of friendly forces is not required.[lv]

AP 3000 then goes on to define CAS operations as:

Air action against hostile targets which are in close proximity to friendly forces and which require detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces.[lvi]

All of the operations conducted by the DAF required the successful application of the principles discussed above, without them it would not have been possible for the DAF to conduct the campaign in the way that it did, though it must be noted that it was at the ‘sharp end’ that the physical application could only be used. If the techniques were not in existence to effectively deliver the payload all the development in command and control and intelligence gathering would have been for nothing. A major example of the successful application of the DAF tactical air assets occurred during General Montgomery’s advance in Tunisia in 1943. Halted at the Mereth Line, Montgomery, in conjunction with the new commander of the DAF, Air Vice Marshal Broadhurst planned an operation, which made full use of the developments in CAS operations in order to force a path through the Axis positions.[lvii] This came about because of the failure of Montgomery’s frontal attack on the Mereth position. Montgomery was forced to send the 2nd New Zealand Division on a flanking march supported by the 1st Armoured Division and subsequently supported by the full weight of the DAF.

The positions around the Tebega Gap, which the New Zealanders were to assault, succeed because the DAF had complete air superiority in the area. This was mainly because the other elements of Northwest African Tactical Air Forces (NATAF), RAF 242 Group and the US XII Air Support Command had concentrated on eliminating the Luftwaffe threat to the area, which meant that the DAF could use its full force in the operation, some eighteen squadrons.[lviii] The CAS provided by the DAF literally delivered what the Official History describes as ‘…a truly formidable air ‘blitz’…’[lix] The DAF was able co-operate fully in-conjunction with the attacking units and provide virtual on the spot support for them. This level of support provided by the DAF meant that the armoured units of Eighth Army, which had flowed through the positions taken by the New Zealanders, carried on attacking through the night on to the Axis positions at El Hamma, where the DAF once again provided sterling support to against the strong positions set up at this point.[lx]

The operations around Mereth and El Hamma in the main succeeded because the DAF was able to apply all the lessons learnt through several years of war. The equipment used was the most advanced then in use by the Western Allies. For Example, the Hurricane IID’s used by 6 Squadron were armed with twin 40mm Cannons, which could literally blow tanks off the desert, for example, on the 21 March during the operation at Mereth, 6 Squadron broke up a concentration of forty tanks that were threatening the operations of the New Zealanders.[lxi] The DAF also made excellent use of the advances made in command and control in order to attack where the army wished them to attack, in essence to cut off possible choke points in the advance. El Hamma also saw the first use of the CABRANK system, a updated version of ASC system, which came about mainly due to advances in command and control methods, which now meant that up to date information coming from the FASL being sent up to pilots already on station.[lxii]

Intelligence also played an important role in that it informed the CAS units where the Axis units would be in order to interdict them both in CAS of the ground force but also in BAI operation at the start of the operation. Intelligence also helped the DAF’s supporting formation NATAF by locating concentrations of Luftwaffe units, which could then be attacked in order to gain air superiority in support of the DAF’s operation.[lxiii] Therefore, the action at El Hamma brought together all of the aspects which had been developed over the past three years into one coherent form, but to argue that CAS and BAI operations became effective at this late stage of the campaign is to miss out some of the valiant efforts made before the end of the campaign. For example, during OPERATION CRUSADER aircraft from No. 258 Wing, comprised of Tomahawks and Hurricanes, managed on 26 January to hold up the enemy advance on Msus by bombing and strafing the Axis columns.[lxiv] Also during OPERATION’S LIGHTFOOT and SUPERCHARGE, the Battles around El Alamein in October 1942, the DAF again provided sterling service flying over the battlefield providing CAS with cannon armed Hurricane’s and Kittyhawks, and attacking Field Marshal Rommel’s supply lines with BAI missions.[lxv] Much of the success of the DAF can be attributed to the successful application of effectively delivery platform, the Hurricane’s and Kittyhawk’s, and the use of newly developed command and control measures and the use of intelligence to plan strikes against vital targets.


[i] Stephen Bungay Alamein (London: Aurum Press, 2003) p. 3[ii] Ibid.[iii] Robin Neillands Eighth Army: From the Western Desert to the Alps, 1939-1945 (London: John Murray, 2004) pp.  2-4[iv] Bungay S Alamein p. 2

[v] W. A Jacobs ‘Air Support for the British Army, 193-1943 Military Affairs, Vol. 46, No. 4 (Dec. 1982) p. 176

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Phillip Guedella Middle East. 1940-1942: A Study in Air Power (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1944) p. 157. Longmore’s command consisted 29 squadron spread over a vast area. Therefore, Guedella’s comment is apt as his aircraft were spread thinly over this vast area ranging from East Africa to Iraq.

[viii] Gladiators of No. 261 Squadron were the main defence for a long time during the siege of Malta. Eventually the last three were dubbed, ‘Faith, Hope and Charity’ by the islanders. See Denis Richards Royal Air Force, 1939-1945, Volume 1: The Fight at Odds (London: HMSO, 1953) pp. 261-265

[ix] Owen Thetford Aircraft of the Royal Air Force since 1918 (London: Putnam Aeronautical Books, 1995) pp. 84-85

[x] John Terraine The Right of the Line, pp. 311-312

[xi] Air Historical Branch, AHB/II/117/8(A) Middle East Campaigns, p. 33

[xii] I. S. O Playfair History of the Second World War: The Mediterranean and Middle East, Volume I (London: HMSO, 1954) p. 193

[xiii] Ian Gooderson Air Power at the Battlefront p. 57

[xiv] The only dive-bomber used by the RAF was the Vultee Vengeance, which was diverted out to the South East Asia Command. For information on its effectiveness see: The National Archives (NA), AIR 23/2830 Dive Bombing: Combined Operational Data 1944

[xv] NA, AIR 20/12766 Tactical trials of the 4-Cannon Hurricane Mk II, AIR 20/12767 Tactical Trials with Hurricane Aircraft Fitted to Carry Bombs

[xvi] Alfred Price ‘Fighter Development, Mid-1941 to Mid-1945′ in Philip Jarrett (Ed.) Aircraft of the Second World War, p. 81

[xvii] John Buckley Air Power in the Age of Total War, p. 148

[xviii] The Spitfire MkVb had a top speed of 374mph when equipped with the Vokes filter for desert service. This meant it could handle any Luftwaffe or Regia Aeronautica could put up against it. Owen Thetford Aircraft of the Royal Air Force, pp. 303-308

[xix] Conningham’s nickname is a corruption of Maori in respect of his New Zealand origins. Richard P. Hallion Strike from the Sky p. 152

[xx] Philip Guedella Middle East p. 83, Correlli Barnett The Desert Generals, 2nd Edition (London: Cassell, 1999) p. 22

[xxi] This system continued throughout out the war, for example in North West Europe 2nd TAF supported the Anglo-Canadian 21st Army Group with 83 Group supporting the British 2nd Army and 84 Group supporting Canadian 1st Army. Each of these formations typically co-located their headquarters in order to ease co-ordination. Richard P. Hallion Strike from the Sky, p. 193

[xxii] Denis Richards and Hilary Saunders Royal Air Force, 1939-1945, Volume 2: The Fight Avails (London: HMSO, 1953) p. 161

[xxiii] Denis Richards and Hilary Saunders Royal Air Force, 1939-1945, Volume 2, pp. 160-162, Richard P. Hallion Strike from the Sky, pp. 154-155, Ian Gooderson Air Power at the Battlefront, p. 26

[xxiv] John Terraine The Right of the Line, p. 346

[xxv] Shelford Bidwell and Dominic Graham Fire-Power: The British Army Weapons and Theories of War, 1904-1945 (Barnsley: Pen and Sword, 2004) pp. 267-268, Ian Gooderson Air Power at the Battlefront, p. 26

[xxvi] NA, WO 279/491, Notes from Theatres of War: No 1; Cyrenaica, 1942, Shelford Bidwell and Dominic Graham Fire-Power, p. 269

[xxvii] Ian Gooderson Loc Cit

[xxviii] Charles F. A. Portal, Air Commodore, DSO, MC ‘Air Force Co-operation in Policing the Empire’ Journal of the Royal United Service Institution, 82 (1937: Feb/Nov) p. 346

[xxix] Martin Van Creveld with Steven L. Canby S L and K Brower Air Power and Maneuver Warfare, (Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific, 2002) p. 232

[xxx] I. S. O. Playfair The Mediterranean and Middle East, Volume I, p. 357

[xxxi] Arthur Coningham, Air Marshal Sir, KCB, KBE, DSO, MC, DFC, AFC ‘The Development of Tactical Air Forces, (lecture) May, 1946′ Royal United Service Institute Journal, 91 (1946: Feb/Nov) p. 215

[xxxii] Roderic Owen The Desert Air Force, p. 84, for information on the comparative performance of the ME 109F see, NA, AIR 40/191, Messerschmitt ME 109F Aircraft, 1941 Aug.-1944 Mar.

[xxxiii] I. S. O Playfair History of the Second World War: The Mediterranean and Middle East, Volume II (London: HMSO, 1956), p. 235, John Ellis Brute Force: Allied Strategy and Tactics in the Second World War (London: Andre Deutsch, 1990) p. 266

[xxxiv] Denis Richards and Hilary Saunders Royal Air Force, 1939-1945, Volume 2, p. 166, John Ellis Ibid

[xxxv] John Ellis Ibid

[xxxvi] John Ellis Brute Force, p. 267

[xxxvii] Philip Guedella P Middle East, p. 192

[xxxviii] Arthur Tedder With Prejudice: The War Memoirs of Marshal of Royal Air Force Lord Tedder G.C.B. (London: Cassell, 1966) p. 36

[xxxix] Sun Tzu The Art of War (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1995) p. 89

[xl] Unfortunately, the effect which intelligence has upon the nature of air campaign in the Second World War has had little attention paid to it. The only major academic work found by this author is, Brad Gladmam ‘Intelligence and Anglo-American Close Air Support in the Western Desert and Tunisia, 1939-1943′, PhD Thesis, University College London, 2001

[xli] Brad Gladman ‘Air Power and Intelligence in the Western Desert, 1940-1943′, Intelligence and National Security, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Winter 1998) p. 144

[xlii] Brad Gladman ‘Air Power and Intelligence’, Intelligence and National Security, p. 145

[xliii] I. S. O. Playfair History of the Second World War: The Mediterranean and Middle East, Volume I, p. 112

[xliv] I. S. O. Playfair History of the Second World War: The Mediterranean and Middle East, Volume I, p. 193

[xlv] NA, AIR 41/25, The Middle East Campaigns, Vol. II: Operations in Libya and the Western Desert, June 1941 – Jan. 1942, The Enemy Supply Situation in Libya, Appendix Z, 10 Nov. 1941

[xlvi] Brad Gladman ‘Air Power and Intelligence’, Intelligence and National Security, p. 146

[xlvii] Brad Gladman ‘Air Power and Intelligence’, Intelligence and National Security, p. 148

[xlviii] Brad Gladman ‘Air Power and Intelligence’, Intelligence and National Security, p. 150

[xlix] For example see, Ralph Bennett Ultra and the Mediterranean Strategy (New York: Morrow, 1989), Ch. 12

[l] Brad Gladman ‘Air Power and Intelligence’, Intelligence and National Security, p. 147

[li] Denis Richards Royal Air Force, 1939-1945, Volume 1, p. 269, Peter Mead The Eye in the Air: History of Air Observation and Reconnaissance for the Army, 1785-1945 (London: HMSO, 1983) p. 167

[lii] Correlli Barnett Desert Generals, pp. 35-38

[liii] NA, AIR 26/402, Operations Record Book, No. 285 Wing, RAF M.E., 26 Aug. 1942

[liv] I. S. O. Playfair History of the Second World War: The Mediterranean and Middle East, Volume III (London: HMSO, 1958), p. 380

[lv] Anon, AP 3000: British Air Power Doctrine, Third Edition (London: TSO, 1999) p. 3.13.1

[lvi] Anon, AP3000, p. 3.13.2

[lvii] By this time, Coningham had been promoted to take over and command a grouping of all tactical air forces in theatre, Northwest African Tactical Air Forces (NATAF, the equivalent of an army group command. Richard P. Hallion Strike From the Sky, p. 171, Vincent Orange Coningham: A Biography of Air Marshal Sir Arthur Coningham (London: Methuen, 1990) p. 131

[lviii] Roderic Owen Desert Air Force, p. 169, Christopher Shores Ground Attack Aircraft of World War II (London: Macdonald and Jane’s, 1977) p. 65

[lix] Denis Richards and Hilary Saunders Royal Air Force, 1939-1945, Volume 2, p. 266

[lx] NA, AIR 23/1708, The Eighth Army Break-Through at El Hamma, 26 March 1943′

[lxi] Denis Richards and Hilary Saunders Royal Air Force, 1939-1945, Volume 2, p. 265

[lxii] Nigel Hamilton Monty: Master of the Battlefield, 1942-1944 (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1983) p. 203

[lxiii] Roderic Owen The Desert Air Force, p. 169

[lxiv] Denis Richards and Hiliary Saunders Royal Air Force, 1939-1945, Volume 2, p. 185

[lxv] Denis Richards and Hilary Saunders Royal Air Force, 1939-1945, Volume 2, pp. 233-241

The Development of RAF Tactical Air Power in North Africa – Introduction

Background: 

Traditionally the campaign in North Africa has been seen as a strategic backwater that offered no real advantages to the conduct of the war against Germany. It has been seen as an area where men and material were poured into for no real advantages in the defeat of Germany. For example, in Williamson Murray’s and Alan Millett’s A War to Be Won, the chapter dealing with the Mediterranean theatre is entitled ‘Diversions in the Mediterranean and the Balkans, 1940-1941.’[i] This follows the interpretations offered by American Generals during the war, in that they believed the war could not be won in this theatre and that it could only be decided in North-West Europe. This is, and was, a misunderstanding of the complexities of the war and the failure to realise the problems inherent in an invasion of Europe, which could only be overcome with experience.  

This interpretation of the events needs to be questioned as the Mediterranean theatre pre 6 June 1944 had a lot to offer the war effort in that it taught many important lessons that would be utilised in the defeat of Germany. These areas included logistics, amphibious warfare and most importantly, the subject of this project, tactical air power. It must also be remembered that it was for a long time the only theatre were Britain could exert any form of power as until America’s greater involvement a cross-channel attack was out of the question.Tactical air power has in the past few years become a ‘fashionable’ subject with Richard Hallion, Ian Gooderson and Eduard Mark all having produced works on the subject.[ii] While these have offered important analyses on the development of tactical air power, they have been too widespread to concentrate on its effectiveness, most notably Hallion’s work, or have concentrated upon the later part of the war, Gooderson’s work.  

Air power in North Africa has received little in the way of discussion since the publication of Roderic Owen’s Desert Air Force in 1948.[iii] Even this title offers little in the way of a comparative analysis of the merits of the developments in tactical air power. The few discussions that have occurred deal with the failure of American air power at the Battle of Kesserine Pass.[iv] Therefore, what this project hopes to discuss is the developments of the Desert Air Force (DAF) in the campaign. 

An inter-war doctrine? 

It has often been argued by some historians, and contemporaries of the period, that the Royal Air Force (RAF) entered the war with a singular purpose in mind, to win the war by strategic bombing.[v] This interpretation has been based upon the role of Marshal of the RAF Lord Trenchard and his distinct effect upon the role of the RAF. As Williamson Murray has commented: 

…senior [RAF] air leaders held fast to Trenchard’s ideological belief in the bomber. This approach rejected co-operation with the other services.[vi] 

Lord Trenchard’s role in protecting the RAF from the inter-service squabbling, which occurred in this period of intense political retrenchment and naivety, has become central to the understanding of the development of the service. In order to defend the service from the budget cut backs, typified by the Ten-year rule, Lord Trenchard pushed strategic bombing forward as the services raison d’etre.[vii] Thus this is what a significant amount of the literature on the inter war RAF has concentrated upon.[viii] This was done in part because of the problem inherent in funding a well-equipped force, which could perform all of the necessary roles linked to the use of air power. Therefore, Lord Trenchard put his faith, and that of the service, in the one aspect of air power, which he believed to be decisive.[ix] 

While the development of a strategic bombing theory gave the RAF it’s raison d’etre, it certainly did not define what the service was. Many younger officers recognised the need to develop the service and one of the ways to do this was by showing how the service could be dominant on the battlefield in support of army. The one way this occurred was through the RAF’s operation in Britain’s colonies and protectorates of the Middle East. As one historian has commented ‘…a distinction must be drawn between the conditions in Britain as compared with those on the fringes of the Empire.’[x] The use of RAF air power as a substitute for the army and navy in colonial control operations brought around some innovations in command and control measures needed to operate aircraft against ground targets. Operations outside of Britain were also a training ground for some of the future leaders of the RAF, especially those who were to go on and gain fame in the realm of tactical air power. Among these were Marshals of the RAF Lord Tedder and Sir John Slessor, Air Marshal Sir Arthur Coningham and Air Chief Marshal Harry Broadhurst, each of these officer had at some point in the inter-war period served in the colonies. Undeniably, for example, the eight squadrons based in Iraq provided excellent support for the British infantry brigade based in the region and as Air Commodore Portal, the future Chief of the Air Staff, comments on the operations in the Middle East: 

The use of the air-bomb and the machine gun in close support of troops on the ground has proved of the utmost value in police operations on the Indian frontier and elsewhere. It was brought to a very high state of perfection in the recent operations in Palestine where small bodies of troops were often held up by the fire of armed bands occupying strong positions. When this occurred, a W/T [Wireless] message was sent by the troops and so good was the organization what at almost any point in Palestine a formation of bombers would arrive within fifteen minutes of the origination of the message.[xi]  

While his claim of fifteen minutes response time may be a slight exaggerations based on what occurred during the Second World War we can certainly the see the nascent beginnings of a command and control network in these colonial operations that would be replicated in the coming war. Another advantage of these operations is what one historian has argued as there being a ‘…small cadre of…officers sensitized to the problems of…mobile operations.’[xii] 

As commented before it has traditionally been argued that the RAF’s pre-occupation was with strategic bombing in the inter-war years but as seen above this was not entirely the case in particular with reference to colonial operations. These operations not only had practical lessons but also had a great deal of theoretical effect on the writing of the period. One book, which should probably held up with Guilio Douhet’s Command of the Air, as a theoretical basis for all aerial operations is the future Marshal of the RAF Sir John Slessor’s Air Power and Armies.[xiii] While Douhet’s work dealt with strategic bombing Slessor’s work dealt with the application of air power in relation to the battlefield. This is probably the main reason why it has been forgotten in the analysis of the period.  

During his early service, Slessor earned a reputation as a tactical expert and served on staff at the Army Staff College as the RAF instructor. This was because the previous holder of that position had not been able to discuss the broader aspects of air power and Trenchard had promised the Chief of the Imperial General Staff (CIGS), Field Marshal George Milne a more capable officer.[xiv] Slessor had also been tasked by Trenchard to re-write the RAF’s manual on co-operation with land forces. His work was revolutionary for the time and he concluded that a ‘…carefully organized attack on the enemy system of supply…’ would produced positive results as this is where they are ‘…vulnerable…’ especially if the enemy is highly organised.[xv] In this manual, we can see the basis of theories on air interdiction operations in support of land forces. Slessor would continue to expand on these ideas in Air Power and Armies while on his tour of duty in India. 

To argue that Slessor was the only one to make arguments for the use of air power in support of the army is to miss some of the important work, which appeared in the pages of the Journal of the Royal United Services Institute in the inter-war period. During this period there was no less than twelve articles written on the subject of co-operation between the two services. Some of the future leading lights of both services including Air Chief Marshal Sir Trafford Leigh Mallory, future commander of the Allied Expeditionary Air Forces during D-Day and the subsequent campaign, and Lieutenant General Sir Frederick Pile, who commanded the army’s Anti-Aircraft Command, wrote some of them.[xvi]  As Leigh-Mallory commented in his lecture on co-operation between aircraft and mechanised forces: 

‘While…aircraft may influence the operations of armoured forces…armoured forces may exercise considerable influence over air operations [thus] it is evident that these two modern arms can exercise a considerable influence on the…other.’[xvii] 

While it can be argued that a lot of theory existed in the inter-war period, the major issue was that despite Slessor’s efforts, and many other junior officers, in the RAF’s manual AP 1176, tactical air power was low ranking in the services priorities and that very little of the theory was turned into official doctrine. Thus this affected the operational effectiveness of the armed services especially co-operation between the RAF and the Army, who shared a mutual enmity towards each other. Thus because of inter and intra-service parochialism, Bomber command saw Fighter and Coastal command as just as large threats as the Army and the Royal Navy, there was as Williamson Murray and Brian Bond have suggested ‘…a general lack of inter-service and inter-arms co-operation that spilled over into the Second World War with disastrous results.’[xviii]  Thus, this is the position the RAF would enter the Second World War, a service with a great deal of theory on the application of air power in relation to ground operations but with not much official doctrine. Soon its limitation, based around unsuitable equipment and attempt to initiate a doctrine on support for ground operations, would be realised in the Battle for France.


[i] Williamson Murray and Alan R. Millett A War To Be Won (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000) pp. 91-109
[ii] Richard P. Hallion Strike from the Sky: The History of Battlefield Air Attack, 1911-1945 (Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press, 1989), Ian Gooderson Air Power at the Battlefront: Allied Close Air Support in Europe, 1943-45 (London: Frank Cass, London: 1998), Eduard Mark Aerial Interdiction: Air Power and the Land Battle in Three American Wars (Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific, 2002)
[iii] Roderic Owen The Desert Air Force (London: Arrow Press, 1958)
[iv] Daniel R. A. Mortenson A Pattern for Joint Operations: World War II Close Air Support, North Africa (Washington D.C.: Office of Air Force History and the U.S. Army Center of Military History,  1987)
[v] General Lord Ironside, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff (CIGS) at the outbreak of the Second World War, saw the RAF’s main role as strategic bombing as he believed them incapable of supporting the army sufficiently. He even pushed in discussion with the Air Staff for attacks on the Ruhr, as he believed it would be ‘decisive’.  Brian Bond ‘Ironside: Field Marshal Lord Ironside’ in John Keegan (Ed.) Churchill’s Generals (London: Abacus, 1999) p.23
[vi] Williamson Murray War in the Air 1914 – 45 (London: Cassell, 1999) p. 88
[vii] The basis of this rule was that ‘…the British Empire will not be involved in any large war over the next ten year…’ W. D. Gruner, ‘The British Political, Social and Economic System and the Decision for Peace or War’, British Journal of International Studies, 6 (1980), p. 212. Cited in Richard Overy The Road to War (London: Macmillan, 1989) p. 65. Also see Stephen Roskill  ‘The Ten Year Rule – The Historical Facts’ Royal United Service Institute Journal, 117:1 (1972: Mar)
[viii] Examples of this interpretation are Barry Powers Strategy Without a Slide Rule: British Air Strategy 1914-1939 (London: Croom Helm, 1976) Malcolm Smith British Air Strategy Between the Wars (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984) and more recently Tami Davis Biddle Rhetoric and Reality in Air Warfare: The Evolution of British and American Ideas about Strategic Bombing, 1914-1945 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002)
[ix] For aspects of Trenchard’s effect upon the RAF see John Terraine ‘Beginnings’ and ‘Disarmers and Bombers’ in The Right of the Line: The Royal Air Force in the European War, 1939-1945 (London: Wordsworth Editions, 1997) pp. 3-15
[x] Brad Gladman ‘The Development of Tactical Air Doctrine in North Africa, 1940-43’ in Sebastian Cox and Peter Gray (Eds.) Air Power History: Turning Points from Kitty Hawk to Kosovo (London: Frank Cass, 2002) p. 189
[xi] Charles F.A. Portal, Air Commodore, DSO, MC ‘Air Force Co-operation in Policing the Empire’ Journal of the Royal United Service Institution, 82 (1937: Feb/Nov) p. 346
[xii] Richard R. Muller ‘Close Air Support’ in Williamson Murray and Alan Millett Military Innovation in the Interwar Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) p. 171
[xiii] Gulio Douhet Command of the Air (London: Faber & Faber, 1942), John C. Slessor Air Power, and Armies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1936). Of interest in is widely claimed that Douhet had a wide effect on airmen of the period but in recent years, this has come in for some scrutiny from revisionist historians. See ‘The Douhet Myth’ in John Buckley Air Power in the Age of Total War (London: UCL Press, 1999) pp. 74-77
[xiv] ‘John C. Slessor and the Genesis of Air Interdiction’ in Philip S. Meilinger Airwar: Theory and Practice (London: Frank Cass, 2003) pp. 66-67
[xv] RAF Museum, RAF Hendon, File 8951 ‘Employment of Army Co-Operation Squadrons’ RAF Manual AP 1176, 1932, Ch. V
[xvi] Trafford Leigh-Mallory, Wing Commander, DSO ‘Air Co-Operation with Mechanized Forces’ Journal of the Royal United Services Institution, 75 (1930: Feb/Nov) pp. 565-577, Frederick A. Pile, Lieutenant Colonel, DSO, MC, psc, Royal Tank Corps ‘The Army’s Air Needs’ Journal of the Royal United Services Institution, 71 (1926: Feb/Nov) pp. 725-727
[xvii] Trafford Leigh-Mallory, Wing Commander, DSO ‘Air Co-Operation with Mechanized Forces’ pp. 576-577
[xviii] Brian Bond and Williamson Murray ‘The British Armed Forces, 1918-39’ in Alan R. Millett and Williamson Murray (Eds.) Military Effectiveness: Volume II, The Interwar Period (London: Allen and Unwin, 1988) p. 111